![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My Fuji S5500 has a battery discharge option (for NiMH). I have been having
a problem with a set of batteries. I have two sets of the same brand both purchased at the same time and both used in same quantities. One of the sets rapidly loses its charge once charged. It starts moaning and giving red lights after only about 10 pictures. So I decided to try the discharge function to see if it could kick start the batteries to maybe charging properly again. Except that this discharge has been going on for several hours now and no indication of stopping. This tells me that maybe the batteries do not have a short life after all but perhaps there is something going on with the camera. Any ideas to the problem please? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:15:48 +0100, Beck wrote:
So I decided to try the discharge function to see if it could kick start the batteries to maybe charging properly again. Except that this discharge has been going on for several hours now and no indication of stopping. This tells me that maybe the batteries do not have a short life after all but perhaps there is something going on with the camera. Any ideas to the problem please? The way the discharge function works is that the batteries are individually discharged. A bad battery may be discharged in a few minutes or seconds, but the remaining good batteries might continue discharging for hours. When discharging finishes, you'd have no idea which batteries are good vs. bad. Some battery chargers that also have a discharge function uses LEDs or an LCD display to show when each cell has finished discharging. I'm assuming that the S5500 doesn't display information about each cell while they're being discharged based on how you asked the question. Your problem is most likely that the bad set has one bad cell, and discharging it isn't likely to help it very much. When I've had that problem, I toss the bad cell but I *do not* replace it with a new cell. I replace them all. The remaining 3 good cells are then used in a different device that uses only 3 AA cells. A new battery set doesn't cost very much. You might want to consider using alkaline batteries in the S5500 instead of NiMH, since that camera performs very well with them. It's rated at 250 shots per set of alkalines if half of them use the flash. If flash isn't needed, such as for outdoor shots, it should be good for more than 800 or 900 shots. I wait for the local Pathmark or RiteAid to have a battery sale and then stock up. That way one set of 4 AA alkalines usually cost less than $1.00, and can keep my Fuji S5100 running a looong time. It all depends of course, on how many shots you take, but there are people in this ng that have reported that the similarly efficient Canon A610/A620 cameras are still using their first set of 4 AA alkalines despite having been used since late last year. For that kind of usage, alkalines are a better choice than rechargeables. Only when very large numbers of pictures are taken or the flash is heavily used are NiMH batteries preferable. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:14:26 +0100, Beck wrote:
Have considered using Lithium AA batteries (non rechargable) any these any good? They reckon the Energizer ones are up to 7x longer power than normal AA. They're very good, but not really cost effective, depending on the camera that they're used in. For devices that use very little current, you'll be lucky if they last even twice as long as regular alkalines. In old cameras that get very short life from batteries, such as only a dozen or two dozen shots, they might last 5 to 7 times longer. For the Fuji S5500 my guess is that they'd last at least twice as long as regular alkalines if the flash is used a lot (500 or more shots per set vs. 250). But if the flash isn't used, they wouldn't provide that much improvement, maybe 1000 shots instead of 800 or 900. FWIW, this is the expected battery life shown in Nikon's manual for their SB600 flash, which also uses 4AA batteries (a fixed point font will help to align the columns): Battery type Min. recycle time Number of flashes Alkaline-manganese 3.5 sec. 200 Lithium 4.0 sec. 400 Nickel 2.5 sec. 180 NiCd (1000 mAh) 2.9 sec. 90 Ni-MH (2000 mA) 2.5 sec. 220 Replace when charge time is: Alkaline-manganese More than 30 seconds Lithium More than 10 seconds Nickel More than 10 seconds Ni-Cd More than 10 seconds Ni-MH More than 10 seconds These results can't be translated directly to camera performance, since in a camera, NiMH usually provides twice the number of shots that alkalines do, where the SB600 is only good for slightly more shots using NiMH batteries. But if a lot of flash shots will be taken, you'd be better of avoiding alkalines if you don't want to wait a long time between shots. Alkalines may start off with fast recycle times, but they slow down very quickly in conditions where NiMH and lithium slow down only slightly. That the lithium batteries start off with the longest recycle time (4 seconds) appears odd, but that's probably due to having internal circuitry designed to prevent excessive current. Energizer mentions something about this in their battery design manual or in some data sheets. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Anyone know of a GOOD source for replacement batteries for the Panasonic
dmc-fz30? I've ordered two knock-offs online and they have lasted only a few months. Thanks, Al |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Beck wrote:
My Fuji S5500 has a battery discharge option (for NiMH). I have been having a problem with a set of batteries. I have two sets of the same brand both purchased at the same time and both used in same quantities. One of the sets rapidly loses its charge once charged. It starts moaning and giving red lights after only about 10 pictures. So I decided to try the discharge function to see if it could kick start the batteries to maybe charging properly again. Except that this discharge has been going on for several hours now and no indication of stopping. This tells me that maybe the batteries do not have a short life after all but perhaps there is something going on with the camera. Any ideas to the problem please? Some discharge cycles can take overnight because they really discharge the batteries slowly. I would suggest just buying another set of batteries and see if that fixes your problem. If not, then you can look into a possible camera problem. I have tried many brands of batteries and some of them (even with high current ratings) just don't work well in cameras. In some cases, I think the vendors lie (especially for "off" brands) about the current ratings. -- Bill R. (Ohio Valley, U.S.A) Gardening for over 40 years To see pictures from my garden visit http://members.iglou.com/brosen Digital Camera - Pentax *ist DL Remove NO_WEEDS_ in e-mail address to reply by e-mail |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Beck" wrote in message
... My Fuji S5500 has a battery discharge option (for NiMH). I have been having a problem with a set of batteries. I have two sets of the same brand both purchased at the same time and both used in same quantities. One of the sets rapidly loses its charge once charged. It starts moaning and giving red lights after only about 10 pictures. So I decided to try the discharge function to see if it could kick start the batteries to maybe charging properly again. Except that this discharge has been going on for several hours now and no indication of stopping. This tells me that maybe the batteries do not have a short life after all but perhaps there is something going on with the camera. Any ideas to the problem please? Hi. It may well take very many hours to discharge the batteries. There is no indication of how far through the process the camera is. You just get that same screen until it finishes. Get yourself an "Intelligent" charger, which has the discharge facility. Roy G |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:14:26 +0100, Beck wrote: Have considered using Lithium AA batteries (non rechargable) any these any good? They reckon the Energizer ones are up to 7x longer power than normal AA. They're very good, but not really cost effective, depending on the camera that they're used in. For devices that use very little current, you'll be lucky if they last even twice as long as regular alkalines. In old cameras that get very short life from batteries, such as only a dozen or two dozen shots, they might last 5 to 7 times longer. For the Fuji S5500 my guess is that they'd last at least twice as long as regular alkalines if the flash is used a lot (500 or more shots per set vs. 250). But if the flash isn't used, they wouldn't provide that much improvement, maybe 1000 shots instead of 800 or 900. FWIW, this is the expected battery life shown in Nikon's manual for their SB600 flash, which also uses 4AA batteries (a fixed point font will help to align the columns): Battery type Min. recycle time Number of flashes Alkaline-manganese 3.5 sec. 200 Lithium 4.0 sec. 400 Nickel 2.5 sec. 180 NiCd (1000 mAh) 2.9 sec. 90 Ni-MH (2000 mA) 2.5 sec. 220 Replace when charge time is: Alkaline-manganese More than 30 seconds Lithium More than 10 seconds Nickel More than 10 seconds Ni-Cd More than 10 seconds Ni-MH More than 10 seconds These results can't be translated directly to camera performance, since in a camera, NiMH usually provides twice the number of shots that alkalines do, where the SB600 is only good for slightly more shots using NiMH batteries. But if a lot of flash shots will be taken, you'd be better of avoiding alkalines if you don't want to wait a long time between shots. Alkalines may start off with fast recycle times, but they slow down very quickly in conditions where NiMH and lithium slow down only slightly. That the lithium batteries start off with the longest recycle time (4 seconds) appears odd, but that's probably due to having internal circuitry designed to prevent excessive current. Energizer mentions something about this in their battery design manual or in some data sheets. I use lithium (non-rechargeable) batteries as backup to my NIMH pack. The lithium cells can be bought for $20 for 12 from Sam's Club. They last for about 300 shots in my camera, and their shelf-life is very long (up to 10 years), low temp. performance is great, and they are quite a bit lighter than NIMH or alkaline batteries. If 300 shots uses up two (in my camera), that makes my cost per picture less than 1 cent, which isn't prohibitive, at least not to me. So, cheapest in my case is NIMH, since the manual warns not to use alkalines. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:14:50 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
I use lithium (non-rechargeable) batteries as backup to my NIMH pack. The lithium cells can be bought for $20 for 12 from Sam's Club. They last for about 300 shots in my camera, and their shelf-life is very long (up to 10 years), low temp. performance is great, and they are quite a bit lighter than NIMH or alkaline batteries. If 300 shots uses up two (in my camera), that makes my cost per picture less than 1 cent, which isn't prohibitive, at least not to me. So, cheapest in my case is NIMH, since the manual warns not to use alkalines. Someday . . . someday you may own a camera that can use alkalines. Kodak makes 'em now ya know. ![]() batteries? The ones here (Energizers) have had 2020 expiration dates for quite some time, indicating a longer shelf life than 10 years. But I'm sure you'll have no problem using yours well before 2015 arrives, especially since they're much more economical than your "less than 1 cent" indicates. Looks like 0.4 cents per shot from here, making them if not a bargain, not an expensive luxury item either. One thing I don't know about them is whether they're known to leak, and if so how often compared to alkalines, and under what conditions. If I could feel safe leaving lithium batteries in equipment for years at a time it would easily justify their higher cost. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ASAAR wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:14:50 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: I use lithium (non-rechargeable) batteries as backup to my NIMH pack. The lithium cells can be bought for $20 for 12 from Sam's Club. They last for about 300 shots in my camera, and their shelf-life is very long (up to 10 years), low temp. performance is great, and they are quite a bit lighter than NIMH or alkaline batteries. If 300 shots uses up two (in my camera), that makes my cost per picture less than 1 cent, which isn't prohibitive, at least not to me. So, cheapest in my case is NIMH, since the manual warns not to use alkalines. Someday . . . someday you may own a camera that can use alkalines. Kodak makes 'em now ya know. ![]() batteries? The ones here (Energizers) have had 2020 expiration dates for quite some time, indicating a longer shelf life than 10 years. But I'm sure you'll have no problem using yours well before 2015 arrives, especially since they're much more economical than your "less than 1 cent" indicates. Looks like 0.4 cents per shot from here, making them if not a bargain, not an expensive luxury item either. One thing I don't know about them is whether they're known to leak, and if so how often compared to alkalines, and under what conditions. If I could feel safe leaving lithium batteries in equipment for years at a time it would easily justify their higher cost. I am not sure about the leakage factor either. However, I don't leave them in the camera, but remove them when I return home and replace the NIMH batteries and place the camera back on the 'dock'. And, yes, I know Kodak has some models that will use alkalines. Unfortunately, I DO know about the leakage factor in alkalines, which is a reason for not leaving THEM in an unused device either, for years. I have some equipment that I have to remove the alkaline batteries from because they draw current all the time, and will deplete the batteries quickly, causing leakage. Not a pretty picture! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:10:24 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
I am not sure about the leakage factor either. However, I don't leave them in the camera, but remove them when I return home and replace the NIMH batteries and place the camera back on the 'dock'. And, yes, I know Kodak has some models that will use alkalines. Unfortunately, I DO know about the leakage factor in alkalines, which is a reason for not leaving THEM in an unused device either, for years. I have some equipment that I have to remove the alkaline batteries from because they draw current all the time, and will deplete the batteries quickly, causing leakage. Not a pretty picture! Unfortunately, though rare, a small percentage of them will leak even with no current drawn. I've seen it with fresh batteries still hanging in unopened packs hanging on the rack, which has had me wondering if perhaps they were previously stored for a few months in a hot warehouse somewhere. I was messing with some CR123A batteries last night (more about that in a bit) and realized that when you mentioned the 10 year shelf life of the lithium batteries bought at Sam's Club, while they probably were lithium AA batteries, they *might* have been a very good buy if they were CRV3 batteries instead. And if they were, that would explain the 10 year shelf life, since the recent lithium batteries I've seen that were made using 3v lithium cells have had 2015 expiration dates as opposed to the 2020 dates on 1.5 volt lithium cells. Getting back to the CR123A batteries, I was in a photo shop recently and bought one made by Varta that was priced substantially lower than the usual Energizer CR123A, $3.49, which is 1/2 to 1/3 the regular price. I swapped it in a high quality LED light and found that the light flickered, seemingly due to an intermittent switch. It turned out to be the battery, which when examined side by side with the Energizer, didn't seem to be constructed as well at either end, but mostly on the base, which is made of a metal that has a slightly matte finish compared to the Energizer. I could get the light to operate reliably by turning the end cap slightly, which might have positioned the light's contact spring into a better position on the base of the 123A. I also noticed that the Varta appeared to be significantly lighter, perhaps 75% or 80% of the weight of the Energizer, but lacking a small precision scale I couldn't verify this. But if it's lighter, it's sure to have a lower capacity as well. With the significantly lower price it would still be a good buy, but while good enough for a light, I wouldn't want to use Vartas in a camera on the off chance that a similar intermittent loss of power might occur, which could also lead to the loss of pictures if it happened while writing pictures to memory. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Battery Chargers | Kyle Evans | Digital Photography | 12 | January 27th 06 04:18 AM |
Li-Ion Versus NiMH Batteries for Digital Cameras, Wep Site Update | SMS | Digital Photography | 28 | January 11th 06 06:40 AM |
Discharging rechargable batteries | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 11 | March 23rd 05 01:55 PM |
AA NiCad's: bad luck with Radio Shack "High-Capacity" batteries | Ben | Digital Photography | 12 | January 7th 05 05:14 PM |
AA NiCad's: bad luck with Radio Shack "High-Capacity" batteries | Ben | Digital Photography | 0 | January 7th 05 06:10 AM |