View Full Version : Best Batteries for 8MP+ Digital Cameras

12-19-2006, 07:27 PM
Hello fellow photographers. I have just recently acquired a new 8 MP digital camera this past year, and have unfortunately found out that it eats up batteries like no tomorrow (it runs off of two AAs). Granted, I was using regular AA batteries at the time, and have since looked into more powerful batteries (lithium, etc.). But I wanted to ask the opinions of fellow photographers here, before I went out to buy new batteries, assuming all higher-MP cameras have the same battery life issue here and there.

Thank you in advance!

12-19-2006, 08:47 PM
not at all, your best bet is to go ahead and list your camera make and model for a proper answer.


12-19-2006, 09:53 PM
Under any circumstances, NiMh rechargable batteries are a must. Rotating through 3 sets should serve you well....

12-19-2006, 10:25 PM
tfcreate's pretty much dead on. Go out and get some high capacity Nickel-Metal-Hydride (NiMH) AA rechargeables. They usually all have some power rating on them in milliamp-hours. If you can, try to look at 2300mAh and above for your batteries, and yeah, about 3-4 sets should do it. If you're using 2 at a time, an 8-pack should be perfect. You should be able to find sets at around $10/4 at around that capacity if you look around a bit, IIRC. Just make sure you're careful when recharging them.. Most of the cheaper battery chargers that you'll get need the batteries charged in pairs, so keep your battery pairs/sets together. I happen to use a 10 battery charger that charges each cell individually, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

For sure, though, go rechargeable, and don't get rechargeable alkalines or Nickel-Cadmiums, but stick with the NiMHs and you'll do fine. I don't believe they make individual lithium AAs yet, though I've seen some weird things where they actually make rechargeable lithium AA packs. But those are definitely probably overpriced for the purpose, and NiMHs are relatively plentiful and inexpensive.

12-24-2006, 11:21 PM
Definitely stick with the NiMH rechargables. They're reasonably priced, last an extremely long time, and do not have "memory" issues like the older NiCd rechargables.

I just bought another pack of four for my camera flash/electric razor earlier today. Their capacity is 2500mAh each (pretty much highest you'll find on the consumer market right now), Energizer brand. $16 CAD + tax. Highly recommended.

As another brand alternative, I also have two 2300mAh Duracell rechargables and they seem to perform just about as well. I bought them by accident earlier this year. The 8% lower capacity has not been noticable to me.

I have two sets of five 2500mAh Energizer AA's for my flash and one set usually lasts me an entire weekend of moderate flash shooting.

In terms of the most common consumer chargers:
Fifteen minute chargers are nice and convenient, but usually pretty expensive. About $70 CAD over here. Notably, the fifteen minute charge will get you maybe up to 70-80% recharged, but will take hours to do the remaining 20-30% of charging. So really, if you have multiple sets, the more expensive chargers probably aren't worth it. My charger takes ~8 hours for 4x2500mAh batteries.

If you can find one, a charger with trickle technology is good, as it will keep your batteries topped up if you leave them in the charger, plugged in. These chargers usually have temperature sensors too so that the batteries are properly charged.

12-25-2006, 08:29 PM
if u wanna shoot like the pros, u gotta get quantum batterie packs here (http://www.qtm.com/Turbo/?res_set=yes&res=1024&resh=768)


they do cost alot more but with a charged pack, u can shoot forever!

for like a Nikon, you'd buy the one that mounts under your camera (turbo c), then u get the cables to supply power to both the camera and flash.

"QB1 Compact Features:

* Lighter, smaller and more convenient.
o Attaches to tripod socket on bottom of camera.

* "Fuel Gauge" displays power remaining and charging level.
o Energy saver mode dims lights for longer shoots.

* "No-memory" nickle metal hydride cells charge reliably in 3-4 hours.

* Outputs for both short (Bantam "X" series) and long (QB1/1+ "M" series) cords.

* Four to six times the power of typical rechargeables.
o Enough for about 240 shots with a Nikon 950 digital camera, 800 shots with Kodak 265, or 400 shots with Olympus 620L. (With the LCD off)

* Recycling speed is three times as fast as alkalines and a third faster than nicads. "

amazon has em for almost $400.00 look here (http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Turbo-Compact-Battery-Power/dp/B0002IP4DI/sr=8-37/qid=1167099791/ref=sr_1_37/002-2415371-4857610?ie=UTF8&s=electronics)

12-26-2006, 12:32 PM
if u wanna shoot like the pros, u gotta get quantum batterie packs
Wow, interesting product... Only one problem: based on the description of the camera Anele's describing, I'd be willing to bet the following:

A. The camera's more likely a consumer class compact camera (since I can't name one DSLR or even higher level prosumer camera that runs on 2 AAs).
Therefore B. Odds are those battery packs cost significantly more than the camera themselves. o_o

Isn't something like that relatively impractical for anyone that has a camera that's outside the $3k+ range anyway? I know for the Canon line, it'd probably be much more price efficient to just get a battery grip and stick in a couple of good camera batteries.

If you're using something like a high end Nikon or Canon SLR/DSLR more professionally, then yeah, maybe that's practical. But for most of the rest of DSLR users, I'd figure it's probably better to save that amount of cash for lenses instead. And for compact camera users, I'm pretty sure something like that defies the whole point of getting a compact camera anyway, if they even make those for compacts. ^^;;