Test: Lithium AA batteries are a better deal than cheap alkalines
Problem 1: they all look alike. Problem 2: the metric most often offered as a performance indicator (mA) is hype, like megapixels and megahertz. Problem 3: the quality of the charger makes a big difference for rechargeable models. Popular Photography dumped $200 worth of AA batteries on tester Zach Honig's desk, resulting in a roundup of what's really worth buying.
The big surprise is that expensive lithium disposables are a much better deal than cheap alkalines. They lasted seven times longer in a digicam, resulting in shots that cost .16 of a cent instead of .28 of a cent.
He also likes the 15-minute chargers for rechargeable models; others, however, say these kill the batteries quicker than slow burners.
Results [Pop Photo via Gadget Lab]
the latest
latest episodes
Anyone know the environmental differences in disposing of, (or less likely recycling) the lithium and alkaline batteries
It really scares me when things get broken down into "16 cents per picture". Not because it's inaccurate, but because it feels like that if I even sneeze it costs money.
That'd be 16 cents per hundred pictures. :)
If you sneeze, it'll cost you a tissue, which is about a penny, or a little water and soap to wash your hands (cost varies). You might also consider taking an allergy pill, which would cost $.25 or so. You can sneeze into your sleeve, instead, which is said to be more hygienic, unless you're a messy sneezer in which case it's just gross.
You're right, this sucks. I want to be free!
The numbers are actually $.0016 / $.0028 per shot.
Thats a thousand times cheaper. Wow, those lithium batteries really are a deal!
The interesting thing is that the test appeared to assume that you would recharge the rechargables one time, and then throw away both the charger and the batteries. If you factor in that the rechardables are actually able to be reused, the price drops a lot.
Note that they do NOT factor in the cost of the electricity to charge the batteries.
Rick, your numbers are the same as my numbers.
"the metric most often offered as a performance indicator (mA) is hype, like megapixels and megahertz."
With respect, that's nonsense. mAh (note the 'h', for hours) is THE metric for battery capacity. Saying that it's not is like saying that metres is a poor metric for length. Moreover most, if not all, battery manufacturers quote mAh figures to IEC/ANSI standards making the figures comparable between manufacturers.
However, you should look at the full ANSI/IEC test results from the manufacturer and interpret them for your application before coming to any conclusions about which battery in the best in your application. The case in point is a classic example; the headline "Lithium AA batteries are a better deal than cheap alkalines" omits the qualification "in a continuous digital photography application". There are many examples where alkaline primary batteries will perform more economically than lithium primary cells and vice versa.
Rob,
My bad (math).
Rick
re: battery disposal...both lithium and alkaline batteries are classified by the U.S. Gummint as "non-hazardous waste". but lithium can be recycled.
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/batteries.php has more details and links.
Complete nonsense! Who on earth buys rechargeable batteries and doesn't recharge them? Those NiMH cells are good for between 300 and 500 charges.
This smells like a piece whose conclusion was predetermined, with the test adjusted to give the desired outcome.
My current favorites are the Hybrio rechargables. They don't self discharge, so you if you leave them in your camera for a month, they're still ready to go, unlike standard NiMH batteries. The Eneloop batteries are similar.
Chroma - I was just going to mention the Eneloops. The article completely missing these style of rechargeables is a big ommission on their part. I have at least a dozen in use, for Wiimotes, remotes, wireless keyboard, and anything else that takes AA or AAA batteries and sits around unused for long periods of time.
The 2100mAh NiMH batteries from Rayovac ('Hybrid') and Kodak ('Advanced Precharged') are the same as the Hybrios. They are also good for replacing alkalines in all sorts of low-drain stuff like remotes and clocks (you're supposed to replace clock batteries annually anyway; might as well recharge annually instead).
I agree that the review is heinously misleading. The dummy actually bought a separate charger for each set of batteries, instead of buying a nice $30 charger once like any halfway-seasoned amatuer would do.
Granted, we are all supposed to buy and like disposables better, especially those batteries in our music players and phones which "recharge" but won't be realistically replaceable in four years... turning the so-called "solid state" devices into junk.
Which is why I think the review's fatal flaw slipped past 'Gadget Guy' Rob: Gadget sites are largely about items that eschew standard-sized batteries, and these may be somewhat outside of his experience.
Yeah, the results sound funny. But that bit in the intro should not be taken lightly: the charger makes a HUGE difference in the battery. My old charger gradually ruined the batteries, but the new one (Maha C401) is a 4-channel, and not only does an amazing job charging, but resurrected a set that were so bad that some had reversed voltage.
Those are in my remotes now and last for several months, despite the fact that sitting around is *supposed* to be what NiMH's are bad at.
there is no site for battery reviews beyond Dan's Data...