Canon A620 or Fuji F11?

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Blair, Feb 8, 2006.

  1. Blair

    ASAAR Guest

    I'd be amazed if he pays for products from Sterlingtek. He's not a
    disinterested observer, and very likely has some kind of
    relationship with them. That doesn't mean that Sterlingtek is a
    bad company, but his bias is way off the charts. So some of his
    advice is reasonable but other times absurd, especially when it
    comes to comparing battery technologies.

    For some people (me for one) $7 worth of alkaline AA batteries
    would last at least as long as a Li-Ion battery's typical lifespan,
    about 3 years. For some types of cameras and some users, Li-Ion is
    preferable, but for many users, alkalines have great advantages.
    This wouldn't have been the case several years ago, but for today's
    cameras (especially Canon's A610/A620), AA batteries are hard to
    beat. And that includes both alkalines and NiMH. And unlike Li-Ion
    batteries, NiMH batteries can remain useful years after Li-Ion
    batteries have given up the ghost.
    ASAAR, Feb 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Blair

    SMS Guest

    eBay should _always_ be avoided for that sort of stuff.

    I've ordered from Sterlingtek several times, and it has been uneventful.
    SMS, Feb 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Blair

    SMS Guest

    Sorry to disappoint you, but I've paid for everything from them, I'm
    just a customer. I doubt if they even know I exist. They have no
    affiliate program, or I would have signed up, since I've sent a lot of
    business their way with no benefit to me.
    No one has pointed out anything in "" that is
    You, like many people, simply assume that the way you do things is the
    way everyone else should do things as well. Different people have
    different requirements.
    SMS, Feb 10, 2006
  4. Blair

    ASAAR Guest

    I'm not disappointed but there are ways to benefit even if you
    don't receive anything directly from Sterlingtek. There are several
    other people here that have relationships with the companies they
    tout, but they do so with what I'd call for lack of a better term,
    "integrity". You could easily do the same, recommending more than
    just Sterlingtek and risky eBay sellers when it's appropriate. But
    you seem determined to tell one and all that AA batteries are almost
    always a poor substitute for Li-Ion batteries. When someone asks
    for a comparison between two cameras, one powered by AA, the other
    by Li-Ion batteries, why not ask questions first to determine how
    the camera will be used, rather than immediately making the case for
    Li-Ion batteries?

    If that's the website that contained the new charts you posted
    showing battery capacity differences between NiCad and NiMH at low
    temperatures, then I pointed out some problems. I don't recall that
    there was explicit incorrect data, but much was left out that would
    have invalidated some of your claims. You chose to not respond.

    That's totally untrue, simultaneously amusing and sad. That's the
    point I've repeatedly made, including showing types of usage that
    would make Li-Ion the better choice. You are the one that
    repeatedly ignores people's different usages and requirements. One
    example which you've been guilty of on more than one occasion
    (including just the other day) is saying in effect that the only
    advantage to having a camera that uses AA batteries is that they can
    be bought almost everywhere. I've show in great detail the ways
    that alkaline and NiMH batteries can be far superior to Li-Ion but
    you've chosen to avoid dealing with it. You've also posted
    outrageously misleading data in an attempt to prove that Li-Ion is
    much more cost effective than other battery types. I've shown the
    type of usage where this can be true, but what you always leave out
    is that for the way most people use digital cameras, Li-Ion
    batteries can be the most expensive choice. In trying to support
    this misleading claim you also chose to use very low internet prices
    for the Li-Ion batteries, and didn't use similar sources for NiMH AA
    prices, instead quoting prices typically found in stores, and I've
    found NiMH AAs for a bit less that what you quoted hanging on a rack
    in J&R. Not only convenient, but less risky than getting a no-name
    brand from an eBay seller, or accidentally buying solder-tab AAs
    from a website. The people sophisticated enough to know how to
    avoid the risk don't have to be told of these risky sources. If
    Sterlingtek sells NiMH AA batteries they'd be a much safer way to
    go, but I've only noticed you mentioning them with respect to Li-Ion
    batteries. But NiMH batteries are so inexpensive that good reliable
    brands are almost as ubiquitous as the slightly more common
    alkalines, so there's no need or big advantage avoid buying locally
    unless one needs to buy them by the gross.
    ASAAR, Feb 10, 2006
  5. Blair

