canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: Canon Rumors on December 12, 2013, 09:09:41 AM

Title: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Canon Rumors on December 12, 2013, 09:09:41 AM

Tech Support

The story below has some good information in regards to the EOS 5D Mark III and some third party batteries. Not all of them are created equal, and a few companies will support you in making sure you get batteries that are 100% compatible.


Says Jon

When Canon upgraded the firmware of the 5D Mark III to 1.2.2/1.2.3 they killed some of the functionality of aftermarket batteries.



My contact at Canon explained this was an effort to cut out counterfeit batteries claiming to be Canon batteries. I explained to him the 3rd party batteries I used were clearly NOT labeled Canon and in addition contained a chip to allow it to communicate properly.  My contact explained that Canon would probably never make a change backwards on this situation.


Third party battery error messages.

Third party battery error messages.


Solution

Jon contacted the vendor that makes the batteries he likes: Maxtek/YoKool, they advised him that they now have a new battery that is 100% compatible to the new firmware. The new batteries he got directly from them do not have the communications issue and they will register with the camera.


Maxtek/YoKool only sells these batteries through Amazon. Maxtek/YoKool advises at least for the moment (until Amazon stocks reduce and have the new batteries) to make sure to order the batteries directly from them, not use the Amazon fulfilled link:  See the correct batteries here.


cr


Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: bchernicoff on December 12, 2013, 09:20:36 AM
"My contact at Canon explained this was an effort to cut out counterfeit batteries claiming to be Canon batteries."

If that is the case, then they have failed and should remove this test from the firmware. 3rd party manufacturers have already defeated the check making it only a hassle for owners who have older off-brand batteries. Of course they won't because that was their intent...trying to annoy people to only buy Canon batteries.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Etienne on December 12, 2013, 09:58:10 AM
The article says don't buy from Amazon yet, but the link goes to Amazon. How do you ensure you get the new batteries?
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: EchoLocation on December 12, 2013, 10:04:12 AM
who's downloading the new 7D firmware to see if the same kind of thing will happen to them?
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: JonAustin on December 12, 2013, 10:06:11 AM
The article says don't buy from Amazon yet, but the link goes to Amazon. How do you ensure you get the new batteries?

If you click the link, you'll see that the only vendor selling (fulfilling) this battery on Amazon (as of 12/12/2013 at 9:00am CST) is YoKool. And, as Jon says in his review on the same page, "for right now (Dec 2013) you should order directly from YoKool via Amazon to get the updated batteries."
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: captainkanji on December 12, 2013, 10:07:20 AM
The Canon 6D has been doing this since it was launched.  The 6D charger doesn't charge any of my 3rd party batteries either.  I can live with it since the batteries work fine once I select 'OK'.  No way I'm paying $100 for a battery.  That disturbs me that they would 'downgrade' the 5dIII this way.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Etienne on December 12, 2013, 10:09:49 AM
The article says don't buy from Amazon yet, but the link goes to Amazon. How do you ensure you get the new batteries?

If you click the link, you'll see that the only vendor selling (fulfilling) this battery on Amazon (as of 12/12/2013 at 9:00am CST) is YoKool. And, as Jon says in his review on the same page, "for right now (Dec 2013) you should order directly from YoKool via Amazon to get the updated batteries."

Thanks!
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: noncho on December 12, 2013, 10:20:21 AM
Don't try little tricks Canon - just make your batteries more affordable. LP-E6 is old enough, if you sell it for 25-30$ nobody will think about 3rd parties and your profit will be very good.
Sometimes I'm wondering what marketing specialists do they have...
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: JPAZ on December 12, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
No offense or insult intended, but who is "Jon" on Amazon 's review and how reliable is this only single review?  I would like to see others report success with this battery before I get any.  And, of course, Canon may issue a firmware update in the future that with eliminate communication with these newer non-Canon batteries. 
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: WPJ on December 12, 2013, 10:31:37 AM
Don't try little tricks Canon - just make your batteries more affordable. LP-E6 is old enough, if you sell it for 25-30$ nobody will think about 3rd parties and your profit will be very good.
Sometimes I'm wondering what marketing specialists do they have...

I agree even if it was 30-40, it would force out the third parties, hell canon probably uses them half the time to make there oem batteries anyways. 

I have no issues buying canon batteries, as long as they are affordable. 

I got my first backup batter with an7D kit, it included a battery canon oem, a upgraded strap optech USA with canon logo and a lowepro bag aw180 I think.

I only bought it fir the battery, it was 50 on sale for the kit, the battery alone was 120.  WTF...
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: jthomson on December 12, 2013, 10:35:06 AM
I've got two batteries  that worked fine before the firmware upgrade, they still work fine but you have to OK them.  I also have two wasabi's that I purchased several months after the "upgrade" and they register normally.
Canon's playing a losing game.  The third party vendors adjusted quickly to  Canon's change.

The total cost of the four third party batteries was less than the cost for one genuine Canon.     
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Brymills on December 12, 2013, 10:40:03 AM
They do have a valid point about protecting their customers from poor quality counterfeits.  There's a story going round in cycling world this week about Specialized pulling up a bike shop called Cafe Roubaix, Roubaix being a name used by Specialized.  One of the issues Specialized has had to deal with was when they had a bike returned after it snapped causing significant injuries to the rider, only to find that the bike itself was a counterfeit.  Since then they've paid a law firm to track down counterfeiters - the Cafe Roubaix owner got caught up in the cross fire a bit.  As long as Canon continues to allow you to use a 3rd party battery, after clicking 'OK' to continue I'm fine with it.  They're warning you that your camera might get fried - but leaving it up to you to make the decision.  I still use a 3rd party battery as a spare, but use the original Canon as my primary battery.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: awinphoto on December 12, 2013, 10:41:32 AM
From my experience, i have tested many 3rd party batteries on many cameras from the BP-511's to the latest 7D,5d3 batteries and most 3rd party batteries, while good for the first or second cycle, tend to lose memory quickly and it's charge capabilities are severely diminished.  Some of the 3rd party BP-511's i tested on a full charge, after a few charge cycles only could support 50 or so photos with occasional chimping...  The newer batteries were not as bad, but still i have not found batteries that hold a charge better than the OEM's so I have resigned myself to stick with OEM's...  It does not surprise me a bit that canon made their changes to help discourage 3rd party batteries.  Not saying what they did was right, but it's practical. 
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Schruminator on December 12, 2013, 10:54:34 AM
In my 7D and 5DIII I've used a number of 3rd party batteries without any issues. I had one that refused to charge after a year or so-- but up until then it worked great-- and for something like $10 I can't complain.

One thing I have noticed on my 5DIII is that the camera pops up a message saying there are "communication errors" (or something similar) when I pop in my 3rd party battery and the battery meter is not functional. But later during the shoot I'll notice that the battery meter is working just fine and is accurately reading the battery. I'm not sure if it is just my camera or what, but it's a pretty minor annoyance I can deal with for saving $70 a battery.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: TrabimanUK on December 12, 2013, 11:09:55 AM
I have the same problem with some (older) 3rd party batteries on my 60D and 7D, though not necessarily all the time.  I just accept that it can't read the battery level and take a sensible number of shots before changing them and checking their charge later on a charger.  I use a Hahnel Twin V Pro charger, and that charges the 3rd party and original canon fine and gives a % charged indication.

Yes, it's inconvenient not knowing how much battery life you have, but it's not the end of the world.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Skirball on December 12, 2013, 11:31:33 AM
They do have a valid point about protecting their customers from poor quality counterfeits.  There's a story going round in cycling world this week about Specialized pulling up a bike shop called Cafe Roubaix, Roubaix being a name used by Specialized.  One of the issues Specialized has had to deal with was when they had a bike returned after it snapped causing significant injuries to the rider, only to find that the bike itself was a counterfeit.  Since then they've paid a law firm to track down counterfeiters - the Cafe Roubaix owner got caught up in the cross fire a bit.  As long as Canon continues to allow you to use a 3rd party battery, after clicking 'OK' to continue I'm fine with it.  They're warning you that your camera might get fried - but leaving it up to you to make the decision.  I still use a 3rd party battery as a spare, but use the original Canon as my primary battery.

There’s a big difference between third party components that are labeled as such, and plain out selling counterfeit wares.  Especially when your counterfeit is replacing an expensive process like carbon fiber manufacturing with a cheaper and inferior process, and when that has safety concerns.  Lithium Ion battery technology isn’t exactly rocket science, Canon just puts an over-inflated premium on theirs to milk some more money out of consumers.  Third party component manufacturing is a legitimate business model and helps keep manufactures honest (less dis-honest?).  If the quality of the product manufacturers components truly are better,  or the price is marginally more, people will buy them because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling to see that name brand printed on the side.  You only need these kind of tactics when you’re trying to force people to buy your overpriced product.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Rat on December 12, 2013, 11:51:44 AM
No offense or insult intended, but who is "Jon" on Amazon 's review and how reliable is this only single review?  I would like to see others report success with this battery before I get any.

I'm less inclined to be nice. I read this article as an advertisement for this particular seller and his particular batteries. I strongly doubt these are the only batteries to register correctly - Wasabi has been mentioned. Given that we just had another D&B T-shirt ad, I'm curious how much CR guy is making on this post. If nothing, it's terribly naive journalism.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dgatwood on December 12, 2013, 12:01:30 PM
They do have a valid point about protecting their customers from poor quality counterfeits.

No, not really.  Not like this.  Their anti-counterfeiting technology is unreliable, and sporadically fails even for the Canon-branded batteries that come with the cameras.  And it does nothing to deter other companies from building batteries, and does nothing to deter customers from buying them, because even if they have to replace all of their batteries, they would still pay less than they would for Canon-branded batteries.  Besides, those batteries are eventually going to fail no matter what.  As long as the users don't update their cameras' firmware too frequently, odds are good that they'll be ready for new batteries by the time they have to replace them anyway.

In other words, Canon's approach is completely ineffectual as a measure for preventing people from choosing third-party batteries.  These "safety" checks do nothing but piss off Canon's paying customers—people who spent thousands of dollars on Canon camera gear.  And why?  Because they dared to save a few bucks on a disposable, consumable commodity.

The way Canon is playing the game is like Ford deciding to regulating car tire safety by having police officers randomly confiscate non-OEM tires, or legitimate tires if they can't clearly make out the certificate of authenticity printed on the side, leaving the drivers on the side of the road with a non-drivable car.  Nobody sane would ever buy a Ford automobile if they did this, and lots of us are actively boycotting several printer manufacturers for such dirty tricks.  So why are people so willing to tolerate this abuse from a camera manufacturer?

