Digital Photography Now - www.dpnow.com  
 
advertisements
   

Go Back   DPNow.com Discussion Forum > Blogs > Ramblings of a Starving Photographer

An occasional series expressing some of my own thoughts and opinions on aspects of digital photography
Rate this Entry

Is Canon ripping us off?

Submit "Is Canon ripping us off?" to Digg Submit "Is Canon ripping us off?" to del.icio.us Submit "Is Canon ripping us off?" to StumbleUpon Submit "Is Canon ripping us off?" to Google
Posted 30-06-10 at 02:46 PM by Stephen

Having recently bought a new Canon dSLR, I decided to look into getting myself a second battery. It's the LP-E6, yet another variation requiring its own charger It seems that the RRP is 74.99 but I can get one from Amazon for 58.40, still not so cheap I'm sure you will agree.

No problem I thought, I'll get a non Canon version at a fraction of the price, as I've always done, and never had a problem with them. Amazon have them for 8. I then discover that firstly, though they work in the camera, the camera does not recognise them and therefore the battery level indicator does not work. Secondly they require a separate charger as the Canon one supplied with the camera will not charge them.

So, what's the deal, do I buy a genuine Canon battery, or the much cheaper copy version and separate charger. I'm not too sure, but I wonder why Canon seem to have started doing this. Is it simply a case of making more money out of us, or is there a genuine reason. I somehow doubt it, and it puts me in mind of ink cartridges from Epson, Canon etc which are far more expensive. In this instance I have always stuck with the manufacturers own brand. Batteries though, it seems to me are a different matter and including a chip in them that allows the camera and charger to recognise them smacks a little of sharp practice. Yeah, I know the arguments about R&D costs etc., but it still wrankles with me

But wait, as I type, I may have found a solution. Amazon appear to have another battery that has been decoded and is fully compatible, and doesn't need a separate charger. Maybe at 25 I might just go for it.
Total Comments 3

Comments

  1. Old Comment
    Ian's Avatar
    Sony and, not photography-related, Apple, have had battery issues that were apparently potentially dangerous, but these were with their own batteries, not third party ones. I suppose that if you can't trust your own batteries, how can you trust third party ones Panasonic, too, has incorporated third party battery blocking in its latest camera firmware updates.
    Posted 30-06-10 at 03:54 PM by Ian Ian is offline
  2. Old Comment
    devilgas's Avatar
    short answer - yes

    i can't see any advantage to the consumer for adding in these blocking measures. a battery supplies a voltage. they don't suffer from viruses etc, so why add a non-canon block?
    if i had to buy same manufacturer only batteries instead of the greys available on places like 7dayshop, i'd have spent a not inconsiderable sum in the process.

    proprietary stuff such as this is enough to make me look elsewhere. i now usually check the availability of grey alternatives before buying a camera so i can factor the additional cost into my decision - for the underwater cameras we need 3 per camera....1 in use, 1 charging, 1 waiting to go. at the cited 75 a pop, that's an un-realistic additional expense.
    Posted 30-06-10 at 04:13 PM by devilgas devilgas is offline
  3. Old Comment
    Stephen's Avatar
    By means of a followup to this, I took delivery of the new battery a couple of days ago. Bought through one of the Amazon dealers it arrived very quickly. It cost 24.99 and charges using the Canon charger and is recognised by the camera. So, though its a bit more expensive than some, I feel its totally compatible with the camera, which somehow makes me feel better.
    Posted 04-07-10 at 06:34 PM by Stephen Stephen is offline
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:45 PM.


Digital Photography Now, 2001-2012, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger