OK, I have a 700 & a 300 + D2x, I have grips for the 300/700 + EN-EL4a
Well I stuck the D2x's EN-EL4 in the grip on the 300 first then the 700 and they both still shot a 8fps, I tried this a 1/2 dozen times and it worked every time.
Whats up?
Isn't it suppose to work only with the EN-EL4a?
Yes both D700 and D300 are capable of 8fps without the grip. Nikon has disabled via firmware when the en-el3e batteries are used. Presumably shooting at 8fps puts additional stress on the battery, and perhaps has negative impact on the longevity of en-el3e?
If you don't have an existing D3 or D2 series camera, the economics of upgrading a D700 to achieve high frame rates with the grip + en-el4a is marginal, because Nikon charges like wounded bulls for the batteries, the charger etc. If you like the balance of a camera with grip and want high FPS, then it is better to go for a D3 IMO.
I would also guess that it places an additional stress on the camera itself. the only difference between the 3e batteries and the 4-series batteries is the voltage, with the 3e providing 7.4 V and the four-series batteries providing 11.1 V. I'm guessing, although I don't know for sure, that using the higher frame rate on the lower voltage may eventually damage the camera in a similar way as low-voltage "brownouts" can damage home appliances.
Chips love voltage, they're addicted to it much like people can get addicted to drugs. The more they get, the happier they are, until they overheat. Higher voltages (setting aside thermal constraints), allow micro processors to run at higher frequencies, enabling them to push more data through in a given period of time.
I find that using AA batteries is the best option. Costs me 2 bucks for a hockey game to get 8fps...I use either one load or two loads of AAs that i buy in bulk from Costco. That's what I think is the best way to get 8FPS because you don;t have to get a charger or anything and you can buy replacements anywhere.
Having 3 bodies that take the same battery...priceless! D3/D700 & D300 gripped, all enjoy the long life EN-EL4a
I carry one spare and have never needed it. Wasting 8 AA's every time you shoot is irresponsible. At least use rechargeables
100,000 clicks combined (4) EN-EL4a batts: 2 showing (0) 2 showing (1) Key: Run 'em down to <20% before recharging.
It's like the green thing, man...good karma!
skyvan wrote:
I find that using AA batteries is the best option. Costs me 2 bucks for a hockey game to get 8fps...I use either one load or two loads of AAs that i buy in bulk from Costco. That's what I think is the best way to get 8FPS because you don;t have to get a charger or anything and you can buy replacements anywhere.
It does seem that way. But assuming you use them pretty frequently, then over time, it's not just the most expensive way, it also generates by far the greatest amount of toxic waste (even assuming that you dispose of them properly, which 98% of people don't). Here's the math:
16 Energizer 2650mAH rechargeables (two loads for your grip) will cost you about $45-$48 (we'll say $48 to be conservative). You need a really good charger to get the most benefit from the rechargeable batteries, not the crap 15-minute chargers they give you; so add another $90 for a MAHA 8-cell charger with individual circuits. That's $138 as an initial investment. I'll even throw in $0.50 per week for electricity to recharge them, although that's probably grossly overstated. Initial investment $138, weekly recurring cost $0.50. If a 20-pack of Duracells goes for $6 at Costco, then your initial investment to start is really zero and you're consuming $4.80 in AA batteries every week.
Not too complicated once you've got this far. The rechargeables save you $4.30 every week, so you'll break even on your initial investment in just 30 weeks. After a year, the alkalines have cost you $250 (actually $249.60, but don't nitpick me) and the rechargeables are barely at $164.
Your initial $138 investment has generated $86 in profit during the first year: a 62% return on investment. Where I come from, that's pretty damn good. And every year after that, the rechargeables cost you $26 per year in electricity while the alkalines cost you $250. Save $224 per year, get a return on investment of 162%.
Rechargeable NiMH batteries should last 600-700 cycles, but let's say 500 which is about 10 years. Total savings: over $2,100. And at the end you get to recycle 16 batteries, instead of eight thousand, three hundred and twenty (8,320) alkalines. Even assuming you dispose of them properly, that's economically suicidal and environmentally disastrous. And of course, 98% of people just throw them away and put poison in their landfills.
I'm sorry... I fail to see any valid points in your "cheapest and best" reasoning for alkalines.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
It does seem that way. But assuming you use them pretty frequently, then over time, it's not just the most expensive way, it also generates by far the greatest amount of toxic waste (even assuming that you dispose of them properly, which 98% of people don't). Here's the math:
16 Energizer 2650mAH rechargeables (two loads for your grip) will cost you about $45-$48 (we'll say $48 to be conservative). You need a really good charger to get the most benefit from the rechargeable batteries, not the crap 15-minute chargers they give you; so add another $90 for a MAHA 8-cell charger with individual circuits. That's $138 as an initial investment. I'll even throw in $0.50 per week for electricity to recharge them, although that's probably grossly overstated. Initial investment $138, weekly recurring cost $0.50. If a 20-pack of Duracells goes for $6 at Costco, then your initial investment to start is really zero and you're consuming $4.80 in AA batteries every week.
Not too complicated once you've got this far. The rechargeables save you $4.30 every week, so you'll break even on your initial investment in just 30 weeks. After a year, the alkalines have cost you $250 (actually $249.60, but don't nitpick me) and the rechargeables are barely at $164.
