Batteries

On 5/2/2014 1:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

any flash recycles faster with nimh/nicad. even cheap ones and it
would
nee to be a really old flash (multiple decades) to be damaged. i've
been using nimh/nicad in flashes for *years* without any issue
whatsoever.

Which is why event photographers prefer the Nikon SB800 over the SB900.

no that's not why, and they don't.

both can use nimh or alkaline, so there's no issue either way, but the
sb900/910 has a faster recycle time, which event photographers desire.

the sb800 has long been discontinued so they don't have a choice
anymore anyway.

if they need even faster recycle times than aa batteries can provide,
they can get an external battery pack.

the sb800 had a 5th battery option for shorter recycle times, but that
was a complete hack and a very stupid idea. not only are nimh batteries
almost always sold in sets of 4, but when is the last time you saw a
battery charger that could charge 5 cells? there are 8 cell chargers
but those are big, bulky, more expensive and nowhere near as common.
also, many chargers charge pairs of batteries rather than single cells,
which means even if you do have an 8 cell charger (or multiple 4 cell
chargers), you're still screwed.

All irrelevant.

it's very relevant.

The SB900 craps out sooner than the SB800, when a series of rapid
flashes is shot.

that's because the sb900/sb910 have a temperature sensor to prevent it
from overheating, which is a good thing.

the difference is that the sb900 shuts down to cool, whereas the sb910
just slows down so you can still shoot, although it being slower might
be an issue, depending on the event.

the overheating issue affects the sb800 (and every other flash), it's
just that *you* are responsible for letting it cool. if you don't, then
you end up buying a replacement flash.

the sb800 owner's manual gives a relatively low number of flashes (as
few as 15 at higher power levels), at which point the flash should be
left to cool for 10 minutes, a long time for an event photographer.

That is why many professional event photographers will
pay a premium price for a used SB800.

only the stupid ones.

You must answer, even when you don't know what you are talking about.

another ad hominem response. no surprise there. that's all you ever do.

i know exactly what i'm talking about.

Not according to the reports about the SC900.

so you don't actually use one for event photography, do you? no
surprise there either.

first of all, the sb900 (not sc) has been replaced with the sb910 and
second, as i said, the temperature sensor is to protect it from burning
out, something which could easily happen in other flashes.

nikon made a small change with the sb910 so that instead of completely
shutting down, it just slows down. the issue you are talking about is
no longer an issue (not that it was a major issue before, just
something to be aware of).

any event photographer that is shooting rapid fire flashes would have a
spare flash anyway because they can overheat, something that affects
every single flash out there.


I wanted to see how far you would go to avoid my original comment on
your statement. You commented on anything you could think of except my
original response to your comment. Your reputation is intact.
BTW I have never made any claim to do event photography. Is it possible
that I used the term: "I have seen reports...' for a reason?

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

That is why many professional event photographers will
pay a premium price for a used SB800.

only the stupid ones.

You must answer, even when you don't know what you are talking about.

another ad hominem response. no surprise there. that's all you ever do.

i know exactly what i'm talking about.

Not according to the reports about the SC900.

so you don't actually use one for event photography, do you? no
surprise there either.

first of all, the sb900 (not sc) has been replaced with the sb910 and
second, as i said, the temperature sensor is to protect it from burning
out, something which could easily happen in other flashes.

nikon made a small change with the sb910 so that instead of completely
shutting down, it just slows down. the issue you are talking about is
no longer an issue (not that it was a major issue before, just
something to be aware of).

any event photographer that is shooting rapid fire flashes would have a
spare flash anyway because they can overheat, something that affects
every single flash out there.


I wanted to see how far you would go to avoid my original comment on
your statement. You commented on anything you could think of except my
original response to your comment. Your reputation is intact.

as usual, wrong. my response was in response to what you wrote, which
was incorrect.

BTW I have never made any claim to do event photography. Is it possible
that I used the term: "I have seen reports...' for a reason?

which means you don't know what you're talking about. not that anyone
is surprised.

On 5/2/2014 4:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

That is why many professional event photographers will
pay a premium price for a used SB800.

only the stupid ones.

You must answer, even when you don't know what you are talking about.

another ad hominem response. no surprise there. that's all you ever do.

i know exactly what i'm talking about.

Not according to the reports about the SC900.

so you don't actually use one for event photography, do you? no
surprise there either.

first of all, the sb900 (not sc) has been replaced with the sb910 and
second, as i said, the temperature sensor is to protect it from burning
out, something which could easily happen in other flashes.

nikon made a small change with the sb910 so that instead of completely
shutting down, it just slows down. the issue you are talking about is
no longer an issue (not that it was a major issue before, just
something to be aware of).

any event photographer that is shooting rapid fire flashes would have a
spare flash anyway because they can overheat, something that affects
every single flash out there.


I wanted to see how far you would go to avoid my original comment on
your statement. You commented on anything you could think of except my
original response to your comment. Your reputation is intact.

as usual, wrong. my response was in response to what you wrote, which
was incorrect.

BTW I have never made any claim to do event photography. Is it possible
that I used the term: "I have seen reports...' for a reason?

which means you don't know what you're talking about. not that anyone
is surprised.


You have said you don't use flash and shoot in theaters. According to
your logic, you don't know about any photography, with the possible
exception of dance & theater.
There are also some unanswered questions pending from me and Alan Browne.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

That is why many professional event photographers will
pay a premium price for a used SB800.

only the stupid ones.

You must answer, even when you don't know what you are talking about.

another ad hominem response. no surprise there. that's all you ever do.

i know exactly what i'm talking about.

Not according to the reports about the SC900.

so you don't actually use one for event photography, do you? no
surprise there either.

first of all, the sb900 (not sc) has been replaced with the sb910 and
second, as i said, the temperature sensor is to protect it from burning
out, something which could easily happen in other flashes.

nikon made a small change with the sb910 so that instead of completely
shutting down, it just slows down. the issue you are talking about is
no longer an issue (not that it was a major issue before, just
something to be aware of).

any event photographer that is shooting rapid fire flashes would have a
spare flash anyway because they can overheat, something that affects
every single flash out there.


I wanted to see how far you would go to avoid my original comment on
your statement. You commented on anything you could think of except my
original response to your comment. Your reputation is intact.

as usual, wrong. my response was in response to what you wrote, which
was incorrect.

BTW I have never made any claim to do event photography. Is it possible
that I used the term: "I have seen reports...' for a reason?

which means you don't know what you're talking about. not that anyone
is surprised.

You have said you don't use flash and shoot in theaters.

as usual, you are wrong.

what i said was *when* i shoot theatre, i do not use flash.

theatre is not the only thing i shoot, although it's definitely one of
my favourites.

i use flash at other times. i have several flashes, including two ring
flashes and two infrared flashes along with the normal ones.

According to
your logic, you don't know about any photography, with the possible
exception of dance & theater.

you mean according to your own bogus logic.

There are also some unanswered questions pending from me and Alan Browne.

they are in the queue along with many other unanswered posts. i'll get
to them.

On Thu, 01 May 2014 08:26:35 -0400, Scott Schuckert wrote:
: In article , A
: Moose in Love wrote:
:
: Man. My camera Canon A2000 goes through AA batteries like a dull knife goes
: through cheese. So yesterday, I purchased 4 rechargeable duracell batteries
: with a charger. Now, the question is: will these batts hold a charge longer
: than the other non rechargeable batts? I hope so.
:
: It depends on the exact batteries purchased, but in many cases, the
: rechargables won't last as long - per charge - as an alkaline battery.
: They'll also have a far faster self-discharge rate when not in use. If
: you're a heavy user and want to save money, get two sets of
: rechargables and use one while the other is charging. If you don't
: shoot much but want the camera always ready to use, get disposable
: lithium AA's.

If you're a heavy user and want to save money, batteries are the wrong place
to scrimp. The minimum you should be carrying, when you set out on a shoot, is
two sets of batteries, fully charged, for every mission-critical
battery-powered device you're going to use. If it's a long shoot and you're
likely to have to change batteries anyway, that ups the ante. And batteries
charging at home don't count.

Bob

On Fri, 02 May 2014 10:07:30 -0400, nospam wrote:
: In article , Martin Brown
: wrote:
:
: It depends on the exact batteries purchased, but in many cases, the
: rechargables won't last as long - per charge - as an alkaline battery.
:
: nope. for a camera, nimh will almost always last much, much longer.
:
: Rubbish. Single use fresh alkalines have both a higher unloaded terminal
: voltage and a significantly higher Ah capacity to discharge. The only
: problem is they are one time usage and so more expensive.
:
: No. NiMH (or NiCd) have very high current rates (despite a lower
: nominal voltage) than alkaline.
:
: They have a lower internal resistance yes, but they also have a lower
: unloaded terminal voltage and a higher energy density. It is the low
: voltage that causes digital cameras logic to shut down prematurely
: particularly once the thing tries to charge up its internal flash.
:
: nimh batteries are very common and just about everything, especially
: digital cameras, are designed to work with them.

You may say that, but try using NiMH rechargeables in a typical AA-using
flashlight (a mini-Maglite, for example). The rechargeables, which tend to be
slightly thicker, won't fit.

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: No. NiMH (or NiCd) have very high current rates (despite a lower
: nominal voltage) than alkaline.
:
: They have a lower internal resistance yes, but they also have a lower
: unloaded terminal voltage and a higher energy density. It is the low
: voltage that causes digital cameras logic to shut down prematurely
: particularly once the thing tries to charge up its internal flash.
:
: nimh batteries are very common and just about everything, especially
: digital cameras, are designed to work with them.

You may say that, but try using NiMH rechargeables in a typical AA-using
flashlight (a mini-Maglite, for example). The rechargeables, which tend to be
slightly thicker, won't fit.

i've never had that problem with batteries fitting into any device,
rechargeable or not.

you must be buying offbrand batteries.

and this wasn't about whether a battery fits, but how long it lasts.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 02 May 2014 10:07:30 -0400, nospam wrote:
: In article , Martin Brown
: wrote:
:
: It depends on the exact batteries purchased, but in many cases, the
: rechargables won't last as long - per charge - as an alkaline battery.
:
: nope. for a camera, nimh will almost always last much, much longer.
:
: Rubbish. Single use fresh alkalines have both a higher unloaded terminal
: voltage and a significantly higher Ah capacity to discharge. The only
: problem is they are one time usage and so more expensive.
:
: No. NiMH (or NiCd) have very high current rates (despite a lower
: nominal voltage) than alkaline.
:
: They have a lower internal resistance yes, but they also have a lower
: unloaded terminal voltage and a higher energy density. It is the low
: voltage that causes digital cameras logic to shut down prematurely
: particularly once the thing tries to charge up its internal flash.
:
: nimh batteries are very common and just about everything, especially
: digital cameras, are designed to work with them.

You may say that, but try using NiMH rechargeables in a typical AA-using
flashlight (a mini-Maglite, for example). The rechargeables, which tend to be
slightly thicker, won't fit.

Try a better brand of rechargeable.