If Canon actually cared about protecting customers from poor quality counterfeits, they would simply license access to their platform.  License access to their battery protocol and the chips required to support it.  License access to their lens protocol.  And so on.  Mandate compliance checks by Canon prior to first sale as part of the licensing requirements.  And make the licensing costs low enough per unit to ensure that third-party manufacturers are universally willing to to "go legit".  That way, when Canon's paying customers buy a battery that works, they will have reasonable assurance that Canon actually vetted the product, that is safe, that it will not harm their camera, and that Canon promises not to deliberately break it.  That's what competent electronics manufacturers do when they want to ensure product compatibility and reliability.  By contrast, deliberately sabotaging people's ability to use their cameras with a particular battery is dirty, it's sleazy, and whatever Canon exec approved it should be thrown out on his or her @$$.

Just saying.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: airfxca on December 12, 2013, 12:03:27 PM
i have not heard of anyone that have damaged their 5dmk2 with third party batteries

but with my experience... when i was filming with my 5dmk2 i would not use third party batteries as their higher voltage would HEAT up the camera much faster.
and on my 60D i'm experiencing slower FPS in continuous shooting mode with third party batteries.

however i do not know if these issues would affect the the newer cameras


PS. sony NEX camera have no drop in FPS and heat issues when used with third party batteries, they have the same voltage rating as sony batteries
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Rockets95 on December 12, 2013, 12:13:20 PM
The third party manufacturer's reverse engineer their stuff to work with Canon's equipment. IMO, it's not up to Canon keep the third party guys happy. I've got nothing someone trying to save a few dollars, but you're taking a chance.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: unfocused on December 12, 2013, 12:17:22 PM
No offense or insult intended, but who is "Jon" on Amazon 's review and how reliable is this only single review?  I would like to see others report success with this battery before I get any.  And, of course, Canon may issue a firmware update in the future that with eliminate communication with these newer non-Canon batteries.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out who the heck "Jon" is as well. Is it the same "Jon"as the guy on Amazon or is this another "Jon." And, where's the full story? Is this a CR0 or a CR1 story?
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: WPJ on December 12, 2013, 12:19:03 PM
How are you taking a chance if you buy a battery from a good company you should be fine.  Now the cheap 5$ china version I would not touch.

this however would be solved is canon charges a normal fee and,not 5 times what the battery is worth.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: kphoto99 on December 12, 2013, 12:28:18 PM
Next step for Canon is to make sure that the SD/CF card is manufactured by Canon. After all the other brands can damage the camera.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: WPJ on December 12, 2013, 12:32:22 PM
Next step for Canon is to make sure that the SD/CF card is manufactured by Canon. After all the other brands can damage the camera.

after that, you will have to ensure that there,is a canon logo in your exposure or it won't capture the raw file to the card. Hahaha
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 12:32:50 PM
I noticed this new phenomenon when I got my new 6D last year.  And I posted comments on it then.  In general, I pretty much agree with dgatwood.  Using an expensive piece of technology like a 5D3 to punish the buyer for choosing a 3rd party battery is sleazy and an abuse of the manufacturer's power.

I also feel like noncho has the best point about Canon simply making their OEM batteries more affordable to begin with.  That would solve everything.  (Hmm, Canon battery for $35 or cheap Chinese knock-off for $20?  Easy choice!)  Instead Canon has decided to spend more R&D time, money and lose customer good will over protecting what amounts to unfair profit in the first place.  And in the process, use of genuine batteries potentially is affected.  I had this same attitude in the 80's with VHS tape copy protection that didn't work and ruined the picture for everyone and then in the 90's when MP3 files started taking off and the record companies started suing teenagers for downloading MP3 files.  Really?  If the movie/music companies, (aka: the most greedy/sleazy entities on the planet) had simply made their movies/music more affordable from the beginning, no one would have wanted to go to all the trouble to copy or download inferior music files to get around the high cost.  As of today, they still haven't learned their lesson even after many have gone bankrupt trying to fight a losing battle.  And let's not forget how Apple treats people that try to circumvent their controls.  Anyone remember all the BRICKED IPHONES Apple intentionally damaged with an update back in 2007 when folks tried to jailbreak their phones?  Hope Canon doesn't try THAT!!  But I digress...

I agree slightly with the counterfeit protection excuse simply because there are many examples of true counterfeit Canon batteries out there that are almost perfect copies, cost more than established 3rd party batteries and are crap.  So I'm all for some kind of message that tells me it's not a true Canon battery but don't punish me by shutting off all the battery data exchange and/or crippling the camera performance.  That's just crappy.

Also, let's not forget that in 5+ years when Canon stops making these batteries or making them in enough quantity, you'll be stuck with 3rd party batteries as your only choice and won't that be lovely?

So in summary, Canon needs to stop with the battery gestapo crap, make their batteries more reasonably priced to begin with (thus solving the problem entirely) and just stick to making good cameras instead of trying to piss everyone off with stupid ideas they learned from the movie/music industry and Apple.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Skirball on December 12, 2013, 12:35:30 PM
IMO, it's not up to Canon keep the third party guys happy.

Agreed, it’s not, but this isn’t about keeping the third party guys happy, it’s about spending dollars researching (futile) ways to force them out of the game.  You could write up a laundry list of firm ware fixes that people would like to see, but when they finally getting around to pushing out a release what’s in it?  A speedbump for third party battery manufactures.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 12:38:41 PM
Next step for Canon is to make sure that the SD/CF card is manufactured by Canon. After all the other brands can damage the camera.

If Canon really cared about us as they say with their battery scheme in the firmware, they would add a feature to test the media card in camera for bad memory sectors and transfer rate.  Counterfeit memory is a big problem and Canon could help.  "Media Verify" would be a welcome feature to have a way to verify media anytime someone wanted to in the field.  But noooo, let's just focus on the possibility that a battery could cause trouble since that has been such a big problem for soooo many people over the past 10 years.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 12:42:05 PM
IMO, it's not up to Canon keep the third party guys happy.

Agreed, it’s not, but this isn’t about keeping the third party guys happy, it’s about spending dollars researching (futile) ways to force them out of the game.  You could write up a laundry list of firm ware fixes that people would like to see, but when they finally getting around to pushing out a release what’s in it?  A speedbump for third party battery manufactures.

Totally agree Skirball.  Exactly what I was thinking. Of all the things we want, need and Canon should feel obligated to address, this is what they focus on.  Pathetic.  Meanwhile, other things like having a red focus confirmation indicator in the viewfinder while in AiServo goes unchanged.  Thanks heaps Canon and Merry Christmas to you too.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Skirball on December 12, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
If the movie/music companies, (aka: the most greedy/sleazy entities on the planet) had simply made their movies/music more affordable from the beginning, no one would have wanted to go to all the trouble to copy or download inferior music files to get around the high cost. 

As much as I’d like to bash the record companies, I’m going to have to disagree.  People steal music because it’s free and easy.  People steal crap music that they’ll hardly listen to, because they can.  People steal music that they’ll hardly listen to, because like all their specialty lenses camera components that they hardly use, people get into collecting useless crap because they want to have a big collection they can tell people about.  People can definitely afford to buy the songs that they really enjoy listening to, but they don’t, because people don’t see it as stealing from these big bad record companies.

Cost doesn’t have much to do with it.  I see kids at Starbucks getting $5 coffees, on iPhones with unlimited data plans, driving fancy cars that they can afford to fill at $4 a gallon.  They can afford a $15 album or $1 song if they wanted, but why pay when you can just steal it for free.  Sorry to digress, but lets compare apples to apples.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Skirball on December 12, 2013, 12:47:22 PM
Next step for Canon is to make sure that the SD/CF card is manufactured by Canon. After all the other brands can damage the camera.

I was just going to say that.  What if Canon bought out Lexar and made it so only their cards worked.  Certainly people would have a problem with that?
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: unfocused on December 12, 2013, 12:59:15 PM
How are you taking a chance if you buy a battery from a good company you should be fine.  Now the cheap 5$ china version I would not touch.

This however would be solved is canon charges a normal fee and,not 5 times what the battery is worth.

Along the same lines. I have a Energizer battery in my 7D grip (along with a Canon). Works perfectly in tandem with the Canon as far as I can tell. I've got to think that Energizer has too much to lose to manufacture the battery without some agreement with Canon. Of course, it's only $10 cheaper than the Canon, which may mean Canon's are not as overpriced as we think.

Also wondering if Canon even makes their own batteries. I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if Energizer makes them for Canon and it's the same battery. Does Canon really have its own manufacturing facility for all the various permutations of batteries their cameras use? That seems like a waste of company resources and Canon doesn't seem like the type of company to waste resources.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: jeffa4444 on December 12, 2013, 01:14:32 PM
If Im going to purchase a $2000-$3000 camera Im certainly not going to compromise it with a third party battery that Im not sure how it was made and to what standard. Ive seen what batteries can do if they have a thermal runaway (as poorly made Lithium Ion batteries can do) and its not pleasant.
I recently bought a Canon battery for my 6d (which I could have bought cheaper on-line) for £ 40.00 ($65) in my local camera store, on Amazon I could get third party as low as £ 10.00 ($16) but for such a vast difference you know corners have been cut.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: WPJ on December 12, 2013, 01:18:05 PM
If the movie/music companies, (aka: the most greedy/sleazy entities on the planet) had simply made their movies/music more affordable from the beginning, no one would have wanted to go to all the trouble to copy or download inferior music files to get around the high cost. 

As much as I’d like to bash the record companies, I’m going to have to disagree.  People steal music because it’s free and easy.  People steal crap music that they’ll hardly listen to, because they can.  People steal music that they’ll hardly listen to, because like all their specialty lenses camera components that they hardly use, people get into collecting useless crap because they want to have a big collection they can tell people about.  People can definitely afford to buy the songs that they really enjoy listening to, but they don’t, because people don’t see it as stealing from these big bad record companies.

Cost doesn’t have much to do with it.  I see kids at Starbucks getting $5 coffees, on iPhones with unlimited data plans, driving fancy cars that they can afford to fill at $4 a gallon.  They can afford a $15 album or $1 song if they wanted, but why pay when you can just steal it for free.  Sorry to digress, but lets compare apples to apples.

we,can agree,to disagree on this but the cost has not gone,down in,sorry but paying 15-20 for a cd digital edition is absurd I'm sorry but that industry it way to over priced a cd should be in the 5-10$ range mot double triple that
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 01:19:56 PM
If the movie/music companies, (aka: the most greedy/sleazy entities on the planet) had simply made their movies/music more affordable from the beginning, no one would have wanted to go to all the trouble to copy or download inferior music files to get around the high cost. 

As much as I’d like to bash the record companies, I’m going to have to disagree.  People steal music because it’s free and easy.  People steal crap music that they’ll hardly listen to, because they can.  People steal music that they’ll hardly listen to, because like all their specialty lenses camera components that they hardly use, people get into collecting useless crap because they want to have a big collection they can tell people about.  People can definitely afford to buy the songs that they really enjoy listening to, but they don’t, because people don’t see it as stealing from these big bad record companies.

Cost doesn’t have much to do with it.  I see kids at Starbucks getting $5 coffees, on iPhones with unlimited data plans, driving fancy cars that they can afford to fill at $4 a gallon.  They can afford a $15 album or $1 song if they wanted, but why pay when you can just steal it for free.  Sorry to digress, but lets compare apples to apples.

