CRV3s vs AA NiMH batteries

Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...

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

And again -
Give us the details of which RCRV3 you were using. There are quite a
few out there. My guess is that you are not using the PowerVision
version.

Isn't that "concrete" enough?
Helpful but not concrete. Not without knowing which batteries and the
actual nature of your use. Were the conditions always the same? Is the
"twice" figure based upon a actual counting measurement or just a
quick estimate? "Twice" does not seem like a reasonable factor (given
the limited data that seems to be available for any of the RCRV3's). I
note that "twice" the capacity of NIMH AA's is the factor often noted
for disposable CRV3's and I have not seen anything which would suggest
that the rechargeable RCRV3's are yet equal to to disposable type.
Even the marketing hype seems to only go as far a claiming RCRV3's
will "outperform" (without quantification) 2300 mah NiMH's. But if
anyone has better information I'm open to it.

But no matter: I'm a happy camper with my RCR-V3s. Not really important
to me what others do.
Nor to me. I'm mostly interested in getting (and providing) some
useful information.

KF

Ken F. wrote:

Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...


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


And again -
Give us the details of which RCRV3 you were using. There are quite a
few out there. My guess is that you are not using the PowerVision
version.


Isn't that "concrete" enough?

Helpful but not concrete. Not without knowing which batteries and the
actual nature of your use. Were the conditions always the same? Is the
"twice" figure based upon a actual counting measurement or just a
quick estimate? "Twice" does not seem like a reasonable factor (given
the limited data that seems to be available for any of the RCRV3's). I
note that "twice" the capacity of NIMH AA's is the factor often noted
for disposable CRV3's and I have not seen anything which would suggest
that the rechargeable RCRV3's are yet equal to to disposable type.
Even the marketing hype seems to only go as far a claiming RCRV3's
will "outperform" (without quantification) 2300 mah NiMH's. But if
anyone has better information I'm open to it.


RCR-V3s I have are NexCell brand, purchased from Thomas Distributing.

Twice is probably an underestimate. The 2300 mA-h NiMH cells showed a
low battery indication at 75 shots (could have been 70 or 80). The
RCR-V3 battery was at 153 and showed no low battery indication when I
put it back in the charger and installed the other one.

No attempt to do a scientific test. The 153 is because I returned from
a camping trip and that's how many shots I had taken. The 70-80 was the
only time I used NiMH in the (new) camera before the RCR-V3 set came via
UPS.

My main interest in the new batteries was better shelf life of Li-Ion
technology (it's a camera which I use intermittantly and on short
notice). But they also do give me more shots.

I still use NiMH cells in another camera and for other apps. But I
charge them just before each use.

Phil

Ron Hunter wrote in message ...

You are a hard sell. Perhaps you can test again in a year or so.
Perhaps.

Technology and manufacturing advances.

I expect and hope so. I think rechargeables with the useful capacity
of the current CRV3 disposables would be great. I don't think they
exist yet.
KF

Ken F. wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote in message ...


You are a hard sell. Perhaps you can test again in a year or so.

Perhaps.


Technology and manufacturing advances.


I expect and hope so. I think rechargeables with the useful capacity
of the current CRV3 disposables would be great. I don't think they
exist yet.


I think you are right. The data at Steve's site shows RCR-V3s to be
better than NiMH but not as good as the disposable version.

Phil

Ken F. wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote in message ...


You are a hard sell. Perhaps you can test again in a year or so.

Perhaps.


Technology and manufacturing advances.


I expect and hope so. I think rechargeables with the useful capacity
of the current CRV3 disposables would be great. I don't think they
exist yet.
KF

That may be an unreachable goal. As long as they perform as well as the
NIMH they should be competitive, as they have less self-discharge and a
longer estimated recharge life. Now if they can get the price down.

Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...
RCR-V3s I have are NexCell brand, purchased from Thomas Distributing.

Thanks, that is worth noting.
Now I'm wondering why the figures here show 2200 Mah NiMh to be
superior to even the disposable CRCV3.

http://www.nexcellglobal.com/i1a.htm
(look at the figures in the OVERALL PERFORMANCE COMPARISON CHART)

I don't think it is what they meant to say, even thought they do sell
NiMH too.
Either that or it's a new focus on honesty in marketing (which is an
oxymoron to begin with.

KF

Yes, it is a bit odd. Could be someone goofed. Sure not a way to sell
a new, more pricy product!

I suspect the table here is more realisic:

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

Phil


Ken F. wrote:
Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...

RCR-V3s I have are NexCell brand, purchased from Thomas Distributing.


Thanks, that is worth noting.
Now I'm wondering why the figures here show 2200 Mah NiMh to be
superior to even the disposable CRCV3.

http://www.nexcellglobal.com/i1a.htm
(look at the figures in the OVERALL PERFORMANCE COMPARISON CHART)

I don't think it is what they meant to say, even thought they do sell
NiMH too.
Either that or it's a new focus on honesty in marketing (which is an
oxymoron to begin with.

KF

Ken F. wrote:
Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...

RCR-V3s I have are NexCell brand, purchased from Thomas Distributing.


Thanks, that is worth noting.
Now I'm wondering why the figures here show 2200 Mah NiMh to be
superior to even the disposable CRCV3.

http://www.nexcellglobal.com/i1a.htm
(look at the figures in the OVERALL PERFORMANCE COMPARISON CHART)

I don't think it is what they meant to say, even thought they do sell
NiMH too.
Either that or it's a new focus on honesty in marketing (which is an
oxymoron to begin with.

KF

I would REALLY like to know what camera they get 2200 shots from a set
of AA NIHM batteries! I get 150-200, at best.

Ron Hunter wrote:

Ken F. wrote:

Phil Wheeler wrote in message
...

RCR-V3s I have are NexCell brand, purchased from Thomas Distributing.



Thanks, that is worth noting. Now I'm wondering why the figures here
show 2200 Mah NiMh to be
superior to even the disposable CRCV3.

http://www.nexcellglobal.com/i1a.htm
(look at the figures in the OVERALL PERFORMANCE COMPARISON CHART)
I don't think it is what they meant to say, even thought they do sell
NiMH too.
Either that or it's a new focus on honesty in marketing (which is an
oxymoron to begin with.

KF


I would REALLY like to know what camera they get 2200 shots from a set
of AA NIHM batteries! I get 150-200, at best.

My impression from reading the NexCell website is that they did some
sort of lab duty cycle test -- vs. using a camera.

The data at Steve's site does say which camera, etc.

Phil

Ron Hunter wrote in message ...
Ken F. wrote:
Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...

RCR-V3s I have are NexCell brand, purchased from Thomas Distributing.


Thanks, that is worth noting.
Now I'm wondering why the figures here show 2200 Mah NiMh to be
superior to even the disposable CRCV3.

http://www.nexcellglobal.com/i1a.htm
(look at the figures in the OVERALL PERFORMANCE COMPARISON CHART)

I don't think it is what they meant to say, even thought they do sell
NiMH too.
Either that or it's a new focus on honesty in marketing (which is an
oxymoron to begin with.

KF

I would REALLY like to know what camera they get 2200 shots from a set
of AA NIHM batteries! I get 150-200, at best.

An SD9 will get 1000-2000 from 2200mah NiMHs, but that's with 8 of them.