| Author |
Message |
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:22 am Post subject:
D200: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
According to Thom Hogan (www.bythom.com) the D200 uses a new EN-EL3e
battery and old EN-EL3's won't work. D70/D100 owners with multiple
EN-EL3's are delighted to hear that, I'm sure. Looks like the
proprietary battery runaround is not slowing down. The new battery
apparently has a charge level display function like Sony InfoLithium.
That means the battery itself has a microprocessor inside that
undoubtedly sends some secret crap to the camera, shutting out the
third party battery manufacturers and keeping prices high.
Schmucks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
A. Longor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:14 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xek5momej.fsf_-_@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | According to Thom Hogan (www.bythom.com) the D200 uses a new EN-EL3e
battery and old EN-EL3's won't work. D70/D100 owners with multiple
EN-EL3's are delighted to hear that, I'm sure. Looks like the
proprietary battery runaround is not slowing down. The new battery
apparently has a charge level display function like Sony InfoLithium.
That means the battery itself has a microprocessor inside that
undoubtedly sends some secret crap to the camera, shutting out the
third party battery manufacturers and keeping prices high.
Schmucks.
|
If you can't afford a few batteries, you certainly can't afford the camera. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:17 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"A. Longor" <longuriata@green.com> writes:
| Quote: | If you can't afford a few batteries, you certainly can't afford the camera.
|
Irrelevant. I can -afford- to hand out $50 bills to do-nothing
panhandlers once in a while too, but that doesn't make either
proposition attractive in the least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Chapin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:37 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xk6fedbas.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "A. Longor" <longuriata@green.com> writes:
If you can't afford a few batteries, you certainly can't afford the
camera.
Irrelevant. I can -afford- to hand out $50 bills to do-nothing
panhandlers once in a while too, but that doesn't make either
proposition attractive in the least.
|
I kind of like the added features, and I don't need a third party battery,
as I don't need to buy enough for the savings to be material.
Scott Chapin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Chapin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xfyq2psvl.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "Scott Chapin" <rschapin@comcast.net> writes:
I'd only have 4. One in each camera and 2 spares. No big deal
If you have 4 batteries that are the exact same size and voltage, why
don't you see it as an unnecessary nuisance that you can't use all 4
batteries in both cameras? That's what's baffling me.
|
That would only be an issue to me, if I had to deal with a lot of batteries.
| Quote: | Yeah, the AA pack just makes the camera a lot bigger.
It wouldn't be as inconvenient of a spare accessory, as say a charger to
carry around and needing to find an outlet.
I dunno, it looks like it makes the camera almost as big as a D2H/X.
Also, I may be confused about this but I think I saw some mention that
it costs around $300. I hope I'm wrong about that.
B&H says $169.85 |
| Quote: | Well, you shoot differently than me. I don't like being married to a
charger. Besides, why three batteries? When one dies, you put it in the
charger and use the spare. If you burn through the spare before the
spent
battery is recharged, you are doing some hellashisly serious shooting!
As you say, it's a nuisance to carry a charger and have to find an
outlet. And if the batteries are that long-lasting, why should you
need separate spares for each camera? Two cameras and one spare
should be enough. But nooo, the spare won't work in both cameras.
|
Now you're whistling a different tune, down from six batteries to three. One
spare, two spares, no big deal. Ten spares and I'd start agreeing.
| Quote: | I've got 5 Sony Cancorders, 3 Pannys, and a Canon. The meters aren't
absolute, but good enough to let me know when I should change batteries.
What do you want mw to tell my cusomers? "Hold on while I field strip my
camera, fetch my VOM and check these batteries out. It will only take a
moment, seriously."
The camera should display the voltage, obviously. They usually have
those silly bar graphs instead. But those aren't so much worse than
the microprocessor-type battery meters. I carry cellular phones
around all the time that don't have microprocessors in the battery
packs, and the bar graphs are enough to know when to change batteries.
Anyway, that's what the spare pack (and 2nd camera) are for.
|
The D200 is supposed to show % of remaining charge, so I'm not expecting a
bar graph. I would certainly think it is linked to the voltage.
Scott Chapin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Scott Chapin" <rschapin@comcast.net> writes:
| Quote: | [AA battery pack]
B&H says $169.85
|
OK, that's not quite as bad as $300; it looks like it provides a
vertical grip and some remote operation functions too. So I'll
probably buy it if I get a D200. It does also look like the D200
charger will charge the older EL-EN3/3A batteries although I don't
know if the reverse is true. So at least you won't need separate
chargers for the D70 and D200 (unless you use the AA grip with the
D200, since none is offered for the D70). I wonder why the D100 and
D200 vertical grips aren't compatible, but maybe there's some sensible
reason.
| Quote: | Now you're whistling a different tune, down from six batteries to three. One
spare, two spares, no big deal. Ten spares and I'd start agreeing.