Eh.  We'll have to agree to disagree.  I guess it could be seen that way if you grew up in the last 20 years since the Internet has been in place, credit has been easy and consumer affluency has been so high.  But I assure you that in the decades leading up to the 90's, people didn't collect as much stuff or have as much disposable money.  And the recording industries were as greedy or more so.  Most of the artists making the content were shafted, screwed and left in the cold along with the consumers being shafted on the other end with high prices and ultra cheap cassettes and 8 track tapes.

I will agree that many folks tend to collect/amass things that are free simply because they can, esp kids with lots of free time.  But I don't think that necc supports the reason why MP3 music was created or became popular in the first place.  The battles between artists/consumers and the recording industry is a long one.  In our family, we download pirated TV shows for one reason, convenience.  We want to watch something at another time or in a series all together and sometimes it doesn't get recorded on the DVR and isn't available online or on DVD yet.  We rent or purchase a lot of online content, music CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays, etc but when things aren't provided by the legitimate providers, we will occasionally download something because it's not available any other way.  The content providers should understand this and use it to their advantage, not fight it.

I'm not sure what circles you run in but I don't see a large percentage of the population able to afford most of what you say they are buying at Starbucks, luxury car dealerships, etc.  But unfortunately it happens anyway because there are no controls on what anyone does with their entitlement money from the government.  Believe me, my wife works in a county hospital, she sees a lot of "poor" people with nicer manicures, phones and clothes than our family has and that's just sad.  Our landscaper's daughter drives a Hummer but she can only afford to drive it on the weekends.  The phenomenon of poor folks spending money in all the wrong places has been going on for a long time as well.  Probably as long as govt assistance has been around and then probably longer still.

It's truly a strange world and it's getting stranger every year.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Zlyden on December 12, 2013, 01:33:22 PM
The Canon 6D has been doing this since it was launched.  The 6D charger doesn't charge any of my 3rd party batteries either.

Then this rumor is probably outdated and looks more like 'YoKool' advertising: 'Need cheap 3rd party batteries? Buy these form us directly! Satisfaction guaranteed!' :)

I got two 3rd party batteries after purchasing 6D few months ago, and all them work fine (with current firmware version).

I'm a bit afraid to buy butteries with 'Canon' brand on them, because in our parts these either cost around $150 (3rd parties are closer to $30), or could be fakes (mentioned in the rumor) that will die in a month or so (did bought these years ago for other Canon cameras)...
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 01:36:38 PM
If the movie/music companies, (aka: the most greedy/sleazy entities on the planet) had simply made their movies/music more affordable from the beginning, no one would have wanted to go to all the trouble to copy or download inferior music files to get around the high cost. 

As much as I’d like to bash the record companies, I’m going to have to disagree.  People steal music because it’s free and easy.  People steal crap music that they’ll hardly listen to, because they can.  People steal music that they’ll hardly listen to, because like all their specialty lenses camera components that they hardly use, people get into collecting useless crap because they want to have a big collection they can tell people about.  People can definitely afford to buy the songs that they really enjoy listening to, but they don’t, because people don’t see it as stealing from these big bad record companies.

Cost doesn’t have much to do with it.  I see kids at Starbucks getting $5 coffees, on iPhones with unlimited data plans, driving fancy cars that they can afford to fill at $4 a gallon.  They can afford a $15 album or $1 song if they wanted, but why pay when you can just steal it for free.  Sorry to digress, but lets compare apples to apples.

we,can agree,to disagree on this but the cost has not gone,down in,sorry but paying 15-20 for a cd digital edition is absurd I'm sorry but that industry it way to over priced a cd should be in the 5-10$ range mot double triple that

Yep.  I see it all the time.  When something is priced higher than the market can bear, alternatives will become available.  It's only natural.  If anyone sells something desirable for a fair price that the market prefers, the alternatives will suffer.  If Canon offered their batteries for $30 - $35, I'd own 3 or 4 for each of my cameras instead of the 2 Canon batteries per camera I own and the rest 3rd party.  (I shoot outdoors a lot over several days.)  I would prefer to own all Canon batteries but not for the $65+ price they charge.  I didn't buy the cheapest alternative, I bought trusted alternative brands from both online and legitimate camera stores and they have all served me well.

I said over and over back in the 90's that if CDs were $5, no one would bother with MP3s, at least not the way they did at the time.  But at $13 - $20 each, people not only wanted to get around that high CD price, they wanted to retaliate against the greedy music/movie industry.  And as it turns out, digital technology and social media finally allowed the artists to circumvent the industry and market directly to the consumer.  If the decades that led up to the Internet had been positive between consumers, artists and the entertainment industry I think things would have been different, more positive and probably much higher quality without all the problems we are still enduring with copy protection mechanisms, digital rights management, etc.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 01:40:14 PM
Just for the record, we are big Amazon consumers in this house.  So for $20, I bought one of these 'JoeCool' batteries just for the hell of it.  I'll let you know how good or bad it is, if it charges, throws an error or simply catches on fire while in flight.   ;)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: WPJ on December 12, 2013, 02:01:52 PM
or simply catches on fire while in flight.   ;)

Love it..,.,.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dstppy on December 12, 2013, 02:06:00 PM
I saw "I don't want to pay $100 for a battery" from someone, in a $1700 camera?  I don't get it . . . get your camera at the best price possible, then you can afford genuine accessories.

Are there any improvements that come with these batteries, or is it all a price game?

Do any of these, for example:
charge faster?
take more of a charge?
last longer (more charge cycles)?
operate in more extreme temperatures?
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: GuyF on December 12, 2013, 02:16:34 PM
From what I gather, the Hahnel Extreme Li-ion batteries out-perform the Canon ones.

http://www.hahnel.ie/index.cfm?page=digitalcamerabatteries&vId=2&pId=853 (http://www.hahnel.ie/index.cfm?page=digitalcamerabatteries&vId=2&pId=853)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: WPJ on December 12, 2013, 02:16:49 PM
I saw "I don't want to pay $100 for a battery" from someone, in a $1700 camera?  I don't get it . . . get your camera at the best price possible, then you can afford genuine accessories.

Are there any improvements that come with these batteries, or is it all a price game?

Do any of these, for example:
charge faster?
take more of a charge?
last longer (more charge cycles)?
operate in more extreme temperatures?

its just,price of a the battery.

the thing is tiny and snot worth 100-120 bucks.

30-40 sure.  It has nothing to do with how much the camera costs.

that's like saying you car,coat 40k, then you should,be able to afford 10/gallon for gas.

there is no way canons,coat is anywhere near there pricing on the battery and there just price gouging's
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Rat on December 12, 2013, 02:21:24 PM
or simply catches on fire while in flight.   ;)

Love it..,.,.

Just for the record: during flight, pressure differences can cause lesser lithium-ion-batteries to spontaneously combust. This article (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2012-02-01/battery-fires-keeping-li-ion-caged) seems to be pretty comprehensive on the dangers of bringing such a battery on board an airplane, I'm sure there's tons more of info. So not really a laughing matter ;)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: WPJ on December 12, 2013, 02:23:09 PM
If Im going to purchase a $2000-$3000 camera Im certainly not going to compromise it with a third party battery that Im not sure how it was made and to what standard. Ive seen what batteries can do if they have a thermal runaway (as poorly made Lithium Ion batteries can do) and its not pleasant.
I recently bought a Canon battery for my 6d (which I could have bought cheaper on-line) for £ 40.00 ($65) in my local camera store, on Amazon I could get third party as low as £ 10.00 ($16) but for such a vast difference you know corners have been cut.

but any battery can blow up, I have seen many batteries blow up and catch fire which were all OEMs.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 02:23:34 PM
I saw "I don't want to pay $100 for a battery" from someone, in a $1700 camera?  I don't get it . . . get your camera at the best price possible, then you can afford genuine accessories.

Are there any improvements that come with these batteries, or is it all a price game?

Do any of these, for example:
charge faster?
take more of a charge?
last longer (more charge cycles)?
operate in more extreme temperatures?

This brings up an EXCELLENT POINT.  Everyone is focused on cheap alternative batteries.  The other side of the coin is a battery built to be superior to the Canon OEM.  This isn't as common but what if someone offered a better, lighter, stronger, faster and more colorful battery than Canon (with a big 'S' on the side)?  If it helped me and improved my use, I would want to buy it, even if it cost more than the OEM.  It would suck to have the best most ultimatest and badasstical battery around and not be able to see any charge status or have it talk to my camera correctly.  So yet again, thanks Canon for making things more complicated that don't need to be.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 02:24:23 PM
If Im going to purchase a $2000-$3000 camera Im certainly not going to compromise it with a third party battery that Im not sure how it was made and to what standard. Ive seen what batteries can do if they have a thermal runaway (as poorly made Lithium Ion batteries can do) and its not pleasant.
I recently bought a Canon battery for my 6d (which I could have bought cheaper on-line) for £ 40.00 ($65) in my local camera store, on Amazon I could get third party as low as £ 10.00 ($16) but for such a vast difference you know corners have been cut.

but any battery can blow up, I have seen many batteries blow up and catch fire which were all OEMs.
Yep.  Just ask poor Sony!  And BOEING!
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: entlassen on December 12, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
B&H is including a free Watson brand LP-E6 with all their 5D Mark III bodies & kits (as well as their 6D offerings).  Does anyone with the newest 1.2.3 firmware installed on their 5D Mark III who also happens to have one of these Watson batteries know if the battery works?  (I'm curious if B&H is sending out a "free battery" that is incompatible with 1.2.3).

Reference:
5D Mk III: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847545-REG/Canon_5260A002_EOS_5D_Mark_III.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847545-REG/Canon_5260A002_EOS_5D_Mark_III.html)
Watson LP-E6: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/836612-REG/watson_b_1517_lp_e6_battery_pack_for.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/836612-REG/watson_b_1517_lp_e6_battery_pack_for.html)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dgatwood on December 12, 2013, 02:57:39 PM
i have not heard of anyone that have damaged their 5dmk2 with third party batteries

but with my experience... when i was filming with my 5dmk2 i would not use third party batteries as their higher voltage would HEAT up the camera much faster.

That probably means Canon cut corners and used linear regulators where they should have used switching regulators.  No doubt battery life is suboptimal as a result, and that also probably means that high capacity batteries provide little to no advantage.

If Im going to purchase a $2000-$3000 camera Im certainly not going to compromise it with a third party battery that Im not sure how it was made and to what standard. Ive seen what batteries can do if they have a thermal runaway (as poorly made Lithium Ion batteries can do) and its not pleasant.

I've seen that from major manufacturers, too, though, and they almost certainly all buy identical cells from one of only a handful of actual manufacturers anyway.  Also, thermal runaway is more commonly a problem with LiPo packs than with canister cells like these batteries probably use internally.  I mean, it does happen, but not often.  The tech is pretty mature at this point.  You're more likely to cause problems by using a third-party charger with your genuine Canon batteries, IMO.

