batteries for a flash - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/15/2005 10:29:32 AM · #1

I have a canon 430ex. I have just been buying new alkaline batteries every time I go shoot, but that is getting expensive. I seem to remember some talk about what kind of rechargable batteries are best (of course I don't remember because I didn't pay attention thinkin I would never need that information) But my question is this: can anyone reccomend what kind of battery charger to get for this flash? it uses 4 AA batteries. If you want to suggest a specific model I would love that. I want the best. Quickest charge, longest lasting charge, and if the charger can charge AAA, I would love that too. (wireless playstations controllers use batteries too)

thanks
drake

fotomann_forever

12/15/2005 10:34:57 AM · #2

As far as rechargeable AA batteries go... Nickel Metal Hydride NiMH batteries are the way to go. Relatively inexpensive too...

Prof_Fate

12/15/2005 10:36:27 AM · #3

Two options - walmart has some NiMh batts cheap - like $6.50 for 4 AAs.
Option 2 is maha batteries / chargers. I have some of their batts and a fast charger (90 minutes) (with wall or car adapter!) and it works great, even on 'regular' nimh batts. I also have my first AA charger and it takes overnite to charge.

ZorbaTheGeek

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/15/2005 10:40:47 AM · #4

Rechargeable batteries have generally shorter lifespans than alkalines in high current applications such as camera flashes. However the low internal resistance or rechargeables greatly improves the flash recycle times. Of course, you can recharge your NiMHs and carry a couple of sets, so the shorter lifespan on a shoot is of minimal impact.

Apple iPhone

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Nikon

12/15/2005 10:41:07 AM · #5

I've been using the Energizer NiMH 2500 and 2800's for a while and am happy that they retain their charge quite well

I also have the 15 minute charger for them.

Message edited by author 2005-12-15 10:41:31.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/15/2005 10:49:50 AM · #6

I've got a set of NiMH batteries that have lasted for 2 years (if I could find them all...) They were completely worth the money and the charger cost. I bought a Rayavac universal chargestation thingy that holds 8 AA's, it keeps them at full charge until I take them out, but is slow to charge (12 hours or so) You can pay extra for quick charge ones.

They're AWESOME in portable CD players too, two or three times the play time. Not that anyone but me has one of those anymore... ;o)

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

12/15/2005 10:55:44 AM · #7

Originally posted by ZorbaTheGeek:

I always thought that rechargeable batteries were able to maintain higher current outputs, even as their charge is depleted and that it was this fact that led to an increase in effective lifespan, as the current output from alkalines drops away and is not sufficient to effectively power the device. Maybe this is more applicable to a constant load, such as a camera, rather than a cyclic one, such as a flash.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/15/2005 10:58:13 AM · #8

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by ZorbaTheGeek:
Rechargeable batteries have generally shorter lifespans than alkalines in high current applications such as camera flashes. However the low internal resistance or rechargeables greatly improves the flash recycle times. Of course, you can recharge your NiMHs and carry a couple of sets, so the shorter lifespan on a shoot is of minimal impact.

I always thought that rechargeable batteries were able to maintain higher current outputs, even as their charge is depleted and that it was this fact that led to an increase in effective lifespan, as the current output from alkalines drops away and is not sufficient to effectively power the device. Maybe this is more applicable to a constant load, such as a camera, rather than a cyclic one, such as a flash.

Yeah, I have no Idea what he was talking about, unless he's using cheapo Energizer 1700mAh's dunno. Mine are only 2100 and last WAY longer than any Alkaline battery out there.

fotomann_forever

12/15/2005 11:05:02 AM · #9

The lifecycle of an alkeline battery is pretty much a straight downward slope towards death. NiMh batteries, on the other hand, hold 1.2 volts almost all the way to the end of the drain cycle. Then the curve drops off quickly.

In use, especially with Flash, NiMh batts give you a longer usable time than Alkeline batteries, because they are able to produce usable voltage and current for most of the drain cycle.

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/15/2005 11:37:19 AM · #10

Originally posted by di53:

I've been using the Energizer NiMH 2500 and 2800's for a while and am happy that they retain their charge quite well

I second these batteries. I only have the 2500's and I'm very happy with them.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

12/15/2005 11:55:50 AM · #11

anybody use an external battery pack? I have the 580ex and have been trying to decide which way to go also.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

12/15/2005 12:00:33 PM · #12

//www.adorama.com/QTB1.html

edit: to make the link work...

Message edited by author 2005-12-15 12:00:56.

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

12/15/2005 01:19:17 PM · #13

I use NiMH. You can buy a case of 24 AA for about $10 (not counting shipping). I have Lenmar 2000 mAh, but the new Lenmars are 2450 mAh (search "Lenmar - PRO-415-24" )

I haven't checked if they're as good as name brands, but if you don't mind changing batteries, its a great solution.

C-Fox

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/15/2005 01:20:12 PM · #14

Originally posted by alixmiles:

anybody use an external battery pack? I have the 580ex and have been trying to decide which way to go also.

