TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-01 > 0978602842


From: Greg Surratt <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Digital Cameras & Genealogy
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 05:07:22 -0500
References: <o7t55tkpdldtv46k1uaro8i6el3t7lvll7@4ax.com> <NDBBLMCJKLDPJELGGDMNGEMFFBAA.gilbert.blankenship@hedon.net>
In-Reply-To: <NDBBLMCJKLDPJELGGDMNGEMFFBAA.gilbert.blankenship@hedon.net>


On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:42:29 -0500, you wrote:

>Strange, because from a single charge I get easily twice the number of shots
>off my Digipower batter pack than a standard set of AA Alkalines and 3-4x
>over NiCads.
>
>The real difference IMHO is the realized price. The Digipower (or other
>pack) is rechargeable. After about 200 pictures (rated at an average of 20
>shots per set of 4xAA Alkalines @ $4.00/pack) the Digipower pays for itself.
>
>But, I will take the unit back out to verify those numbers again. Perhaps
>my memory is failing in my old age ;-)
>
>Gil

What I was looking at was the electrical rating. The power packs I
examined had (depending on my 4 month ago memory) 1200 milliamp-hours
rating, while the lithium ion rechargeables I use had 300
milliamp-hours per battery times four to run the camera equals 1200.

The lithium ions are much better (last longer, more power, more
pictures) than the nicads and infinitely better than alkalines. In
fact, Casio doesn't even recommend alkalines for my camera. I think,
if you could find the data, the nicads would come in at about 75 and
the alkalines at about 150 milliamp-hours.

The other difference is that I shoot using the viewfinder, my wife
shoots using the LCD display. I can get about 3-4 times as many shots
on a set of batteries, but she takes better pictures (according to
her, anyways.)

Greg

This thread: