CRV3s vs AA NiMH batteries

Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...
Best choice is likely the R CR-V3s (rechargable CR-V3). I'm using them
in my Pentax 43WR and they far outperform my 2000+ mA-h NiMH cells.

There is a dicussion he

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/rcrv3.html

with some data.

Early on I acquired one of the "PowerVision" RCRV3's with high hopes
of it being superior to the AA NiMH's I had been using. I did some
informal tests just using the video mode of my digicam and simply
letting it run until the camera shut off due to insufficient power.
What I found was that the RCRV3 consistently provided a run-time
roughly equal to two 1800 mah Energizer 1800 NiMh AA's, and
proportionately less than two 2100 mah Sanyo NiMh AA's.
I can't say anything with regard to any of the other RCRV3's but it
made me wary of hyped comparisons to "ordinary NiMh batteries" without
providing any actual numbers. An "ordinary" NiMh in the eyes of the ad
copy writers is probably 1500 mah.

And while the current RCRV3's may be better, I would also not assume
that they are automatically equal to the disposable CRV3's just
because of the word "lithium."

KF

Ken F. wrote:

Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...

Best choice is likely the R CR-V3s (rechargable CR-V3). I'm using them
in my Pentax 43WR and they far outperform my 2000+ mA-h NiMH cells.

There is a dicussion he

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/rcrv3.html

with some data.


Early on I acquired one of the "PowerVision" RCRV3's with high hopes
of it being superior to the AA NiMH's I had been using. I did some
informal tests just using the video mode of my digicam and simply
letting it run until the camera shut off due to insufficient power.
What I found was that the RCRV3 consistently provided a run-time
roughly equal to two 1800 mah Energizer 1800 NiMh AA's, and
proportionately less than two 2100 mah Sanyo NiMh AA's.
I can't say anything with regard to any of the other RCRV3's but it
made me wary of hyped comparisons to "ordinary NiMh batteries" without
providing any actual numbers. An "ordinary" NiMh in the eyes of the ad
copy writers is probably 1500 mah.

And while the current RCRV3's may be better, I would also not assume
that they are automatically equal to the disposable CRV3's just
because of the word "lithium."


I'm not sure your video mode test is valid for picture taking; it is a
steady vs. impulse duty cycle. In a new camera with two almost new 2300
mA-H NiMH I got something like 75 shots on a charge before the low
battery warning came on. With one RCR-V3 I was well over 150 images and
still had juice when I put it back in the charger.

Phil

Ken F. wrote:

Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...

Best choice is likely the R CR-V3s (rechargable CR-V3). I'm using them
in my Pentax 43WR and they far outperform my 2000+ mA-h NiMH cells.

There is a dicussion he

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/rcrv3.html

with some data.


Early on I acquired one of the "PowerVision" RCRV3's with high hopes
of it being superior to the AA NiMH's I had been using. I did some
informal tests just using the video mode of my digicam and simply
letting it run until the camera shut off due to insufficient power.
What I found was that the RCRV3 consistently provided a run-time
roughly equal to two 1800 mah Energizer 1800 NiMh AA's, and
proportionately less than two 2100 mah Sanyo NiMh AA's.
I can't say anything with regard to any of the other RCRV3's but it
made me wary of hyped comparisons to "ordinary NiMh batteries" without
providing any actual numbers. An "ordinary" NiMh in the eyes of the ad
copy writers is probably 1500 mah.

And while the current RCRV3's may be better, I would also not assume
that they are automatically equal to the disposable CRV3's just
because of the word "lithium."

KF

Your test, needless to say, is hardly 'normal use'. I suspect that in
normal use, the RCRV3 would do better than AA NIMH batteries, or at
least as well. No one claims they are equal to the disposable lithium
batteries.

They ARE lighter, however, and for those just trying to decide which to
use, they are a good alternative.

Phil Wheeler wrote in message . ..
I'm not sure your video mode test is valid for picture taking; it is a
steady vs. impulse duty cycle.
Maybe not, but at least it was reaily controllable. There was no user
input whatsoever after starting the camera running.

