I've changed my mind about AA batteries.

All my digital cameras until recently were AA for a combination of
convenience, interoperability, and the ability to use disposables in an
emergency. And, in general, I've been pleased with the AA performance.
However one slightly dodgy battery in a set of 4 can be hard to track
down, and the fairly rapid decay on NiMh can be annoying if you find your
camera dead when you need it.

I have had great success with Hybrio batteries for my K100D DSLR, but the
same batteries don't work in my Oly SP-550 for some reason. So I was
carrying different sets of AAs for different cameras, and the novelty was
wearing off.

I recently decided to buy a new DSLR, and narrowed it down to the 40D or
D300... cameras with very different price tags, but very good AF
performance, which is what I wanted for use at airshows in particular.

In the end the 40D won thanks to the 100-400L and Canon's recent
aggressive pricing. So the 40D was almost half the price of the D300,
leaving me plenty of cash free to buy spare batteries.

Fortunately the 40D has some very cheap and well regarded spares
available. So I bought three, just to make sure I'd have enough juice for
a long day out.

Now I'm not sure why I bothered. :-) The supplied battery is only on its
second charge, has already lasted through about 600 photographs, and
still shows as fully charged.

Ok, I wouldn't rely on the meter reading, but all the same, I'm really
impressed. So I apologise for being a doubting Thomas for so long! I
suppose I knew lithium batteries were vastly superior, it was always the
idea of being stuck far from a charger which bothered me. Now I'd just
stuff a spare in my pocket and not worry at all.

Andrew McP

PS I suppose to be fair the latest generation of cameras do seem to be
very good at saving energy. In the past there may have been more of a
case for sticking with AAs.