Anyone remember all the BRICKED IPHONES Apple intentionally damaged with an update back in 2007 when folks tried to jailbreak their phones?  Hope Canon doesn't try THAT!!  But I digress...

It wasn't a jailbreak.  It was an unlock in which they overwrote part of the firmware with garbage data... and didn't make a backup of the real data to restore it if the hack ever broke, which it did....
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 03:45:06 PM

Anyone remember all the BRICKED IPHONES Apple intentionally damaged with an update back in 2007 when folks tried to jailbreak their phones?  Hope Canon doesn't try THAT!!  But I digress...

It wasn't a jailbreak.  It was an unlock in which they overwrote part of the firmware with garbage data... and didn't make a backup of the real data to restore it if the hack ever broke, which it did....

It was quite the debate 6 years ago.  I guess it depends on how you were affected.  The longer one has known Apple, the more skeptical one becomes of their innocence in things like this.  Apple has always made great stuff and then bullies everyone about it and brags how smart they are.  Then they whine about the world copying them.  It gets old after a while and it's never really changed after 30 years.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/01/a-note-to-both-apple-and-iphone-customers-on-the-v1-1-1-update/ (http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/01/a-note-to-both-apple-and-iphone-customers-on-the-v1-1-1-update/)

In general, Apple has always been known to be unforgiving and quite the bully when it comes to users trying to use an Apple device any way but the way Apple intends or allows.  (One example was simply wanting to use an iPod without iTunes a few years ago.)  Apple has also always loved to sue the entire world over just about anything.  It was comical in the 90's when they were a small company but now it's a major PITA since they have so much cash.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/09/10/could.have.weak.case.in.trademark.dispute/ (http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/09/10/could.have.weak.case.in.trademark.dispute/)
http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/forget-samsung-apple-now-suing-polish-grocery-store-for-infringement/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/forget-samsung-apple-now-suing-polish-grocery-store-for-infringement/)

**- Warning:  Snark Ahead... -**  ;D
Keep in mind that one never buys an Apple device for personal use/ownership.  That is a myth.  One merely buys the privilege of using it the way Apple intends, to show it off to friends so everyone will spend money to consume Apple content from the App Store and iTunes.  (Or on more Apple devices.)  That's the main reason Apple makes anything now, to generate more revenue in their online stores. 
**- End of Snarkiness -**  :o

After all this is said, don't misunderstand.  I like Apple products in that they are nice, pretty, and well designed/made for the most part.  (As long as they work, then you're sunk.  No repairing Apple stuff, buy another new one.)  Apple products are overpriced to be sure but they are unique and great to use.  It's Apple The Company I could do without.  (Sort of like 'MomCorp' in Futurama.) 

In a perfect world, Apple would make the same great products but then they would shut the hell up and let users do what they like with the wonderful products they paid a lot of money for.

Okay, shoot me.  I digressed my ass off here about Apple in a Canon Battery thread.  Here's the hammer and staples.   :-X
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Rudeofus on December 12, 2013, 03:55:15 PM
Canon changes a protocol to make use of third party accessories impossible or at least a hassle ... good thing they only do this with batteries, and would never even think of such sleazy behavior when it comes to lenses and flashes  :P

Several third party lenses and flashes can now be updated via USB, I wonder when the first batteries and memory cards with some USB connector will hit the market.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Joe M on December 12, 2013, 04:08:49 PM
Over the years, this "third party battery" discussion has been pretty well done to death.  Of course, what's at issue now is the fact that people seem to think Canon is deliberately nixing out (just as some claim the latest Nikon firmware just did for those folks) usability of third party batteries.  FWIW, I am probably the type of customer that Canon loves.  I will only put Canon batteries into my cameras.  I personally don't understand why someone would shell out thousands of $ for bodies and likely more for lenses and complain that a battery costs "too much".  I noticed in one post that someone stuck a $10 one in their body.  Really?  You want to risk your camera melting by sticking in a $10 battery?  And I think it was the same fellow that said, and I paraphrase " batteries are not rocket science".  No but it is made out of a wicked metal that has been known to melt and destroy certain items.  Case in point is the use in laptops.  Many a recall has been issued over people finding their computers getting pretty hot.  And you want to risk your camera doing the same?  I know the third party users will tell me that it's very rare if ever that it'll happen but for me at least, it's not worth it to put something volatile into my camera that will potentially give me problems.  And for those too that think the cost is too high, the Canons do on occasion go on sale.  I have two originals that came with my bodies and picked up two on sale for $50 each.  Like I said, I may be the ideal Canon customer from their point of view, but from mine, I never have to worry about firmware headaches or chips or heating issues.   
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: AJ on December 12, 2013, 04:53:37 PM
I wonder what's next.  Maybe with the next firmware, when you mount a Sigma/Zeiss/Tokina or other third brand lens, it'll say "irregular lens" and you'll have to push a bunch of buttons to get the camera operational.

Very annoying.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dgatwood on December 12, 2013, 04:56:17 PM

As much as I’d like to bash the record companies, I’m going to have to disagree.  People steal music because it’s free and easy.

I think "easy" is probably more significant than "free".  At the time when everybody (*) started stealing music, you could buy songs only in CD-sized collections of a dozen songs, half of which were songs you already owned.  Most of the reason the music industry is in such bad shape is that they dragged their heels kicking and screaming, trying desperately to maintain that broken business model out of pure greed, ignoring the needs of their customer base, until it was too late.  It wasn't just that it was cheap, or that it was easy, but that pirates got a higher quality product (single songs instead of collections) for less money (free) and more conveniently (downloads instead of physical media).

(*) For some small value of everybody.

IMO, that's actually a pretty good analogy for the way Canon is treating their customers with the whole battery issue.  I've been trying to order legitimate Canon batteries from Amazon since I got my 6D back in June or July, and they've been consistently out of stock, with no expected delivery date.  And prior to that, according to various reviews, Amazon was apparently selling counterfeit Canon batteries.  This from one of Canon's official distributors.

Before Canon shuts down the third-party manufacturers, they need to fix the serious supply chain problems that make their own batteries so hard to obtain.  Canon has far bigger problems than the inflated price of their batteries....



B&H is including a free Watson brand LP-E6 with all their 5D Mark III bodies & kits (as well as their 6D offerings).  Does anyone with the newest 1.2.3 firmware installed on their 5D Mark III who also happens to have one of these Watson batteries know if the battery works?  (I'm curious if B&H is sending out a "free battery" that is incompatible with 1.2.3).

They work with my 6D, so they ought to work with the 5DMk3, too.


I saw "I don't want to pay $100 for a battery" from someone, in a $1700 camera?  I don't get it . . . get your camera at the best price possible, then you can afford genuine accessories.

It's not $100 for a battery.  It's $400 for four batteries so that you can always have two in your grip, two on the charger, and the one emergency spare that came with your camera.  The difference between $100 and $40 isn't much, but the difference between $400 and $160 is half the cost of a 600 EX flash.  Given a limited budget, most folks would much rather spend their money on an accessory whose performance is likely to vary significantly between manufacturers, like a flash, rather than on a mere power source.  :)

Also, those batteries are going to get tossed after three or four years when the cells start to fail anyway—even sooner if you're using a device that uses a significant chunk of battery power even when turned off (e.g. anything with GPS)—so you're basically talking about a disposable, consumable item.  In other words, the people who don't blow a hundred bucks on a genuine Canon battery are the same people who don't blow four times the price for genuine Kodak paper or genuine Epson inks—that is to say, most people.  If these were alkaline batteries, nobody would be surprised when people didn't buy genuine Canon batteries.  The fact that the batteries come in packs and are rechargeable a certain number of times doesn't really change things.  :)


Also wondering if Canon even makes their own batteries. I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if Energizer makes them for Canon and it's the same battery. Does Canon really have its own manufacturing facility for all the various permutations of batteries their cameras use?

Like pretty much all electronics manufacturers, they almost certainly manufacture their own battery packs, but buy the cells or bags themselves from Sony or one of the other major battery cell makers.  They would never be able to justify the sort of R&D expense needed to build their own cells.  It's a fairly mature commodity market with a high barrier to entry.


Case in point is the use in laptops.  Many a recall has been issued over people finding their computers getting pretty hot.  And you want to risk your camera doing the same?

Laptop batteries are much bigger than the batteries in cameras, often have less packaging to secure them against impact damage, and are charged while you're using them.  IIRC, the overwhelming majority of catastrophic Lithium ion battery failures happen while you're charging them, not when they're idle or in normal use, so that's really not a fair comparison.

Odds are, you're just risking a charger that you can replace for $35....  I mean yes, one could theoretically catch fire while it's in your camera, but I'm pretty sure you're more likely to get struck by lightning on the way to the shoot.  Also, your homeowner's or renter's insurance will almost certainly cover fire damage in the highly unlikely even that it does happen.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 05:03:59 PM
Over the years, this "third party battery" discussion has been pretty well done to death.  Of course, what's at issue now is the fact that people seem to think Canon is deliberately nixing out (just as some claim the latest Nikon firmware just did for those folks) usability of third party batteries.  FWIW, I am probably the type of customer that Canon loves.  I will only put Canon batteries into my cameras.  I personally don't understand why someone would shell out thousands of $ for bodies and likely more for lenses and complain that a battery costs "too much".  I noticed in one post that someone stuck a $10 one in their body.  Really?  You want to risk your camera melting by sticking in a $10 battery?  And I think it was the same fellow that said, and I paraphrase " batteries are not rocket science".  No but it is made out of a wicked metal that has been known to melt and destroy certain items.  Case in point is the use in laptops.  Many a recall has been issued over people finding their computers getting pretty hot.  And you want to risk your camera doing the same?  I know the third party users will tell me that it's very rare if ever that it'll happen but for me at least, it's not worth it to put something volatile into my camera that will potentially give me problems.  And for those too that think the cost is too high, the Canons do on occasion go on sale.  I have two originals that came with my bodies and picked up two on sale for $50 each.  Like I said, I may be the ideal Canon customer from their point of view, but from mine, I never have to worry about firmware headaches or chips or heating issues.

I can't argue with your logic and for the most part I agree that after spending $1000's on the whole kit, why try to save $xx on a cheap battery.  Everyone will likely agree that the Canon battery is the best choice.  I think most folks are just irritated that they spent $1000's on the whole kit and Canon is simultaneously gouging them on the price of extra batteries and then messing with their freedom to choose another battery where they never did before.  Why go there, Canon?  Just leave it alone.  Why generate ill-will?

The bigger insult is Canon wasting time on this when there are many better and more important things to deal with in the firmware that many have been waiting to see addressed for YEARS.  If Canon wants to mess with battery stuff in the firmware, why not implement some kind of protection algorithm and assist users with protecting their investment regardless of the battery that's used instead of slapping them upside the head for a non-Canon battery.