|
Well, I'm going by your notion of the batteries being
ultra-long-lasting. You're right that these cameras are bulky enough
that one extra spare is no big deal. Still, you go out with your D100
and D200 with a spare for each one, and it turns out that you do
almost the whole day's shooting with the D200 (because you have an MF
lens on it). It would sure be nice to be able to use both spares in
the D200.
| Quote: | The D200 is supposed to show % of remaining charge, so I'm not expecting a
bar graph. I would certainly think it is linked to the voltage.
|
If it's like a laptop computer ACPI system, the microprocessor
actually measures the total amount of energy drawn from the battery
over time. I think Sony InfoLithium also works like this. Of course
it doesn't notice self-discharge through the protection circuit, so it
gets confused and sometimes thinks a battery is charged when it isn't,
and then thinks the capacity has decreased when the voltage drops
faster than expected. Anyway I think it's better to put any such
smarts into the camera and/or charger, rather than into the battery
pack.
There's another possible scam involved too, at least reportedly in the
case of some Motorola cell phone batteries, namely that the processor
deliberately makes the battery's capacity get lower and lower over
time, so you have to buy new ones more often than you'd otherwise need
to. I hope the D200 battery doesn't do that but I won't be surprised
if it does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J. Littleboy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
| Quote: | "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
The readout on the S85 and F707 was simply wonderful. It gave a very good
rough estimate to how much you had left. If it said roughly 1/3 full, it
really was.
Try leaving the camera in the bag for a couple months and see if it's
still so accurate.
|
I found no problems. I'd still pull out the F707 occassionally over the two
years after I retired it, and the readout was as spot on as ever. I let one
of my nieces use the F707 last summer, and it's still working fine.
| Quote: | Anyway, I don't understand why you keep rationalizing this.
|
It's not rationalization: they're simply better. If I forgot to recharge,
the readout would tell me how much shooting I had left. With every other
dcam/dSLR I've ever owned, shooting with anything other than a full charge
indication meant that the camera would go dead while I was shooting.
I don't see how anyone could fail to understand how important this is. If
you are shooting, say, a figure skating routine, the F707 would tell you
correctly whether or not you needed to change the battery. But the half
setting readout on every other camera I've used was so inaccurate that you
can't be sure of even 5 minutes of shooting.
Nikon got this one right. Assuming they've implemented it as well as Sony,
of course.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Chapin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xek5miqvf.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "Scott Chapin" <rschapin@comcast.net> writes:
[AA battery pack]
B&H says $169.85
|
<SNIP>
| Quote: | There's another possible scam involved too, at least reportedly in the
case of some Motorola cell phone batteries, namely that the processor
deliberately makes the battery's capacity get lower and lower over
time, so you have to buy new ones more often than you'd otherwise need
to. I hope the D200 battery doesn't do that but I won't be surprised
if it does.
|
I don't think they are trying to do that. That's because it keeps track of
the number of shots since you changed the battery out. For practical
purposes that should be spot on, providing your shooting style doesn't
change dramatically. If it's good for 1800 shots, I'll feel safe as long as
my total frames shot is under 1400! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> writes:
| Quote: | There was a concern previously with counterfeit batteries, but with Nikon's
own recall of EN-EL3 this week seems like the Nikon branded batteries may
have come from the same factory that was making the defective clones.
|
These batteries are just pairs of commodity 18500 (or similar) li ion
cells (about $4 each in smallish quantity) with a generic protection
circuit ($1), a couple of $.01 fuses, some molded plastic to make
other batteries incompatible, and a hefty retail markup. Plus the
microprocessor circuit (maybe another $1).
See http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1338
for a generic pack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
| Quote: | Anyway, I don't understand why you keep rationalizing this.
It's not rationalization: they're simply better.
|
The rationalization is ignoring that there are two separate issues:
1) the new batteries are better than the old ones (good)
2) the old ones would be better than nothing, except that the
D200 is designed to not work at all with them (bad).
You and I might both like #1, but that does not make #2 sensible in
the slightest.
| Quote: | If I forgot to recharge, the readout would tell me how much shooting
I had left. With every other dcam/dSLR I've ever owned, shooting
with anything other than a full charge indication meant that the
camera would go dead while I was shooting.
|
Have you had a D70? Have you had a cellular phone? The level gauges
aren't THAT bad.
| Quote: | I don't see how anyone could fail to understand how important this is. If
you are shooting, say, a figure skating routine, the F707 would tell you
correctly whether or not you needed to change the battery. But the half
setting readout on every other camera I've used was so inaccurate that you
can't be sure of even 5 minutes of shooting.
|
If you can be sure of 4 minutes of shooting, that's enough to switch
to the backup camera. Anyway, for shooting something like that
there's always Quantum packs and the like.
| Quote: | Nikon got this one right. Assuming they've implemented it as well as
Sony, of course.
|
Sony implemented it correctly in the old days. They made their
camcorders able to use both types of batteries. Later, they removed
the ability to use non-cpu batteries, so 3rd parties couldn't make
compatible batteries and Sony could charge outrageous prices ($129
for an NP-F960). Later still, the 3rd parties managed to make cpu
batteries, so Sony had to drop its prices. You can now get 3rd party
NP-F960 compatible packs for $30 or so, and Sony packs for $60.