I use two sets of recharable batteries but with my flash can plug in a seperate pack as well. Not sure if want to go with the Canon specific/flash specific pack or a generic that could in a pinch also power the camera (I have three batteries for the camera, which is enough to do 1000's of shots)

ZorbaTheGeek

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/15/2005 01:26:13 PM · #15

Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by ZorbaTheGeek:
Rechargeable batteries have generally shorter lifespans than alkalines in high current applications such as camera flashes. However the low internal resistance or rechargeables greatly improves the flash recycle times. Of course, you can recharge your NiMHs and carry a couple of sets, so the shorter lifespan on a shoot is of minimal impact.

I always thought that rechargeable batteries were able to maintain higher current outputs, even as their charge is depleted and that it was this fact that led to an increase in effective lifespan, as the current output from alkalines drops away and is not sufficient to effectively power the device. Maybe this is more applicable to a constant load, such as a camera, rather than a cyclic one, such as a flash.

Yeah, I have no Idea what he was talking about, unless he's using cheapo Energizer 1700mAh's dunno. Mine are only 2100 and last WAY longer than any Alkaline battery out there.

OK, here's what I'm talking about for the non-electronics types.

A standard (read Cheapo) Energizer alkaline has a mah rating of 2850, the ultras, ultra+ and lithium disposables reach more like 3000. Now agreed that current NiMH approach these ratings without much difficulty. The point is, that even with the lower output voltages of rechargeables (1.2v vs the 1.7v+ of a new alkaline) the lower internal resistance of rechargeable batteries (even NiCads!) produce a reduced charge time of the flashgun capacitors. Rechargeable batteries have a considerably higher maximum current output.

The fact that disposable batteries reduce in voltage over their lifespan makes us throw them away long before they are dead in high demand applications such as flashguns (We very quickly notice the slow down in charge times). The same set of batteries would continue to have use in say, a gameboy, and indeed can continue to run the flash unit if we don't mind the wait =P.

I said from the start that rechargeables are better in flash units, particularly if you need high recycle rates.

Message edited by author 2005-12-15 13:28:37.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

12/15/2005 01:52:34 PM · #16

Originally posted by ZorbaTheGeek:

Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by ZorbaTheGeek:
Rechargeable batteries have generally shorter lifespans than alkalines in high current applications such as camera flashes. However the low internal resistance or rechargeables greatly improves the flash recycle times. Of course, you can recharge your NiMHs and carry a couple of sets, so the shorter lifespan on a shoot is of minimal impact.

I always thought that rechargeable batteries were able to maintain higher current outputs, even as their charge is depleted and that it was this fact that led to an increase in effective lifespan, as the current output from alkalines drops away and is not sufficient to effectively power the device. Maybe this is more applicable to a constant load, such as a camera, rather than a cyclic one, such as a flash.

Yeah, I have no Idea what he was talking about, unless he's using cheapo Energizer 1700mAh's dunno. Mine are only 2100 and last WAY longer than any Alkaline battery out there.

OK, here's what I'm talking about for the non-electronics types.

A standard (read Cheapo) Energizer alkaline has a mah rating of 2850, the ultras, ultra+ and lithium disposables reach more like 3000. Now agreed that current NiMH approach these ratings without much difficulty. The point is, that even with the lower output voltages of rechargeables (1.2v vs the 1.7v+ of a new alkaline) the lower internal resistance of rechargeable batteries (even NiCads!) produce a reduced charge time of the flashgun capacitors. Rechargeable batteries have a considerably higher maximum current output.

The fact that disposable batteries reduce in voltage over their lifespan makes us throw them away long before they are dead in high demand applications such as flashguns (We very quickly notice the slow down in charge times). The same set of batteries would continue to have use in say, a gameboy, and indeed can continue to run the flash unit if we don't mind the wait =P.

I said from the start that rechargeables are better in flash units, particularly if you need high recycle rates.

I think that we're in broad agreement, although not, perhaps, understanding each other. The point I was trying to make (rather clumsily, perhaps) is that alkalines have a shorter 'effective' lifespan, rather than longer as you stated, as we tend to dispose of them earlier in their life cycle, because they are not giving us the output we desire. Most rechargeables tend to give a good, (nearer) constant current output for a greater proportion of their discharge phase.

fstopopen

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/15/2005 02:03:25 PM · #17

dang you guys know a lot. I am so glad to have dpchallenge to guide me in such purchases. This forum has saved me lots of money and hearache. anyone know a cheap way to hook my playstation 2 up wirelessly? lol.

drake

fotomann_forever

12/15/2005 02:13:42 PM · #18

Originally posted by fstopopen:

anyone know a cheap way to hook my playstation 2 up wirelessly? lol.

drake

Yup, beat up a few kids and steal thier Wireless network gear ... lol

12/15/2005 06:04:05 PM · #19

how about the external battery packs..rechargeable...not the one canon sells that takes AA.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

12/15/2005 11:19:01 PM · #20

anyone?

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

12/15/2005 11:24:58 PM · #21

Originally posted by ZorbaTheGeek:

My brother used to sell his used alkaline batteries around Christmas time, advertising them as "half-dead batteries for the noisy electronic gifts your relatives give your kids". He also said he sold them for more than new batteries cost. ;->

12/16/2005 01:20:03 AM · #22

anybody recommend a brand for an external battery pack?