In a new camera with two almost new 2300
mA-H NiMH I got something like 75 shots on a charge before the low
battery warning came on. With one RCR-V3 I was well over 150 images and
still had juice when I put it back in the charger.

Give us the details of which RCRV3 you were using. I was merely
descibing my experience with one particular brand (and an early model
at that). I would not begin to suggest that it was representative of
every RCRV3 from the past or into the future. But it was certainly
sufficient to make me doubt the usefulness of that particular RCRV3.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions. Your test also seems to have
been of *one* battery (manufacturer unspecified) under conditions
which you have not elaborated on. So it's pretty difficult to make any
comparisons.

It seems likely that RCRV3's would become the clear battery of choice
if they could actually match the capabilities of the dispossble CRV3's
(and if they dropped in price a bit), but I'm not convinced that is
the case as yet. I'm also a little bothered by the fact that while
every NiMh sold is rated in mah, there don't seem to be readily
available figures (even if just marketing) for comparison of the
various makes of RCRV3's. And I speak only of comparing one RCRV3 to
another, not to NiMH.

KF

Ron Hunter wrote in message ...
Your test, needless to say, is hardly 'normal use'. I suspect that in
normal use, the RCRV3 would do better than AA NIMH batteries, or at
least as well. No one claims they are equal to the disposable lithium
batteries.
Well, at least I actually did a test using the same camera that I
would be using the batteries in, even if not in EXACTLY the same
manner that I normally use the camera. As I pointed out the higher
capacity NiMh's fared better than the lesser rated ones, providing a
strong indication that the test had some degree of validity. I'm not
sure how you have reached the conclusion that the RCRV3 "would do
better than AA NIMH batteries" except upon sheer blind faith and the
marketing claims of the manufacturers. I have thus far concluded
exactly the opposite *for the battery I tested*. But as I noted, that
was one battery from one manufacturer and, at this point, there are
many other options. But I'll wait until I can see some actual figures
before I'll bite again at the "better than NiMH" bait being thrown out
by the sellers.

They ARE lighter, however, and for those just trying to decide which to
use, they are a good alternative.
And they are MUCH more expensive and require proprietary "one-hole"
chargers.
An alternative? Yes. A "good" alternative? Well, I haven't yet become
convinced of that in light of the cheap, high capacity, readily
available NiMh AA's that are now on the market.

KF

Ken F. wrote:

Phil Wheeler wrote in message . ..

I'm not sure your video mode test is valid for picture taking; it is a
steady vs. impulse duty cycle.

Maybe not, but at least it was reaily controllable. There was no user
input whatsoever after starting the camera running.


In a new camera with two almost new 2300
mA-H NiMH I got something like 75 shots on a charge before the low
battery warning came on. With one RCR-V3 I was well over 150 images and
still had juice when I put it back in the charger.


Give us the details of which RCRV3 you were using. I was merely
descibing my experience with one particular brand (and an early model
at that). I would not begin to suggest that it was representative of
every RCRV3 from the past or into the future. But it was certainly
sufficient to make me doubt the usefulness of that particular RCRV3.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions. Your test also seems to have
been of *one* battery (manufacturer unspecified) under conditions
which you have not elaborated on. So it's pretty difficult to make any
comparisons.

It seems likely that RCRV3's would become the clear battery of choice
if they could actually match the capabilities of the dispossble CRV3's
(and if they dropped in price a bit), but I'm not convinced that is
the case as yet. I'm also a little bothered by the fact that while
every NiMh sold is rated in mah, there don't seem to be readily
available figures (even if just marketing) for comparison of the
various makes of RCRV3's. And I speak only of comparing one RCRV3 to
another, not to NiMH.

KF

The RCRV3 batteries are chemically and mechanically different from the
CRV3 batteries, so some difference is to be expected. Again, I don't
think the test was a fair indicator of how this battery may actually
function in actual normal usage. The only way to determine that is by
actually using it for a while. Then tell us how it fared. It might
just surprise you. Like I said before, at least it is lighter (also
ecologically preferable).

Ken F. wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote in message ...

Your test, needless to say, is hardly 'normal use'. I suspect that in
normal use, the RCRV3 would do better than AA NIMH batteries, or at
least as well. No one claims they are equal to the disposable lithium
batteries.