Your initial $138 investment has generated $86 in profit during the first year: a 62% return on investment. Where I come from, that's pretty damn good. And every year after that, the rechargeables cost you $26 per year in electricity while the alkalines cost you $250. Save $224 per year, get a return on investment of 162%.
Rechargeable NiMH batteries should last 600-700 cycles, but let's say 500 which is about 10 years. Total savings: over $2,100. And at the end you get to recycle 16 batteries, instead of eight thousand, three hundred and twenty (8,320) alkalines. Even assuming you dispose of them properly, that's economically suicidal and environmentally disastrous. And of course, 98% of people just throw them away and put poison in their landfills.
I'm sorry... I fail to see any valid points in your "cheapest and best" reasoning for alkalines....Show more →
Very Impressive Rodolfo!
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
It does seem that way. But assuming you use them pretty frequently, then over time, it's not just the most expensive way, it also generates by far the greatest amount of toxic waste (even assuming that you dispose of them properly, which 98% of people don't). Here's the math:
16 Energizer 2650mAH rechargeables (two loads for your grip) will cost you about $45-$48 (we'll say $48 to be conservative). You need a really good charger to get the most benefit from the rechargeable batteries, not the crap 15-minute chargers they give you; so add another $90 for a MAHA 8-cell charger with individual circuits. That's $138 as an initial investment. I'll even throw in $0.50 per week for electricity to recharge them, although that's probably grossly overstated. Initial investment $138, weekly recurring cost $0.50. If a 20-pack of Duracells goes for $6 at Costco, then your initial investment to start is really zero and you're consuming $4.80 in AA batteries every week.
Not too complicated once you've got this far. The rechargeables save you $4.30 every week, so you'll break even on your initial investment in just 30 weeks. After a year, the alkalines have cost you $250 (actually $249.60, but don't nitpick me) and the rechargeables are barely at $164.
Your initial $138 investment has generated $86 in profit during the first year: a 62% return on investment. Where I come from, that's pretty damn good. And every year after that, the rechargeables cost you $26 per year in electricity while the alkalines cost you $250. Save $224 per year, get a return on investment of 162%.
Rechargeable NiMH batteries should last 600-700 cycles, but let's say 500 which is about 10 years. Total savings: over $2,100. And at the end you get to recycle 16 batteries, instead of eight thousand, three hundred and twenty (8,320) alkalines. Even assuming you dispose of them properly, that's economically suicidal and environmentally disastrous. And of course, 98% of people just throw them away and put poison in their landfills.
I'm sorry... I fail to see any valid points in your "cheapest and best" reasoning for alkalines....Show more →
Wow, what a smackdown! Nicely laid out arguments Rodolfo
Anyway, I think if you have other camera bodies that use the EN-EL4/4a, then that's the best route to go.
In reply to Rodolfo. I can get my batteries for approximately 20 cents a piece...or if I buy them in greater bulk 12 cents. Additionally this way I don't have to charge them. If you look at how often you'd need to change rechargables it would mean I only have enough for 1 event a day unless I had a chance to recharge in between. Most Saturdays i shoot two events if there is a hockey game that evening and therefore I'm going through maybe 24 batteries. Additionally from what i understand the rechargables don't last as long as regular alkalines so that would require say 36 recharagables and multiple chargers. I don't want to carry multiple chargers or have to remember to recharge everything every time. For me it just makes a lot more sense to use regular AAs. If I'm not in need of the burst i simply switch out the AAs for an extra EN-EL3e which is what both my bodies use as primary batteries so I don't waste the AA batteries unless I need to. I'm also assuming that within a year I will be upgrading my D90 to a D300 or D300s which means at that point i'd have two bodies that take EN-EL4s in the grip and then i would switch, so I plan to use the AA batteries for now. It may not make environmental sense but it makes sense for me to use disposable alkaline AAs, as I fully expect that within 6 months to a year i'll be upgrading my D90 and will be switching to EN-EL4s and at that point I'll invest in those but now I dont have the budget to throw 200 bucks towards one battery and a charger.
Alkalines (even at 10 cents) are insanely more expensive than rechargeables. Again, even without considering the ecological train wreck they represent. And the more you shoot, the more money you're throwing away. Simple business economics. The more profit, the better, no?
Good rechargeables last longer than alkalines, not less. It's a popular myth, and you've heard it in a lot of places because a lot of people say it... but it just ain't true. Eight Energizer 2650 mAh batteries in a D300, using either a 70-200 VR or a 200-400 VR, for airshows with a lot of VR and a fair amount of chimping, gave me a consistent 5,500 images per charge... about the same as an EN-EL4a. And lots of others on FM can confirm similar performance. Which happens to also challenge the "I need 16 batteries per day" belief. Unless you consistently shoot over 10,000 images a day, you may only need one set per day, therefore two sets (maybe three) total. Two hours to recharge each set (you do sleep, don't you?), and a whopping $20 bucks extra investment.
Finally, if you do upgrade to cameras that use -4a batteries... so what? You have remote controls in your house, don't you? Other stuff that uses AA/AAA batteries? Tons of money you could be saving there too. My house now has nearly 60 AA/AAA batteries in use all around, including remotes, kids' toys, and other things. I shudder to think of the money I'd be spending.
Look, you're welcome to do anything you want. Seriously... all I ask is that you dispose of the AA batteries in accordance with local laws on the handling of toxic waste. That's it... just don't poison your family and the rest of us. Apart from that, buy and use whatever you want and whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to tell me it's cheaper, lasts longer, and works better. Because that pig don't fly.
