Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: AA, Lion or Both?
AA's all the way! 4034.48%
Like to have the choice of using either. 3933.62%
Using AAs is of no interest to me. 3731.90%
Voters: 116. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-26-2012, 10:15 AM   #76
Pentaxian
Zafar Iqbal's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,167
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
Question for those who use AA alot... How do the standard disposable Lithium AA's perform vs. something like the Eneloops or even vs. the OEM battery?.
I used Energizer Ultimate Lithium batteries for more than a year before moving on to rechargeables. I believe these are rated at 2900mha and gave me something like 1800 and even up to 2000 pics with my K-x.

I now use Sanyo XX rechargeable batteries (2400mHa), and the impression I have, is that I can get some 1500 exposures from these.

Not exact science, but the numbers are defo up there. The buttomline is though, that these batteries perfom very well. One of the reasons it took me a while to make the change was because I didn't want to worry about battery juice every time I was going out - and for how long the batteries would last. Both types of batteries mentioned lasts for me long enough that I do not worry about it. I love that!

07-26-2012, 01:47 PM   #77
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Cow Belt
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 162
AA rechargeables on the K200D. Unfortunately, only the Sanyo Eneloops and similarly designed low-discharge NiMh batteries work properly with this camera. The fact has been adequately publicised on Pentaxforums. The Samsung GX20 which I use has no provision for AA batteries but my preference has been expressed clearly enough.
Chhayanat
07-26-2012, 04:53 PM   #78
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
Maybe on most current computer monitors.
But I would take that challenge - on my 4 MP 30" monitor.
I think monitors will increase in resolution also so you may not want to do that in 15 years .
Perhaps. But there is still a difference between saying one can see a difference and sayng the old camera has suddenly become worthless. i don't see people rushing to throw out their 35mm negatives just because modern sensors may outresolve them. A good image is still a good image.
07-26-2012, 05:09 PM   #79
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Sensors suffer failure as well marc. and they are not worth replacing based on prices people on the forum have been quoted.
True. Well, I guess time will tell how serious of an issue that emds up being in practice.

QuoteQuote:
and as for those weren't high quality devices back in the day?? I sold some pretty high end camcorders back in the 80s and 90s not one of which would be worth using now
I don't know how hgh end those were, so I can't really respond except to say that while they might not meet your standards, they might well meet others. And if they don't meet others, standards today, I'd suggest they weren't as as high as you suggest. Perhaps god enough for viewing on TV of the day, but anyone alive in the 80's had surely seen movies and could have realized that the quality of a TV image did not approach that of a movie. Whereas most printed images for the last century have been viewed sizes of 8x10" or less and I see no reason to expect that to change any time soon. And modern cameras - even five year old ones - are more than sufficient for producing completely professional resutls at that size.

Again, for some especially demanding users with lots of spare cash, I'm sure replacing their cameras every couplle of years as the pixel count goes up seems sensible. For many of us, it is not, and you can't make it be so.

QuoteQuote:
as for the digital recorders i think a good DAT is probably better than most of the current stuff that all use compression
No, most modern recorders give you the option of uncompressed WAV or some such. Often at a higher sample rate and/or bit depth than DAT - not that the differnce relevamt for most people. Yes, some tiny percentage of users are no longer satisfied with 16 bit, 44.1 kHz audio and therefore are moving on to 96/24. Meanwhile, 99.99% of the world is fine with MP3's. Most music is enjoyed at a quality somewhat less than what we might have experienced 30 years ago, despite the availablility of better sound. We've very cleary hit a point where further increases in audio quality just don't matter to most consumers - there is no reason to believe they won't continue to be happy with current audio technology more or less indefinitely.

What I am saying is that I think we have reached the same point with still images. Video is probably another matter.

07-26-2012, 05:23 PM   #80
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 808
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Perhaps. But there is still a difference between saying one can see a difference and sayng the old camera has suddenly become worthless. i don't see people rushing to throw out their 35mm negatives just because modern sensors may outresolve them. A good image is still a good image.
In theory yes, but it depends on the medium. I have many pics from my first Olympus compact 3.2MP that I considered good when I shot them 12 years ago. That camera cost as much as a DSLR does now.

Now, these files don't even fill my screen, and I can see all the problems with them. I also know quite a bit more about photography , own DSLRs, so I'm way more critical of them.
07-26-2012, 05:32 PM   #81
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 808
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
No, most modern recorders give you the option of uncompressed WAV or some such. Often at a higher sample rate and/or bit depth than DAT - not that the differnce relevamt for most people. Yes, some tiny percentage of users are no longer satisfied with 16 bit, 44.1 kHz audio and therefore are moving on to 96/24. Meanwhile, 99.99% of the world is fine with MP3's. Most music is enjoyed at a quality somewhat less than what we might have experienced 30 years ago, despite the availablility of better sound. We've very cleary hit a point where further increases in audio quality just don't matter to most consumers - there is no reason to believe they won't continue to be happy with current audio technology more or less indefinitely.
Right. I dabble in audio and my recorder can record 8 channels uncompressed at 24 bit / 96 kHz . It is not very clear that the 96 kHz adds much. The 24 bits definitely matters for mixing.
I always end up mixing down to stereo though, usually 48 khz stereo. And typically the audio ends up in some kind of lossy format, sadly, as part of videos. So there is quite a bit of data loss.
But it still helps to start with a good source. If you start with 16 bit/44.1k/16 bit and do your editing processing from there, the end resulting will not be that good.

QuoteQuote:
What I am saying is that I think we have reached the same point with still images. Video is probably another matter.
I'm not sure that's the case for pictures. Large computer monitors are still very far from being "retina displays". Unless large displays because obsolete, and everybody uses only 3 - 10" LCDs, I think we will be demanding more from our cameras. The ipad 3 has a 10" diagonal and 2048x1536 resolution. A single 30" computer monitor with the same dpi would be 6072x4608 . That is 28 MP, more than you can get from any camera under $4000 today .

Currently my 30" monitor is at 2560x1600 or 4.1MP, but I have several monitors that add up to 10 MP.
07-27-2012, 07:51 AM   #82
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,476
QuoteOriginally posted by Zafar Iqbal Quote
I used Energizer Ultimate Lithium batteries for more than a year before moving on to rechargeables. I believe these are rated at 2900mha and gave me something like 1800 and even up to 2000 pics with my K-x.

I now use Sanyo XX rechargeable batteries (2400mHa), and the impression I have, is that I can get some 1500 exposures from these.

Not exact science, but the numbers are defo up there. The buttomline is though, that these batteries perfom very well. One of the reasons it took me a while to make the change was because I didn't want to worry about battery juice every time I was going out - and for how long the batteries would last. Both types of batteries mentioned lasts for me long enough that I do not worry about it. I love that!
Thanks for the info... That was exactly the informationI was looking for. I do realize these things aren't exact, but it seems like the results are fairly consistent.
07-27-2012, 09:24 AM   #83
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,198
this poll is a really close battle...

07-27-2012, 02:24 PM   #84
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
this poll is a really close battle...
Only artificially. I read it as 1/3 don't want AAs at all and 2/3s want them.
07-27-2012, 03:00 PM   #85
Moo
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 174
What I prefer is basically the best of both worlds. Lithium AA cells, in the form of rechargeable CR-V3. Work great in older Pentax DSLRs, last a long time between charges, are less fiddly than AA as you only need two and they won't go in the wrong way, and are very cheap. Not supported in the latest models though
07-27-2012, 11:02 PM   #86
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
In theory yes, but it depends on the medium. I have many pics from my first Olympus compact 3.2MP that I considered good when I shot them 12 years ago. That camera cost as much as a DSLR does now.

Now, these files don't even fill my screen, and I can see all the problems with them. I also know quite a bit more about photography , own DSLRs, so I'm way more critical of them.
Right. *You* might have been satisfied with your 3MP P&S images 12 years ago, but few professional photographers would have given up film for them. But If an image taken by a DSLR today is good enough for most professional photographers to give up film for, again, that is just not going to stop being true.
07-27-2012, 11:26 PM   #87
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sammamish, WA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 157
I use Raovac AA's....I leave the camera in my trunk and I get months of pictures with them. Probably well over 500 spread out over time, and when at races like Laguna Seca I get 1500 shots over a weekend easy. I do run a grip so I have 8 batteries. I still carry the original Energizer LI AA's that came with it as backups...and they still work fine. Bought my 200D back in '07....
08-01-2012, 06:11 PM   #88
Forum Member
Lupine's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 93
I have an AA adapter and voted both, but I almost exclusively use Lithium. I have the stock DLi109 and a pair of high capacity spares from Wasabi Power and they last more than long enough for me. I have not done a direct comparison against Eneloops, but don't really feel the need to. If I ever need it, I have the adapter, so I'm covered.
08-02-2012, 12:23 PM   #89
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote

I don't know how hgh end those were, so I can't really respond except to say that while they might not meet your standards, they might well meet others. And if they don't meet others, standards today, I'd suggest they weren't as as high as you suggest. Perhaps god enough for viewing on TV of the day, but anyone alive in the 80's had surely seen movies and could have realized that the quality of a TV image did not approach that of a movie. Whereas most printed images for the last century have been viewed sizes of 8x10" or less and I see no reason to expect that to change any time soon. And modern cameras - even five year old ones - are more than sufficient for producing completely professional resutls at that size.

Again, for some especially demanding users with lots of spare cash, I'm sure replacing their cameras every couplle of years as the pixel count goes up seems sensible. For many of us, it is not, and you can't make it be so.



No, most modern recorders give you the option of uncompressed WAV or some such. Often at a higher sample rate and/or bit depth than DAT - not that the differnce relevamt for most people. Yes, some tiny percentage of users are no longer satisfied with 16 bit, 44.1 kHz audio and therefore are moving on to 96/24. Meanwhile, 99.99% of the world is fine with MP3's. Most music is enjoyed at a quality somewhat less than what we might have experienced 30 years ago, despite the availablility of better sound. We've very cleary hit a point where further increases in audio quality just don't matter to most consumers - there is no reason to believe they won't continue to be happy with current audio technology more or less indefinitely.

What I am saying is that I think we have reached the same point with still images. Video is probably another matter.
the problem with old video cameras (particularly pre hi-8 or svhs) is the quality is so poor it's near useless on modern displays
even hi 8 and svhs look pretty crap.
ED beta models were the best of the pre digital cameras and there output is barely acceptable on a modern display.
I sold everything from entry level to prosumer camcorders ($350-$12000) the highest end would be useable, but they are genreally very large units so most people would walk away over size/weight. Given a 1080P gopro cam is $200

The line is far less clear with Digital Still since most people will never print and only post to the web. think of them as mp3 users
What seems to keep older film cameras and the film industry alive is actually the image quality combined with a little nostalgia (hipster lomo shooters aside)
I'm not sure any DSLR i've played with at any level will have that appeal in 20 years if it works. the other great thing about the old film cameras is it's generally easy to keep them going, sometimes stripping parts from others (like having a vintage car in many ways)

As for sound, for the majority even in the prei digital age sound quality was not an issue, more people owned crappy all in one stereos with flashing runway lights and single driver paper cone speakers than ever owned a really good sounding system. Even when CD came along those systems outsold even entry level component systems about 10 to 1. Cd made them sound better (marginally). this is why mp3 is acceptable to the masses. most people have never even heard a really top flight audio system for a frame of reference, and if they did many could care less about the difference. Didn't know about the uncompressed wave recorders, Only studio owning friends i have are die hard analogue guys for the sound they get
along the lines of the studio Matt Verta ray has in NYC (but on a smaller scale in Toronto)
* N. Y. H E D * P R E M I E R S O U N D S T U D I O S *
08-02-2012, 07:58 PM   #90
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,721
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
I'm not sure any DSLR i've played with at any level will have that appeal in 20 years
There are people still using Beogram turntables. They were crap when new, and time has not made them better. Surely my K20D or K-x will find a home too, in 20 years. I rest my case.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
batteries, battery, camera, charger, dslr, k30, people, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lithium-Ion battery Vs AA Ni-MH on a Kr ide508 Pentax K-r 18 01-06-2011 04:00 PM
D-BG4 lithium-ion vs nimh/aa's dtra Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 5 10-29-2010 09:17 PM
Lithium Ion Batteries and Air Travel mithrandir General Talk 4 08-26-2010 04:16 AM
Lithium-Ion Battery Question 8540tomg Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 2 08-18-2008 09:06 PM
Lithium ION battery for k100d dmadden Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 2 11-05-2007 08:00 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top