Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

jbernie

macrumors 6502a
Nov 25, 2005
927
12
Denver, CO
Many people use non OEM batteries without an issue, most likely you will not experience an issue either. The moment you do have an issue though and Canon can prove use of a non OEM battery then you could potentially lose the warranty coverage.

$20 for a knock off, $45 for an original and peace of mind (ie it is Canon's issue either way!). Why spend your hard earned money on a camera and then power it with a cheap battery?

When I got my Canon battery grip for my Canon 40D I bought an additional Canon battery. I'm not in a position where I can afford to just buy a new camera anytime a cheap battery messes it up.
 

stagi

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2006
1,125
0
I have used a few non canon batteries and always have worked perfect. Not sure about the warranty coverage issue jbernie mentioned but no complaints from me.
 

H2Ockey

macrumors regular
Aug 25, 2008
216
0
No comments about Canon batteries, but I have some varying experiences with P&S extra batteries of various sorts. Most recently a Pentax camers, the off brand battery seemed to outlast and give better performance than the original, a nikon for an old coolpix 5000 (not p5000) and the off brand was absolute crap with 1/2 the life of the Nikon battery. A battery for a Sony P&S didn't seem to be any different than the one that came with the camera in any way.
I think you may be rolling the dice some and can get a lemon occcasionally, but for the most part should be ok. Not sure about the warranty thing, as battery packs take AA batteries and they obviously aren't from the camera manufacturer.
 

Kebabselector

macrumors 68030
May 25, 2007
2,990
1,641
Birmingham, UK
I can't afford to just buy a new camera anytime a cheap battery messes it up.

Once I see evidence of a cheap battery damaging a camera I'll the cheap brands. As DSLR batteries are generally not charged in the camera you avoid most of the issues with batteries.

Until then I'm happy to $20 for 2 5D batteries. I have 6 batteries, 2 OEM, 4 cheapo ones, they are all fine.
 

jampat

macrumors 6502a
Mar 17, 2008
682
0
Thanks for the input. I've decided to get the cheapo one for now. Another question: can I use the cheapo battery with the Canon charger?

Assuming the cheapo is properly made, it will work with the camera and charger.

I had a pair of cheap batteries for my 20D, they got ~100 pics per charge vs ~ 800 with real batteries. They are now chucked.
 

Kebabselector

macrumors 68030
May 25, 2007
2,990
1,641
Birmingham, UK
I had a pair of cheap batteries for my 20D, they got ~100 pics per charge vs ~ 800 with real batteries. They are now chucked.

Sounds like you had a rubbish set. The cheapo ones I have last longer than the OEM Canon ones (higher mah rating so I expected they would).
 

jampat

macrumors 6502a
Mar 17, 2008
682
0
Sounds like you had a rubbish set. The cheapo ones I have last longer than the OEM Canon ones (higher mah rating so I expected they would).

The mAh rating on the cheapo batteries was higher than OEM batteries. If you are going to produce rubbish batteries, whose to stop you from lying on the sticker too. My batteries were significantly lighter than OEM.

I am not saying all cheapo batteries suck, I know good ones exist, but just make sure that the batteries you buy are cheap enough that if you get a garbage set, you can buy a second set (and hope for better performance) for a total less than OEM price.
 

gnd

macrumors 6502a
Jun 2, 2008
568
17
At my cat's house
For my camera I have one original battery and two cheap ones. The two cheap ones have a slightly higher mAh rating than the original one. So far I haven't noticed any difference in performance, hot or cold weather. They all give me pretty much the same number of shots.
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
The cells in the cheapos often don't meet the quality assurance standards of name-brand manufacturers- so the battery makers sell them on the cheap market rather than losing out entirely. It's hit or miss as to why they didn't meet QA standards, or if it was just a particularly good production run. If you remember all the exploding laptop batteries, you have to really wonder if those DID pass QA, do you really want to go with a cell that potentially didn't? There have been lots of battery issues with 3rd party cheapo batteries, which is why Nikon and Canon won't cover warranty issues when you use them if your camera gets fried.
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
Where? what cameras? I guess it mostly compacts that charge with the battery inside.