Let's be honest... if the 3rd party battery is purchased from a reputable maker, it's simply not much different from the OEM battery.  This hasn't been a problem in the past, no reason to worry now.  The battery tech in these cameras, phones, etc is indeed a mature technology after all these years.  We aren't powering a plane or even a laptop.  It's a camera that runs on milliamps of power over time.  And Canon very likely pays a major battery manufacturer to make their batteries just like everyone else.

I also agree that problems during the charging process are more likely whether it's a Canon battery or a 3rd party battery.  That's when things usually go wrong in a bad way.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 05:13:56 PM

IMO, that's actually a pretty good analogy for the way Canon is treating their customers with the whole battery issue.  I've been trying to order legitimate Canon batteries from Amazon since I got my 6D back in June or July, and they've been consistently out of stock, with no expected delivery date.  And prior to that, according to various reviews, Amazon was apparently selling counterfeit Canon batteries.  This from one of Canon's official distributors.

Before Canon shuts down the third-party manufacturers, they need to fix the serious supply chain problems that make their own batteries so hard to obtain.  Canon has far bigger problems than the inflated price of their batteries....

Laptop batteries are much bigger than the batteries in cameras, often have less packaging to secure them against impact damage, and are charged while you're using them.  IIRC, the overwhelming majority of catastrophic Lithium ion battery failures happen while you're charging them, not when they're idle or in normal use, so that's really not a fair comparison.

Odds are, you're just risking a charger that you can replace for $35....  I mean yes, one could theoretically catch fire while it's in your camera, but I'm pretty sure you're more likely to get struck by lightning on the way to the shoot.  Also, your homeowner's or renter's insurance will almost certainly cover fire damage in the highly unlikely even that it does happen.

I agree on everything above.  No one likes record companies or their business practices.  Now I'm waiting for the eventual backlash to my Apple rant.   LOL!! ;D
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 05:23:45 PM
I wonder what's next.  Maybe with the next firmware, when you mount a Sigma/Zeiss/Tokina or other third brand lens, it'll say "irregular lens" and you'll have to push a bunch of buttons to get the camera operational.

Very annoying.

Yes.  I'm very concerned that Canon isn't proactively 'protecting me' from inferior pictures due to 'incompatible' lenses in case I decide to blame their camera instead of the lens.  Or the camera may fry due to incompatible lens electronics.

Seriously, having an 'incompatible' lens or flash actually happens.  Some 3rd party lenses fail to work correctly on newer generation bodies.  Same goes for flashes.  So that's nothing new.  And I doubt it's by accident.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dufflover on December 12, 2013, 05:25:23 PM
With the new 7D firmware not offering anything decent for me, this is the sort of reason why I won't be upgrading to it ...
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: JohnUSA on December 12, 2013, 06:08:19 PM
Besides updating camera firmware to make it more difficult to use third-party batteries, Canon has been quietly updating battery chargers to not work with third-party batteries. Here's a copy and paste of my posts on the subject from the "Canon LP-E6 Product Advisory" thread:

The problem is the charger that comes with the 5D3 is different than the 5D2. The 5D3 charger most definitely was 'upgraded' to prevent working/charging third-party batteries such as the four old Maximal batteries I have. The Maximal batteries charge fine on my 5D2 charger but not on the 5D3 charger.

I recently purchased Wasabi batteries and they charge fine on both chargers.

Here's the model numbers of both LC-E6 chargers:
ZFAD - Came with the 5D2 and will charge the old Maximal and new Wasabi batteries with no problem.
AJBC - Came with the 5D3 and will charge the new Wasabi batteries but not the old Maximal batteries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update Dec, 27, 2013:

Just purchased a used Canon LC-E6 model number:
ZBAD - Came with a two year old 6D and will charge the old 2 year old Maximal and new Wasabi batteries with no problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 5D3 will display the "Unknown battery..." warning with my two year old Maximal batteries, but the batteries will work fine and camera will remember/register the batteries. The newer Wasabi batteries there is no warning. The Wasabi batteries are about 3+ months old.

Seems to me going forward with the new Canon chargers... buy third-party batteries with third-party chargers to ensure some kind of compatibility.

As mentioned the best LP-E6 third-party battery that will charge with the newer 5D3 Canon charger is the Wasabi. Will the Wasabi battery charge with the next Canon charger and will it work/register with next camera is anyone's guess.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dgatwood on December 12, 2013, 06:37:32 PM
Besides updating camera firmware to make it more difficult to use third-party batteries, Canon has been quietly updating battery chargers to not work with third-party batteries. Here's a copy and paste of my posts on the subject from the "Canon LP-E6 Product Advisory" thread:

The problem is the charger that comes with the 5D3 is different than the 5D2. The 5D3 charger most definitely was 'upgraded' to prevent working/charging third-party batteries such as the four old Maximal batteries I have. The Maximal batteries charge fine on my 5D2 charger but not on the 5D3 charger.

Unlike futzing with the camera firmware, locking down their chargers is potentially reasonable for safety reasons.  The Canon battery chargers may or may not be designed to properly charge batteries with a wide range of capacities, and may not have the sorts of thermal cutoffs and voltage detection that are crucial to prevent overcharging and overheating (which may lead to thermal runaway and thus cause a fire).  Canon probably isn't willing to put in the R&D necessary to ensure that their chargers are safe with batteries that have a variety of capacities.  If that's the case, then you're probably much better off using a (reputable) third-party charger with any third-party batteries whose capacity isn't approximately 1800 mAh.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: CarlMillerPhoto on December 12, 2013, 07:07:50 PM
Someone mentioned this earlier, but the new charger I received does not work with 3rd party batteries (all my slightly older chargers that came with my 60D & 5D Mk II do). I know there has been discussion about this being due to internal components, etc., but all things considered that's just BS. Canon just doesn't want you using anything made by a 3rd party manufacturer.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 12, 2013, 09:17:34 PM
Someone mentioned this earlier, but the new charger I received does not work with 3rd party batteries (all my slightly older chargers that came with my 60D & 5D Mk II do). I know there has been discussion about this being due to internal components, etc., but all things considered that's just BS. Canon just doesn't want you using anything made by a 3rd party manufacturer.

I have to agree.  While I share dgatwood's opinion that taking steps to safeguard the charger to prevent charging unknown batteries makes sense, it's most likely less about that and more about reducing 3rd party battery use.  Unfortunately this does nothing to change things, it just makes it more trouble and confusing for the user.  If they are going to take this approach, they should be upfront about it and put a note/alert/warning on the charger that says something like 'This charger will not charge non-Canon batteries for safety reasons.' and then at least someone would know they aren't crazy.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Rockets95 on December 12, 2013, 09:52:12 PM
If Im going to purchase a $2000-$3000 camera Im certainly not going to compromise it with a third party battery that Im not sure how it was made and to what standard. Ive seen what batteries can do if they have a thermal runaway (as poorly made Lithium Ion batteries can do) and its not pleasant.
I recently bought a Canon battery for my 6d (which I could have bought cheaper on-line) for £ 40.00 ($65) in my local camera store, on Amazon I could get third party as low as £ 10.00 ($16) but for such a vast difference you know corners have been cut.

A very good point. I'm sure third party batteries that damaged a camera under warranty would void the warranty.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Heavyweight67 on December 12, 2013, 11:42:32 PM
Where I currently live, I can't even buy an original LP-E6, not even at the Canon shop, every other camera store stocks some third party manufacturer version...so apart from lack of choice, the price difference is a determining factor.

Also where I live is the Mecca of piracy, you can almost never trust anything you buy here, add to that, there is no such thing as a return policy or warranty.

Buyer beware (or wait to go to a more trustworthy city/country)

I currentlly use a third party battery which was less than half the price of a Canon, it charges in the original Canon charger, it seems to discharge (through use) at the same rate....it reports it's charge status in-camera

It's been over a year now with this Third Party, so far I have no issues at all....
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: captainkanji on December 13, 2013, 12:24:02 AM
This will make me think twice before installing the next firmware update.  If Canon disables my 3rd party batteries, I'm not gonna be happy.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: noncho on December 13, 2013, 01:01:35 AM
Corners have been cut?

Canon are producing probably millions of those batteries, the price for producing them is 100% under 5$ for each.
I have 60D and the Canon battery in my country costs around 100$, I got not genuine one for 13$ on ebay two years ago and it's serving me well for a spare. If the third parties can have profit for such amount of money for the end user, Canon have to be shamed. What's the difference, Canon's are not hand made by extremely qualified Japanese engineers and don't have to cost so much.   
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Marsu42 on December 13, 2013, 03:37:17 AM
Don't try little tricks Canon - just make your batteries more affordable.

They're free to make they money from where they want as long as customers keep buying, there's no badge "works with 3rd party batteries" on the 5d3 case. It's also good industry practice when it comes to get the profits from parts (ink, batteries, ...) while keep the cost of the main product down.

But they shouldn't try to ridicule the customer about this fact and try to argue it's for customer protection from 3rd party fakes when everybody knows this won't work due to working chip-copies ... they should simply say nothing or be truthful enough to state it's part of their business calculation and they don't want to have the profit taken away.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: JohnUSA on December 13, 2013, 05:15:12 AM
Found this PDF from Canon warning consumers about counterfeit accessories.

http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/pdf/cso/anticounterfeit-brochure.pdf (http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/pdf/cso/anticounterfeit-brochure.pdf)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: jeffa4444 on December 13, 2013, 05:19:56 AM
Amazon UK currently advertising Canon LP-E6 for £ 39.00 ($62). The Canon 5D MKIII is £ 2249.00 ($3598) so the battery is 1/58th of the cost and guarenteed to the same level. 
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Zlyden on December 13, 2013, 05:53:08 AM
Amazon UK currently advertising Canon LP-E6 for £ 39.00 ($62). The Canon 5D MKIII is £ 2249.00 ($3598) so the battery is 1/58th of the cost and guarenteed to the same level.

In its PDF brochure linked above Canon recommends: avoid deals that are “too good to be true”.