    SMS Guest

    I do have a relationship with Amazon and Adorama. This is disclosed on
    all of my sites. Unlike your stupid statement about Sterlingtek, I
    actually do get money from Amazon and Adorama from click-throughs. Yep,
    I'm getting wealthy from them, having collected about $500 over the last
    three years.
    In fact, if you look at my digital camera web sites, you'll see that
    about 1/3 of the recommended cameras use AA batteries. Battery type
    should not be the primary criteria used in the selection of a camera.
    Li-Ion is the only choice on D-SLRs and on very small cameras, because
    it is impractical to use AA cells on either type. But for the lower cost
    point and shoot cameras, AA batteries are a necessary compromise to keep
    the cost down. See "".
    In fact, "" points out five advantages of AA
    batteries, though in reality, the one that is most touted by most people
    is the "boondocks" reason. I believe that most of these people have been
    conditioned by having their NiMH batteries go flat, and having had to
    buy AA cells to get by. Then they extrapolate that into "gee it's a good
    thing I wasn't using a Li-Ion battery because I'd never have been able
    to get by with some alkalines." They fail to take into account the fact
    that had they been using Li-Ion, they would have been highly unlikely to
    ever have needed emergency replacement batteries.
    On the contrary, I've explicitly pointed out that light users will
    likely not see the cost benefit of Li-Ion, "For very light users, NiMH
    batteries are cheaper by virtue of the fact that their lifespan is
    longer, typically five years for NiMH, versus three years for Li-Ion.
    However the absolute cost difference is still very small, we're talking
    $12 every three years versus $10 every five years."
    SMS, Feb 10, 2006
  6. Blair

    ASAAR Guest

    I don't dwell on what you have on your web sites. Almost all of
    my critical comments have been due to what you've said here, in this
    newsgroup. But cost is not the only advantage to using AA
    batteries. Can you think of others? I can.

    Then try to remember them when you advise people *here*. It's
    here that you overwhelmingly support Li-Ion and fail to credit other
    battery types when their use can be more advantageous than Li-Ion.
    Reasons that other people give should not stop you from being aware
    of and pointing out other advantages than universal availability.

    You're still being misleading by choosing "best case" values.
    First, it's better to choose neither the highest nor the lowest
    prices. So you don't have to include OEM list prices which might
    range from $40 to $60 per battery, but neither should you choose the
    rock bottom $10. Many reputable batteries can be bought from
    sources such as B&H and J&R and Adorama for about $20, so that's a
    better, more representative price to use. Second, most people have
    at least one backup battery (and both you and I probably agree that
    at least one spare battery should be purchased), so that would be at
    least two batteries every three years, for $40. The charger itself
    would add to the cost, and an inexpensive non-OEM charger is
    probably about $20. It's unlikely that it would be used more than 6
    years (future cameras would probably use different batteries), so
    adding 1/2 the price brings the cost up to $50 every three years.
    Most people could afford this, but most people (not all) that take
    only a couple of thousand shots per year, with an apprpriate camera
    could buy $8 or $10 worth of alkalines today and have a good number
    of them remaining unused three years from now. I bought a "brick"
    of 48 Maxell alkaline AAs about 5 years ago from Sears for $10 (1/2
    their regular price at the time) and I'm still using some of them.
    Pathmark regularly rotates sale prices among 3 different brands of
    alkalines, Rayovac's usually being the most inexpensive, only
    slightly higher per cell than the Sears price mentioned above. At
    these prices $2.00 worth of alkalines would last more than a year
    for *my* camera, a Fuji, and for my usage. So for *me* and many
    owners of Canon's recent models, the operating cost over three years
    might be $6.00 or less, far lower than the $50 that most users of
    Li-Ion batteries pay. With heavy use of the flash, the gap would
    narrow. And even if Li-Ion has a lower self-discharge rate than
    NiMH batteries, they both have to be charged periodically, which
    adds to the inconvenience. For these efficient cameras, I figure
    that the breakeven point where rechargeable batteries start to
    become more cost effective might be about 10,000 shots per year,
    well above what most people take. For older cameras that get far
    fewer shots per set of alkalines or per charge, the breakeven point
    will be much lower. For some really power hungry cameras,
    rechargeable batteries might make good sense for people that only
    take one or two thousand shots per year. You've seen this cost
    analysis before and ignored it, but you're still make the same
    "we're talking $12 every three years versus $10 every five years."
    claim even though yours totally ignores the use of alkaline
    batteries with many of today's efficient cameras that aren't used to
    take very large numbers of pictures yearly. Just another example of
    how *you* ignore all possibilities and cherry pick usage that
    supports what you want to show.

    A small number might believe that Li-Ion batteries lose power to
    self discharge as quickly as NiMH, but most probably don't. What
    leads you to believe that most people do? Do you have real evidence
    or is it just a guess that supports what you want to believe? If
    most of them are familiar with anything, it might well be the
    opposite, that Li-Ion batteries go longer between charges, since
    most people have had the advantage of experience using portable and
    cell phones, which have been around quite a bit longer than digital
    cameras, and where Li-Ion batteries have tended to displace NiMH
    (and especially NiCad) batteries. What *you* fail to take into
    account is that outside of DSLRs and subcompact cameras, for many if
    not most people, rechargeable batteries are not needed at all. It
    would be good to make people aware of this, while at the same time
    making sure to alert them to the fact that if they will be making
    very heavy use of their cameras then it might well be beneficial to
    use NiMH or Li-Ion batteries.
    ASAAR, Feb 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.