Battery Shootout page updated! (UPDATED)
By
Dave Etchells
(Friday, July 25, 2003 - 18:03 EDT)
After way too long an interval, I've once again updated my "Battery Shootout" page, this time adding new or updated results for no less than 9 different manufacturer/capacity combinations.
The new champs are Maha's PowerEx 2200s, but as noted in the article, I'm a little hesitant to proclaim that particular result too strongly as it's based on results from a single set of cells. I'm hoping to test more samples of the Powerex 2200s soon, will update the page as soon as I have that data to include. The good news though, is that top-rated 2100 mAh cells from Sanyo and Uniross tested very good as well, so there are a number of excellent power solutions out there now for AA-powered digicams.
As is the way with such things, just as I finally manage to get the results of various 2100 and 2200 mAh units posted, several makers have begun shipping "2300" models. I'll try to get another update done a bit more quickly this time, but please note the following: - These tests take a lot of calendar time to execute, as my test protocol involves trickle-charging for at least 24 hours, to "top off" the cells, and I've found that I need to run a minimum of 10 cycles on several sets of cells to get numbers I can be confident in. So it takes a minimum of a couple of weeks to turn around results on any particular new cell, if there are no interruptions.
- This is more or less a hobby-level thing for me, as the battery page doesn't generate any support for the site, so it's a catch-as-catch-can sort of thing, perpetually taking a back seat to the ongoing flood of digicam review work.
All this just to say please don't start emailing me next week, asking when the next update will be posted. Best-case, it's likely to be at least 6 weeks, probably longer. Meanwhile though, there's now 9 more battery types listed, so check it out!
UPDATED 2003-07-29 17:33ET Thanks to Robert Niesen for catching the fact that we missed linking to the article in question. That has now been corrected...
|
