Robert Coe wrote:
In one or two threads recently, lively discussions have erupted regarding the
good, the bad, and the ugly of rechargeable AA cells. What was absent from
those discussions was the merits, if any, of the more powerful alternatives to
the AA.

lithium 1.5 volt AA factor primary batteries.
Expensive, long shelf life, *lots* of power stored (roughly
3x as much as an alkaline AA cell, IIRC).

I sure wouldn't mind not having to spend many hours juggling my three
4-cell chargers (two at home, one at work) to get my 50 AAs ready for a shoot.

- Buy Eneloop, charge after use, store, use as needed.
(Unless you store them for 2+ years at room temperature,
in which case they may only have 50% charge left).

- Buy a couple 8 or 12 slot chargers (of reputable makers
and quality).


And one of the alternatives, the Quantum Turbo 3, gets the highest user
ratings I think I've ever seen at B&H for any piece of photographic equipment.
(The most hostile reviewer gave it four out of five stars.)

But the Turbo 3 is wildly expensive: $714 with the cables necessary to power
two speedlites.

And is a NiMH, just like your AA cells. Which you probably
still need (in Canon flashes, the electronics always run from
the internal batteries, IIRC).

Is it, or any of the other big batteries, really worth that
kind of money? Has anyone here used the Turbo 3 or something similar? Does
anyone here actually own one? Etc.

What's it's selling point over the much cheaper CP-E4 and
similar (i.e. high voltage from 8 AA cells to recharge the
flash for fast recharges and more staying power)?

The flash will heat up much faster at full auto fire than
the batteries will drain from it. The high voltage allows
fast flash-to-flash times already with the CP-E4. So ... the
only advantage I could see is if the Turbo 3 had *a lot* more
energy stored than 8 AA cells and you couldn't pause and/or
reach the flash and change batteries in the flash or CP-E4 ...


-Wolfgang