It's probably unwise to purchase LP-E6 type batteries with "Canon" label on them for less than £ 99.00 (it could be a fake) :)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: DaveMiko on December 13, 2013, 07:21:01 AM
<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15193\"></g:plusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15193\">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Tech Support<br />

</strong>The story below has some good information in regards to the <a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847545-REG/Canon_5260A002_EOS_5D_Mark_III.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296\" target=\"_blank\">EOS 5D Mark III</a> and some third party batteries. Not all of them are created equal, and a few companies will support you in making sure you get batteries that are 100% compatible.</p>
<p><strong>Says Jon<br />

</strong><em>When Canon upgraded the firmware of the 5D Mark III to 1.2.2/1.2.3 they killed some of the functionality of aftermarket batteries.</em></p>
<ul>
<li><em>Each time you put a battery in it required you to acknowledge “Communication with the battery is irregular” and the camera would not register it.</em></li>
</ul>
<p><em>My contact at Canon explained this was an effort to cut out counterfeit batteries claiming to be Canon batteries. </em><em>I explained to him the 3rd party batteries I used were clearly NOT labeled Canon and in addition contained a chip to allow it to communicate properly.  </em><em>My contact explained that Canon would probably never make a change backwards on this situation.</em></p>
<div id=\"attachment_15194\" style=\"width: 585px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/5d3battery.jpg\"><img class=\"size-medium wp-image-15194\" alt=\"Third party battery error messages.\" src=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/5d3battery-575x215.jpg\" width=\"575\" height=\"215\" /></a><p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Third party battery error messages.</p></div>
<p><strong>Solution</strong><br />

Jon contacted the vendor that makes the batteries he likes: Maxtek/YoKool, they advised him that they now have a new battery that is 100% compatible to the new firmware. The new batteries he got directly from them do not have the communications issue and they will register with the camera.</p>
<p>Maxtek/YoKool only sells these batteries through Amazon. Maxtek/YoKool advises at least for the moment (until Amazon stocks reduce and have the new batteries) to make sure to order the batteries directly from them, not use the Amazon fulfilled link:  <strong><a href=\"http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0053WG2A2/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0053WG2A2&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20\" target=\"_blank\">See the correct batteries here</a></strong>.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>


This is a non-issue. If you are a Canon guy, you only use Canon gear. So, again: What's the issue here?!
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: LookingThroughMyLens81 on December 13, 2013, 09:07:28 AM
To those of you complaining about battery prices....price-match! I bought two genuine Canon batteries for my 5D3 for the price of one because I bought them from a retailer that matches prices with online competitors.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Rudeofus on December 13, 2013, 11:16:18 AM
Just to be 100% sure about this: some folks on dslr-forum.de decoded the Canon lens protocol (http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=649529&page=5), and discovered, why older Sigma lenses threw that dreaded Err99 when attached to a 10D or later camera. Sure enough, they just flipped a bit in the protocol, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, except for the single purpose that a number of third party lens owners got shafted. After playing the same game with third party flash owners a few times, Canon now trained their sights on third party battery owners.

All this drivel about "Canon wants to protect their customers from bogeyman" is just that: drivel. And to some of these "if you spend x000 $ on camera gear, why be cheap when spending y00 $ on batteries": I really shouldn't have to answer to Canon or anyone why I make a purchasing decision, and Canon should be the very last one to slap my wrist after all the money I have spent on their gear.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Marsu42 on December 13, 2013, 11:25:57 AM
After playing the same game with third party flash owners a few times, Canon now trained their sights on third party battery owners.

Probably what we'll see next is batteries with an built-in usb interface to update the chip and defeat Canon's "customer service and protection" attempts just like Sigma (lenses) and Yongnuo (flashes) recently did :-o
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Random Orbits on December 13, 2013, 11:52:40 AM
All this drivel about "Canon wants to protect their customers from bogeyman" is just that: drivel. And to some of these "if you spend x000 $ on camera gear, why be cheap when spending y00 $ on batteries": I really shouldn't have to answer to Canon or anyone why I make a purchasing decision, and Canon should be the very last one to slap my wrist after all the money I have spent on their gear.

You can choose to buy Canon or 3rd party equipment as you would like.  Just don't expect Canon to care about maintaining 3rd party compatibility.  You make your choice that is best for you, and Canon will make the best choice for itself.  Canon doesn't owe anything to 3rd party equipment manufacturers, but it does have a vested interest to make sure that all Canon stuff plays nicely together.

You got your benefit in a lower price upfront by going with a third party manufacturer, who sells at a discounted price to offset the risk.  After all, who'd buy a third party part if it was the same price as Canon's?  And clearly you have not spent enough on Canon gear else you wouldn't have any 3rd party equipment.   ::)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Rudeofus on December 13, 2013, 01:58:12 PM
Just don't expect Canon to care about maintaining 3rd party compatibility.  You make your choice that is best for you, and Canon will make the best choice for itself.

Nobody in his right mind should expect Canon to care about their competitors and they have absolutely no obligations to them. Although, one could argue that a working ecosystem of third party accessories is one of the key advantages of established camera brands ...

But this protocol change, as documented in the dslr-forum.de thread, did not hurt Sigma as much as it hurt Canon's existing customer base. Sigma updated their lens chip, offered an upgrade path for their expensive lenses, threw folks with cheaper or older Sigma lenses under the bus and kept going, ongoing PR damage be damned. Paying Canon camera customers were the ones who got shafted as some of their lenses turned essentially worthless overnight.

Once this bullying like behavior is widely seen as what it is and starts backfiring, it will disappear overnight.

Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dstppy on December 13, 2013, 02:10:47 PM
Listed for ~$60 (out of stock right now), I paid ~$60 back in 2010, so let's just stop with the "$100" talk, because MSRP is never the price (look at the 5DmkIII)

So, is this a conspiracy? Let's look at some points:
Date first available at Amazon.com: November 5, 2008 (5 year old design)

Compatible with:
EOS 5D Mark III
EOS 5D Mark II
EOS 6D
EOS 7D
EOS 70D
EOS 60D
EOS 60Da

If Canon were protecting their 'monopoly' wouldn't they change the tech slightly each year to make it harder to copy?
If Canon were gouging it's customers, wouldn't it make the batteries different so every time you upgrade, they get more cash?

I'm not seeing it.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Marsu42 on December 13, 2013, 02:22:22 PM
If Canon were protecting their 'monopoly' wouldn't they change the tech slightly each year to make it harder to copy?

That's exactly what they do as newer cameras are able to tell original Canon and Canon copies apart while older cameras keep recognizing all as valid.

If Canon were gouging it's customers, wouldn't it make the batteries different so every time you upgrade, they get more cash?

No, because you can only milk your customers for so much, and you have to have at least a somehow recognizable reason for doing so.

Take mobile phone manufacturers: They kept changing their power adapters so much that the EU intervened and make them implement a standard so prevent electronics garbage. Then they all had an own way of sticking a headphone to a mobile phone until customers were fed up about it and started buying phones that have a standard jack.

Canon might be a big manufacturer, but they don't have a monopoly so customers do have a choice ... and accessory continuity like old battery models in new models is an incentive to stick with the brand. Last not least, changing hardware production like batteries for each model is expensive for Canon, that's why they keep recycling parts like the af arrays and so on.

Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: FatDaddyJones on December 13, 2013, 04:51:48 PM
Proprietary BULLCRAP!! This has nothing whatsoever to do with "customer safety protection." This is all about money. Make third party accessories incompatible so that customers will be forced to buy overpriced wares from Canon. Apple perfected the proprietary ecosystem, and now many other companies try to follow suit.

My third party LP-E6 batteries last over 50% longer than my Canon batteries. They register exactly like Canon batteries and work in Canon chargers. They were about a quarter the price of Canon batteries. I have no intention of ever buying a battery other than third party. I have used them for years in my cameras with no ill effects. If new firmware doesn't support my batteries, then the answer for me is easy. My camera works fine as it is. I won't upgrade to the newer firmware.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: gunna64 on December 13, 2013, 05:07:09 PM
I pointed this out in the Canon Australia facebook page as soon as the firmware for the Canon 5DIII disabled reporting of third party batteries - their response? To delete my post!

They know very well the effect it has on all the users of third party batteries and they don't give a rats about it.

To my mind I have three choices - 1. Change brands 2. Put up with the stupid prompts about third party batteries or 3. Reinstall the original firmware which was working fine to start with (edit - Option 3 doesn't exist - once the version of firmware is upgraded, you can;t reinstall the original firmware back in it ).

Number 3 looks to be the winner until Canon realise that all they are doing is inconvienencing the people who shell out the money for their product.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Marsu42 on December 13, 2013, 05:26:03 PM
I pointed this out in the Canon Australia facebook page as soon as the firmware for the Canon 5DIII disabled reporting of third party batteries - their response? To delete my post!

:-> usually if pressured, the first reactions of manufacturers is to attack back, the next step is to cave in if pressure continues to mount (though I don't think Canon will take this measure back).

Reminds me of Microsoft with the new xbox, and how not to do it: They wanted to force users to be connected to the Internet even when playing offline games and tried preventing them from selling used games. When customers complained, M$ argued "#dealwithit", and after the resulting outcry they took both measures back because the ps4 doesn't have it. Alas, with dslrs you are much more stuck to one system so it's not easy to exert working pressure other than to ask politely :-\
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Jon on December 13, 2013, 06:00:10 PM
Hi.. I am "Jon"...  I am a professional photographer based in Virginia..I have been shooting for over 20 years.. I have no vested interest in either Yokool or Amazon. I shoot a LOT of video which means I go through a lot of batteries in a day long shoot.. I use aftermarket batteries, so I can save money..  The 1.2.2 update gave me raw output from the hdmi port, but then required me 2 extra steps every time I put a new battery in. I spent a lot of time with my Canon rep over the last few months discussing this situation. Their position was that Canon would not remove this modification to the firmware. SO... I asked Maxtek/Yokool about this as they are the only 3rd party batteries I am aware of that also have a chip, the chip BTW that is needed to use the Canon registration system. I only sent this post in to CanonRumors in case others like me want to use the registration system, avoid the 2 step acknowledgment of the 3rd party battery.  I will repeat I have nothing to do with Yokool/Maxtek or Amazon.. I could care less if you purchase them or not.. I now have 5 of these (4 of the older ones and 1 newer) and they have always performed at least as well as the 3 Canon batteries I have..  BTW I will be in the Arctic in March with about 10 batteries (I plan to purchase 8 more of these) .. when I return I will advise how they hold up in -20C/-40C conditions..
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Rat on December 13, 2013, 07:38:54 PM
Appreciate the context and yeah, I can see how video would make a case here. I still would've liked some comparative research, but that's not your problem ;)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dgatwood on December 13, 2013, 08:47:26 PM

I bet if a few hundred recent DSLR purchasers updated their firmware, then sent the cameras back to Amazon, saying that the firmware update caused their camera to stop recognizing batteries, Canon would change their tune pretty quickly.  And by "quickly", I mean that with a few hundred returns, Amazon would automatically yank the affected products off the market pending an investigation, which would make it the single most expensive mistake any Canon exec ever made....


Nobody in his right mind should expect Canon to care about their competitors and they have absolutely no obligations to them. Although, one could argue that a working ecosystem of third party accessories is one of the key advantages of established camera brands ...

IMO, it's a mistake to call battery and lens manufacturers "competitors".  Canon isn't a battery manufacturer.  It's a camera manufacturer.  They build minor accessories, such as batteries, for one reason and one reason only: because the batteries must exist for the cameras to be usable.  Accessory makers expand their ecosystem and make their actual core products more desirable.  Anything that Canon does to harm those accessory makers harms Canon doubly.

