It seems that there is much controversy regarding the NiMH vs. NiCad issue.
I found the link below which shows side by side comparison of running motion
picture camera systems from equal setups of the two battery types. These
systems include video camera, transmitter, monitor and film camera. Under hi
drain application, NiMH gave no indication of its impending death. They
perform very well at providing steady service to hi capacitance applications
for the duration of their life. NiCads give out with a little more warning.
There is a more sloped voltage drop at life's end, allowing equipment to
monitor and provide a low voltage warning prior to drop off.
Those of you who have used both, say for electronic flash- do you notice
that the NiMH recharge at about equal time throughout their life and then
just stop? Do you notice that the NiCads provide continuous service and then
sssslllloooooowwww ddooooowwwwnnn?
I'm looking to buy, but I am not sure which way to go. I've had NiCads
before, but they didn't seem to last. Cost aside, I'd like to get a handle
on:
1. shelf life when charged
2. which lasts longer, assuming equal mh per cell
3. recharge time
4. number of battery charge cycles in a lifetime
5. memory effect
6. tolerance of over charge
7. tolerance of infrequent use
8. do they both load the electronic flash capacitor at the same rate
9. safety (oly 600dl specifically recommends against NiMH due to heat
concerns)
http://www.xcsinc.com/ult_batcmp.html
Any thoughts on the above which hasn't already been shared would be
appreciated.
Mickey
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|