All over, with Nikon and Canons- It prompted Nikon to issue a statement at one point because it was prevalent enough and the 3rd party folks were counterfeiting Nikon's batteries- it seemed to peak about the time that this was released:

http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8119

Imitation products may not be equipped with safety mechanisms such as the built in protection device. When these imitation products are used or charged, camera performance may be sacrificed, or the products may be the cause of fire or explosion due to the generation of extreme heat or leakage. In the worst cases, people may be burned or otherwise injured, and of course cameras or battery chargers may be damaged.

At the time, I remember reading an engineer's discussion of the matching of cells in a Lithium ION battery and the 3rd party's usage of cells that failed QA and/or didn't match. At that point, I put it in the "Golfing in a thunderstorm" category- thousands of people do it every year- and for most of them it's just been mildly inconveniencing to get wet- but a 5% of deaths from lightning every year in the US happen on golf courses- despite a heavy USGA campaign against it- when they sound the horn, I'm heading in to the clubhouse because it's not worth the risk to me, even though the *odds* are on my side.

As well as potential damage, many 3rd party batteries die sooner than the manufacturer's ones- let's say you get 5 years out of a battery, and the price difference is $20- is the risk worth $4/year for "insurance?" Not to me.
 

jbernie

macrumors 6502a
Nov 25, 2005
927
12
Denver, CO
So you have to be very unlucky, but it is possible for something bad to happen?

Correct, if you do some research you will probably find a small number of brands that only seem to be well regarded and the rest will range from 50/50 success/failure to utter rubbish.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the lower end companies sell their batteries so cheap because when something goes wrong most people will just toss the bad battery and go get a new one as opposed to trying to do warranty returns as the cost of shipping exceeds the cost of the new battery etc.

Canon/Nikon/etc have a reputation to protect when it comes to their products and the quality of them.
 

ukuleleman

macrumors member
Jul 19, 2009
91
2
Its a no brainer in the UK

The last time I looked, a single Canon original battery for my 5D was £50.00, my 'Sterlingtechs' cost about £11.00 each and I have two for each of my cameras (5D & 400D) the 400D's are cheaper, but let's say £44.00 for the lot as opposed to something like £170.00 for Canons.

I have never had a problem with non Canon batteries (let's not call them cheapos, let's call the Canons 'Expensivos'.) and I have never heard of a camera being damaged by one, if they fail they just die, they don't explode unless you burn them!

I'm saving £126.00 a throw, it's a non brainer.
 

Kebabselector

macrumors 68030
May 25, 2007
2,990
1,641
Birmingham, UK
I have never heard of a camera being damaged by one, if they fail they just die, they don't explode unless you burn them!

I'm saving £126.00 a throw, it's a non brainer.

Very true, seems the only evidence is from Camera OEM's and Camera shops. I've used a number of internet camera forums for many years, not heard of any yet.
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
I have never heard of a camera being damaged by one, if they fail they just die, they don't explode unless you burn them!

The basis of Nikon's warning about lack of protection circuits would seem to indicate damage has occurred. Explosion isn't the only failure mode, circuits can be killed by over- and under-driving them. Protection circuits aren't added to artificially inflate the prices, battery purchases are less-frequent than lens purchases and making them more expensive lowers the margins manufacturers can expect to obtain for them.

Apparently, LION cells in a pack need to be capacity-matched to within 3% to not result in premature failure- fortunately that's just "it doesn't hold charge anymore" not "it killed my camera." At 3% mismatch, the soft shorts can cause a ~40% loss of capacity after a year.

Here's what Jessica said in a thread in Jul of '07 here on Mac Rumors:

This is correct, however I have first hand use and damage caused by going the so-called cheaper route. Needing an extra three batteries I bought three 3rd party that guaranteed they would work. They did. They charged and powered the camera. They also fried something that prevented me from being able to use my LCD screen. It looked like I dropped the camera. Nikon repair said it was the battery. They could have been full of ****, but frankly the only thing I did was use those batteries and it happened the first time I put the battery in after shooting about 50 photos.

So, there's at least one first-hand report here, and it sounds like the lack of a functioning protection circuit or lack of power regulation circuitry to me. Lithium-Ion battery packs aren't just a simple unit like an alkaline cell.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.