The situation with Canon and lens/battery/flash manufacturers is a bit like Apple with third-party software makers.  Microsoft Office '08 and Photoshop CS3 still work in the very latest version of OS X even though they are both over half a decade old.  And there are plenty of Windows users out there who still run random apps from even farther back.  The reason those old apps still work is that companies like Apple and Microsoft go out of their way to minimize breakage of third-party software.

IMO, Canon has a similar responsibility to minimize breaking of third-party accessories unless it is truly unavoidable.  Anything less is unconscionably abusive.


But this protocol change, as documented in the dslr-forum.de thread, did not hurt Sigma as much as it hurt Canon's existing customer base.

Indeed, that's almost invariably the case.  Unless Canon managed to find some way to break compatibility repeatedly and often, it isn't likely to appreciably hurt Sigma's sales.  If anything, it helps Sigma by breaking compatibility for their older products, thus forcing users to buy new lenses (most of which probably won't be Canon's, because if cost were no object, they would have bought Canon lenses to begin with).  Worse, it hurts Canon's lens sales by forcing users to replace their existing low-end lenses for no reason instead of spending that money towards more expensive lenses that might actually be exclusive to Canon.

Now obviously the same logic doesn't really apply to batteries, but I dare say that given how hard it is to actually obtain genuine Canon batteries, this won't significantly increase Canon's battery sales.  Either way, IMO, the battery situation is just a symptom of a much larger problem with the way Canon's upper management sees its customers.  These sorts of vendor lock-in games tend to be a quick path to bankruptcy for most companies that are foolish enough to play them, and Canon would be wise to correct this craniorectal inversion sooner, rather than later, before the bad taste it leaves in their customers' mouths causes many to reconsider their relationship with Canon's products.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 13, 2013, 10:42:53 PM
dgatwood makes some excellent points but first, I think the technical term 'craniorectal inversion' should be noted and given bonus points.  Excellent!  ;D

I've been busy and so I'm catching up on this thread.  In general, dgatwood's comments on this from the beginning are logical and appropriate.  Accessories are part of the whole camera market.  They shouldn't be marginalized by Canon or any other camera maker.  If one considers this topic from both sides without emotion, it's pretty obvious what's going on.  There are really no clear winners when this kind of thing occurs.  Whether the user always buys 100% Canon or not, these kind of tactics usually punish everyone, esp if unforeseen collateral problems develop.  It's just a short sighted idea that ultimately results in very little benefit for everyone.  Like the poor novice that is crestfallen when they think something is wrong with their new camera at Christmas and end up returning it as defective like dgatwood suggested.  Now Canon may have just shown a new buyer that their product is faulty out of the box (when it really isn't).

IMO, there are two or three camps of buyers for DSLRs.  The novices, the pros and the 'pro-sumers' in between.  All of these groups buy 3rd party accessories for their DSLR for a variety of reasons and have for decades.  Canon knows most everyone won't jump ship over this but won't appreciate it either.

The novices will buy a Canon battery because it's the safe call.  One.  Likely the one extra they think they need but will probably never use because they never use the camera except at special events or holidays to take less than 100 frames.  They may have just bought a Canon battery anyway at the same time the bought the camera.  So no big change or increase in that market for Canon.  However, if they bought a 3rd party battery, they may think the camera is bad and just return the whole kit and buy something else.  They aren't invested in a system, they just want a camera that doesn't have problems.

The pros either always bought Canon batteries before or they didn't.  And that won't change as a result of Canon's little tactic either for many of the reasons stated here in this thread.  $40 increase times 5 batteries is significant so the battery message will just be endured, or Canon batteries simply aren't available, etc.

That leaves the 'pro-sumers'.  More than likely, these are the only ones that might actually pony up more money for the Canon batteries and even replace their existing 3rd party batteries.  Why?  Because the 'pro-sumer' market buys most of this stuff because they want it, not because they need it or even use it that much.  It's a toy.  Even if they do use it a lot, they want it all to work perfect.  'Pro-sumers' buy all the extra goodies and likely have special luggage just for the trip to the neighbors house.  The backpacks, special straps, covers, hoods, etc.  And there's nothing wrong with that!  But I guess Canon thinks that the 'pro-sumers' are going to buy a hell of a lot of batteries because I don't see the other two parts of Canon's buyer market changing much.  Not changing much except to perhaps hate on Canon a bit in blogs and forums and wonder what they did to deserve such treatment after giving Canon so much of their money.  So thanks for the love Canon!
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: josephandrews222 on December 13, 2013, 10:46:00 PM
I've got two batteries  that worked fine before the firmware upgrade, they still work fine but you have to OK them.  I also have two wasabi's that I purchased several months after the "upgrade" and they register normally.
Canon's playing a losing game.  The third party vendors adjusted quickly to  Canon's change.

The total cost of the four third party batteries was less than the cost for one genuine Canon.   

I am a bit confused about your post.

The 5d Mark III's latest firmware is 1.2.3, I think. It has only been in the wild for a few weeks, not a few months (I think).

I own the 5d3 running 1.2.1 (which has been out for several months). 1.2.1 is nicely compatible with all four of my Wasabi batteries, which were purchased 4 months ago.

Can you re-confirm that 1.2.3 and Wasabi batteries play nice?
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: malmak on December 14, 2013, 03:55:36 AM
I've got two batteries  that worked fine before the firmware upgrade, they still work fine but you have to OK them.  I also have two wasabi's that I purchased several months after the "upgrade" and they register normally.
Canon's playing a losing game.  The third party vendors adjusted quickly to  Canon's change.

The total cost of the four third party batteries was less than the cost for one genuine Canon.   

I am a bit confused about your post.

The 5d Mark III's latest firmware is 1.2.3, I think. It has only been in the wild for a few weeks, not a few months (I think).

I own the 5d3 running 1.2.1 (which has been out for several months). 1.2.1 is nicely compatible with all four of my Wasabi batteries, which were purchased 4 months ago.

Can you re-confirm that 1.2.3 and Wasabi batteries play nice?

I think the point is that nobody really can confirm that for sure.

I have 6 replacement batteries, where two of them were originals (coming with an EOS 60D and the EOS 5D III), two being original and two of them third party.

I also own a grip for both of them and just wanted to have the third party batteries on hand for the originals being empty unexpectedly.

First I had no issue with any of them.

After a certain upgrade-level of the firmware, as well at the EOS 60D as at the EOS 5D III I got the notification with three of them.

And you are counting right when you notice that at least one of the 'originals' is causing the notification. Both of the originals where bought at the same retailer (which is quite a big one) at the same time.

And I am getting the notification also for quite a few months. This did not start with the last firmware upgrade for me (Please: I'm talking about myself only.)

But with the grip, which are also original ones it's really annoying.

I waited for this to pop up somewhere and I'm not a frequent forum-reader anywhere, i was just wondering why this was happening.

Hopefully Canon will think over its policy in handling third party equipment, because if there's the first grip from third party that supplies 'coverage' for this issue I will turn away from the original equipment completely.  >:(
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: zim on December 14, 2013, 08:15:59 AM
Hopefully Canon will think over its policy in handling third party equipment

Never going to happen unless dgatwood's suggestion is taken up in large numbers which of course is never going to happen. You could always go back to the retailer and challenge them for selling counterfit goods, after all you have proof !
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on December 14, 2013, 10:29:44 AM
Hopefully Canon will think over its policy in handling third party equipment

Never going to happen unless dgatwood's suggestion is taken up in large numbers which of course is never going to happen. You could always go back to the retailer and challenge them for selling counterfit goods, after all you have proof !

This brings up another wonderful consequence of this issue.  The retailers are now stuck in the middle of all this and forced to deal with a new topic of complaints from customers who either want refunds, exchanges or think their equipment is faulty which will then require the retailers to deal with it however required.

So the moral to the story for retailers is to stop selling 3rd party batteries so they don't have to deal with the complaints.  This means that not only will the genuine Canon batteries be in shorter supply and more expensive,  you may not even have the 3rd party battery choice available in some places.  And this also means more lost revenue for local camera shops if they choose to stock only genuine batteries and folks buy the batteries online afterward.  Wonderful.  I don't buy everything from my local store but I try to buy many things there to support them.  I don't want them to go away!!

I don't see this thing being good for anyone in any way at all, including Canon.  How unfortunate and sad.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Fleetie on December 15, 2013, 09:04:03 PM
Why would one spend a few thousand (insert currency here; mine was £3000.00 on 21 March 2012, the evening before it was supposed to be available - and you Americans were crying about it being $3000; we paid $4700 at the exchange rate then - sheesh!) on a 5D3, and then cheap out on batteries?! If you can afford the camera, you'd be silly to fit a crappy battery in it.



Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: WPJ on December 16, 2013, 08:51:33 AM
Why would one spend a few thousand (insert currency here; mine was £3000.00 on 21 March 2012, the evening before it was supposed to be available - and you Americans were crying about it being $3000; we paid $4700 at the exchange rate then - sheesh!) on a 5D3, and then cheap out on batteries?! If you can afford the camera, you'd be silly to fit a crappy battery in it.

who ever claimed we wanted to use crappy batteries.

Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dgatwood on December 18, 2013, 10:33:00 AM
Why would one spend a few thousand (insert currency here; mine was £3000.00 on 21 March 2012, the evening before it was supposed to be available - and you Americans were crying about it being $3000; we paid $4700 at the exchange rate then - sheesh!) on a 5D3, and then cheap out on batteries?! If you can afford the camera, you'd be silly to fit a crappy battery in it.

Because I ordered two genuine Canon batteries from Amazon back in late November, and they won't actually reach me until early January (delivery date is while my employer is shut down for Christmas).  Third-party batteries, many of which are likely made with the exact same brands of cells as the genuine article, are available for immediate delivery.  If Canon can't deliver the goods, no one should be even slightly surprised when their customers turn to third-party suppliers.

Third-party batteries also come free with third-party battery grips (which cost hundreds of dollars less than the genuine Camera grips and are easier to find in stock), and even come with the camera if you buy it from B&H, so many people would have to throw away something that they got for free if they wanted to avoid third-party batteries.  That borders on idiotic.

Finally, for those of us who carry around 6+ batteries, the cost difference can be hundreds of dollars.  We're not talking about cutting corners to save $20 here.  We're talking about buying third-party batteries to save the entire cost of a new midrange lens, and to be able to start shooting within the first two months of owning the camera.  Unless Canon dramatically improves their availability and cost, IMO, you'd be silly not to use third-party batteries.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: JohnUSA on December 27, 2013, 07:45:53 PM
Update on compatible Canon chargers with third party batteries.

I just purchased a used two year old Canon LC-E6 charger from a 6D kit. Model number is ZBAD... yes Z BAD! Works perfectly with all my third party batteries!

ZBAD - Came from a two year old 6D and will charge the old 2 year old Maximal and new Wasabi batteries with no problem.

My previously posted models...

ZFAD - Came with the 5D2 and will charge the old Maximal and new Wasabi batteries with no problem.
AJBC - Came with the 5D3 and will charge the new Wasabi batteries but not the old Maximal batteries.