I see that the EL-EN3e (D200 battery) is $39.95 at Adorama, so that's
not quite as bad as $129, if you only need one or two of them. I'm
still leaning toward the AA pack. That gets rid of the spare
proprietary pack AND the Nikon charger when travelling, since I have
an AA fast charger and am trying in general to use AA's in everything
if I can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darrell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xk6fedbas.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "A. Longor" <longuriata@green.com> writes:
If you can't afford a few batteries, you certainly can't afford the
camera.
Irrelevant. I can -afford- to hand out $50 bills to do-nothing
panhandlers once in a while too, but that doesn't make either
proposition attractive in the least.
|
There was a concern previously with counterfeit batteries, but with Nikon's
own recall of EN-EL3 this week seems like the Nikon branded batteries may
have come from the same factory that was making the defective clones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank ess
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
Paul Rubin wrote:
| Quote: | "Scott Chapin" <rschapin@comcast.net> writes:
I kind of like the added features, and I don't need a third party
battery, as I don't need to buy enough for the savings to be
material.
The issue is they went out of their way to make the old batteries
incompatible. They could have simply not supported the new features
with the old batteries, as was the case with Sony camcorders for a
while. What I don't know is if the new Nikon batteries work in the
old cameras (D70/D100). It will be really peachy if they're
incompatible in both directions, so if you have a D100 and add a
D200
and want to go somewhere with both cameras, you have to bring
separate
sets of batteries and maybe even separate chargers for each one.
|
_c.f._ (see f'rinstance) Canon 20D and 350D/RebXT. Rasserfratz.
--
Frank S
"Verbing weirds language."
-Calvin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> writes:
| Quote: | _c.f._ (see f'rinstance) Canon 20D and 350D/RebXT. Rasserfratz.
|
I don't know what happened there. Was it similar? If it was
something like the D2X vs D70, where the batteries are really
physically different for some plausible engineering reason, that's
different from gratuitous incompatibility between batteries that are
otherwise interchangeable, IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A. Longor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xwtje4nfm.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
Anyway, I don't understand why you keep rationalizing this.
It's not rationalization: they're simply better.
The rationalization is ignoring that there are two separate issues:
1) the new batteries are better than the old ones (good)
2) the old ones would be better than nothing, except that the
D200 is designed to not work at all with them (bad).
You and I might both like #1, but that does not make #2 sensible in
the slightest.
If I forgot to recharge, the readout would tell me how much shooting
I had left. With every other dcam/dSLR I've ever owned, shooting
with anything other than a full charge indication meant that the
camera would go dead while I was shooting.
Have you had a D70? Have you had a cellular phone? The level gauges
aren't THAT bad.
I don't see how anyone could fail to understand how important this is. If
you are shooting, say, a figure skating routine, the F707 would tell you
correctly whether or not you needed to change the battery. But the half
setting readout on every other camera I've used was so inaccurate that you
can't be sure of even 5 minutes of shooting.
If you can be sure of 4 minutes of shooting, that's enough to switch
to the backup camera. Anyway, for shooting something like that
there's always Quantum packs and the like.
Nikon got this one right. Assuming they've implemented it as well as
Sony, of course.
Sony implemented it correctly in the old days. They made their
camcorders able to use both types of batteries. Later, they removed
the ability to use non-cpu batteries, so 3rd parties couldn't make
compatible batteries and Sony could charge outrageous prices ($129
for an NP-F960). Later still, the 3rd parties managed to make cpu
batteries, so Sony had to drop its prices. You can now get 3rd party
NP-F960 compatible packs for $30 or so, and Sony packs for $60.
I see that the EL-EN3e (D200 battery) is $39.95 at Adorama, so that's
not quite as bad as $129, if you only need one or two of them. I'm
still leaning toward the AA pack. That gets rid of the spare
proprietary pack AND the Nikon charger when travelling, since I have
an AA fast charger and am trying in general to use AA's in everything
if I can
|
Stop whining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A. Longor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xy83uo8hs.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> writes:
_c.f._ (see f'rinstance) Canon 20D and 350D/RebXT. Rasserfratz.
I don't know what happened there. Was it similar? If it was
something like the D2X vs D70, where the batteries are really
physically different for some plausible engineering reason, that's
different from gratuitous incompatibility between batteries that are
otherwise interchangeable, IMO.
|
Now I understand, you're a schnorrer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in