Well, at least I actually did a test using the same camera that I
would be using the batteries in, even if not in EXACTLY the same
manner that I normally use the camera. As I pointed out the higher
capacity NiMh's fared better than the lesser rated ones, providing a
strong indication that the test had some degree of validity. I'm not
sure how you have reached the conclusion that the RCRV3 "would do
better than AA NIMH batteries" except upon sheer blind faith and the
marketing claims of the manufacturers. I have thus far concluded
exactly the opposite *for the battery I tested*. But as I noted, that
was one battery from one manufacturer and, at this point, there are
many other options. But I'll wait until I can see some actual figures
before I'll bite again at the "better than NiMH" bait being thrown out
by the sellers.


They ARE lighter, however, and for those just trying to decide which to
use, they are a good alternative.

And they are MUCH more expensive and require proprietary "one-hole"
chargers.
An alternative? Yes. A "good" alternative? Well, I haven't yet become
convinced of that in light of the cheap, high capacity, readily
available NiMh AA's that are now on the market.

KF

First, I reached that conclusion based on the chemical nature of the
battery, the power density figures, and the limited experience reported
by other users of the battery type. As I have quite a bit of money
invested in the NIMH and charger, I will probably stick with them, but
for a new user, it is certainly an attractive option to consider. I
expect the type to become rather common, and to improve in its power
output over the next year or two. Your limited experience doesn't
change my opinion.

Ron Hunter wrote in message ...
The RCRV3 batteries are chemically and mechanically different from the
CRV3 batteries, so some difference is to be expected. Again, I don't
think the test was a fair indicator of how this battery may actually
function in actual normal usage. The only way to determine that is by
actually using it for a while. Then tell us how it fared. It might
just surprise you. Like I said before, at least it is lighter (also
ecologically preferable).

My test was consistent enough for me that I did not keep that battery.
In fact, now that I look back I see that it confirmed very accurately
the prediction I made here based upon figures that came from other
sources.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ing.google.com

I started with figures that independently suggested that the Power
Vision RCRV3 wouldn't be particularly great and then conducted a
fairly conrollable test that seemed to confirm the prediction.
And then you think I should keep using it in hopes of being surprised?
No, thank you, my testing of that battery reached the conclusion that
it had no advantages over good NiMh's for my purposes. And before I
spring for a newer version of a RCRV3 I'm going to have to see
something more concrete than marketing hype or somebody simply saying
"I used them and they work good!"

KF

Ken F. wrote:

And before I
spring for a newer version of a RCRV3 I'm going to have to see
something more concrete than marketing hype or somebody simply saying
"I used them and they work good!"


I get two times as many shots with RCR-V3 than with two 2300 mA-h NiMH
cells.

Isn't that "concrete" enough? Disclaimer: I do NOT sell batteries, etc.
-- nor do I own stock in any battery company (that I know of .. with
mutual funds, who really knows?)

But no matter: I'm a happy camper with my RCR-V3s. Not really important
to me what others do.

Phil

Ken F. wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote in message ...

The RCRV3 batteries are chemically and mechanically different from the
CRV3 batteries, so some difference is to be expected. Again, I don't
think the test was a fair indicator of how this battery may actually
function in actual normal usage. The only way to determine that is by
actually using it for a while. Then tell us how it fared. It might
just surprise you. Like I said before, at least it is lighter (also
ecologically preferable).


My test was consistent enough for me that I did not keep that battery.
In fact, now that I look back I see that it confirmed very accurately
the prediction I made here based upon figures that came from other
sources.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ing.google.com

I started with figures that independently suggested that the Power
Vision RCRV3 wouldn't be particularly great and then conducted a
fairly conrollable test that seemed to confirm the prediction.
And then you think I should keep using it in hopes of being surprised?
No, thank you, my testing of that battery reached the conclusion that
it had no advantages over good NiMh's for my purposes. And before I
spring for a newer version of a RCRV3 I'm going to have to see
something more concrete than marketing hype or somebody simply saying
"I used them and they work good!"

KF

You are a hard sell. Perhaps you can test again in a year or so.
Technology and manufacturing advances.