Looks like if the model number starts off with "Z" there's a good chance the charger will work with third party batteries. But that's just based on only two samples. I'm finished buying chargers!
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Rat on December 28, 2013, 02:46:15 AM
a two year old 6D

That camera was released last year in November. That's thirteen months ago.

You must really like rounding up :)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: JohnUSA on December 28, 2013, 07:00:39 PM
Can't blame me as that's what the seller of the charger told me... he got the charger with his 6D two years ago. I'm not a fact checker! LOL All I know the charger works with my old batteries!
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dgatwood on December 28, 2013, 10:03:48 PM

For comparison purposes, my 6D charger is an AKBL, and has worked with all the third-party batteries I've tried so far, but then, they're all models that work with the 6D, so they're probably new enough to work with the updated 5Dmk3 firmware, too, so I guess that probably doesn't tell us much.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: youngjediboy on January 03, 2014, 01:25:20 PM
I also hate what Canon did, but unfortunately I gave in and am ONLY using Canon batteries and chargers now.

Before the firmware update I had over 10 different third party batteries and even one of those dual chargers. They all worked fine without any problems. But after about a year I did notice some of the off brands were holding much smaller charges. When shooting stills it wasn't a huge issue, but I noticed when doing video shoots they were dying way sooner than they should. Not to mention that percentage status was way off. A couple of them went from 50% to dead in an instant. On a wedding shoot I was a 2nd video shooter and ALMOST missed the kiss at the altar when the battery suddenly died without any warning. I had just put in a fresh (or so I thought) battery at the start of the ceremony (and this was a shorter ceremony, about 15 minutes not hours long).

This happened a couple times before this case but this close call woke me up. I just had to pull the trigger and get the damned overpriced Canon batteries. I hate Canon for overcharging on this most basic accessory, but it's just not worth it getting screwed over trying to save a few bucks.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Marsu42 on January 04, 2014, 03:13:05 AM
I hate Canon for overcharging on this most basic accessory, but it's just not worth it getting screwed over trying to save a few bucks.

If it would be a *few* bucks, but it isn't - I can buy a working chipped battery at 1/2-1/3 of Canon's price, and it will work in the current cameras. If Canon manages to disable them again some time from now, I can simply buy another updated 3rd party battery, unused and at 100% charge, and still save money.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: WPJ on January 04, 2014, 07:43:15 AM
I hate Canon for overcharging on this most basic accessory, but it's just not worth it getting screwed over trying to save a few bucks.

If it would be a *few* bucks, but it isn't - I can buy a working chipped battery at 1/2-1/3 of Canon's price, and it will work in the current cameras. If Canon manages to disable them again some time from now, I can simply buy another updated 3rd party battery, unused and at 100% charge, and still save money.

not really if you had to buy two batteries at half price you just bought one full priced batter two half's make a whole, or is this new math?
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 04, 2014, 07:55:32 AM
I hate Canon for overcharging on this most basic accessory, but it's just not worth it getting screwed over trying to save a few bucks.

If it would be a *few* bucks, but it isn't - I can buy a working chipped battery at 1/2-1/3 of Canon's price, and it will work in the current cameras. If Canon manages to disable them again some time from now, I can simply buy another updated 3rd party battery, unused and at 100% charge, and still save money.

Buying a chipped battery at 1/2-1/3 of Canon's price means you're saving $30-40.  I know that 'every little bit counts' but saving somewhere between 1-4% of the cost of the camera is probably not worth the risk for most people.  Granted, if you're buying 4+ batteries, it adds up.  But if you're buying that many batteries, you probably need reliability.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dgatwood on January 04, 2014, 11:36:24 AM

For comparison purposes, my 6D charger is an AKBL, and has worked with all the third-party batteries I've tried so far, but then, they're all models that work with the 6D, so they're probably new enough to work with the updated 5Dmk3 firmware, too, so I guess that probably doesn't tell us much.

And just a day after I posted that, the second one of my cheap third-party batteries stopped communicating with the camera and won't charge with the Canon charger.  So I've confirmed that if the chip doesn't work with the camera, the charger just rolls its eyes.


Before the firmware update I had over 10 different third party batteries and even one of those dual chargers. They all worked fine without any problems. But after about a year I did notice some of the off brands were holding much smaller charges. When shooting stills it wasn't a huge issue, but I noticed when doing video shoots they were dying way sooner than they should. Not to mention that percentage status was way off. A couple of them went from 50% to dead in an instant.

That's caused by a bad cell in the pack.  Assuming that you buy from a reputable third-party manufacturer that sources cells from the same companies that Canon does, your odds of that happening should be the same as with a Canon battery.  Of course, if the manufacturer buys junk batteries from a less-than-reputable manufacturer, you're screwed....

The bigger problem with some of the third-party batteries is that their electronics don't reliably reset when they are fully discharged, resulting in the chip becoming (at least temporarily) bricked, the camera refusing to communicate with the battery, and the battery becoming unchargeable except by third-party chargers.  I've seen this happen with the generic (non-branded) batteries that came with my third-party grip.  Thus far, I've had no troubles with the branded third-party battery that B&H shipped with my 6D (a Watson).

What it really comes down to is that if you buy third-party batteries, you should buy the ones that cost half what the Canon batteries cost, and not the ones that cost a tenth what the Canon batteries cost, because there's a price limit below which the adage "you get what you pay for" turns into "you don't even get what you paid for".  :)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Marsu42 on January 04, 2014, 11:50:22 AM
I know that 'every little bit counts' but saving somewhere between 1-4% of the cost of the camera is probably not worth the risk for most people.  Granted, if you're buying 4+ batteries, it adds up.  But if you're buying that many batteries, you probably need reliability.

Apart from me being Mr. Budget - what risk? Am I missing something here, or has the Canon fud finally sunk in? I'd evaluate the risk of a chipped (i.e. premium) 3rd party battery to turn into an explosive device just as with Canon, that's about zero. The one possibility I see is that it might have less charge or less load cycles, alas, it's cheaper.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 04, 2014, 12:36:27 PM
I know that 'every little bit counts' but saving somewhere between 1-4% of the cost of the camera is probably not worth the risk for most people.  Granted, if you're buying 4+ batteries, it adds up.  But if you're buying that many batteries, you probably need reliability.

Apart from me being Mr. Budget - what risk? Am I missing something here, or has the Canon fud finally sunk in? I'd evaluate the risk of a chipped (i.e. premium) 3rd party battery to turn into an explosive device just as with Canon, that's about zero. The one possibility I see is that it might have less charge or less load cycles, alas, it's cheaper.

Read the post above yours, see if anything sinks in. Here, I'll quote the relevant bit:

And just a day after I posted that, the second one of my cheap third-party batteries stopped communicating with the camera and won't charge with the Canon charger.  So I've confirmed that if the chip doesn't work with the camera, the charger just rolls its eyes.

Say you're on vacation with your two cheap, chipped batteries and your Canon charger, and on the first day out those batteries decide to stop charging in your charger (which you likely wouldn't notice until that night, when you needed to charge them).  Have a new pair FedEx'd to you at the Ngorongoro Crater Lodge?  The package absolutely, positively won't be there overnight...not to mention the high cost of getting bona fide LP-E6s shipped there at all.

Maybe you wouldn't care if you missed hundreds of shots on a once-in-a-lifetime vacation.  I suspect most people would consider that a significant risk - it seems quite reasonable to fear such an occurrence, be uncertain about the possibility, and thus doubt the wisdom of saving a few dollars on a cheaper 3rd party battery.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Rat on January 04, 2014, 12:57:35 PM
Neuro, please, you 're better than this. Every Canon camera comes with a fully functioning, non-counterfeit battery (even if it *can* trip Canon's no-fakes-protection). You can always use that for spares - I do. There's your backup. But my four main batteries are aftermarket, averaging less than $15 a piece.

I used third parties for over a decade, never a problem. You really should ignore that, as a scientist of your stature would steer well clear of generalisations based on hearsay, as you did in your previous post. By the way, by that reasoning, all Canons are unreliable, too. An even dumber argument is to regard the price of batts relative to the price of the camera. You only buy expensive petrol for your expensive car?

And "I suspect most people would consider that a significant risk"? WTF? That *is* fud, and a fallacy. Posts like these take away my appetite for this forum. And I KNOW you're cleverer than this. I'm with Marsu - in suspecting the fud has sunk in, at least - and out of here. Don't bother convincing me you were making sense - you're not and you know it.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 04, 2014, 03:07:53 PM
Neuro, please, you 're better than this. Every Canon camera comes with a fully functioning, non-counterfeit battery (even if it *can* trip Canon's no-fakes-protection). You can always use that for spares - I do. There's your backup. But my four main batteries are aftermarket, averaging less than $15 a piece.

I used third parties for over a decade, never a problem. You really should ignore that, as a scientist of your stature would steer well clear of generalisations based on hearsay, as you did in your previous post. By the way, by that reasoning, all Canons are unreliable, too. An even dumber argument is to regard the price of batts relative to the price of the camera. You only buy expensive petrol for your expensive car?

And "I suspect most people would consider that a significant risk"? WTF? That *is* fud, and a fallacy. Posts like these take away my appetite for this forum. And I KNOW you're cleverer than this. I'm with Marsu - in suspecting the fud has sunk in, at least - and out of here. Don't bother convincing me you were making sense - you're not and you know it.

Have you ever taken more shots in one day than a single battery allows? If not, lucky you.  If so, how good is one 'fully functioning, non-counterfeit battery' as a backup?

Ahhh, so the reports of 3rd party batteries failing to register with the camera and/or becoming incompatible with the Canon LC-E6 charger are baseless lies?  Or they're true, but there's just no chance of it actually happening?  Or if it does happen, there's no risk of not having enough batteries to finish the shoot/day/trip?  Many event shooters have at least one battery charging during the event.  Personally, when on vacation I leave a battery (or batteries) in the charger in the hotel room, so I can swap in freshly-charged at the end of the day, before heading out at night.  If you're shooting in the cold, you get far fewer shots per charge than in temperate climates.

It's in Canon's best interest to ensure their OEM batteries retain full compatibility with their cameras, whereas they have no such motivation with 3rd parties (and, it could be argued, it's better for Canon if they engineer a planned failure of a non-OEM product).  There's always a risk any product will fail.  That risk is higher with a 3rd party battery, as shown by dgatwood's post, but 3rd party batteries are cheaper.  So, like many things in life, everyone can make their own decision about how much risk they're willing to tolerate vs. how much money they'll save.  To you, the benefit of the cost savings outweighed the additional risk. For me, if spending an extra $30-40 mitigates that risk, even a little bit, that's money well spent.

Sorry you're losing your appetite - I KNOW the truth sometimes gives people indigestion.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dgatwood on January 04, 2014, 06:02:34 PM
Say you're on vacation with your two cheap, chipped batteries and your Canon charger, and on the first day out those batteries decide to stop charging in your charger (which you likely wouldn't notice until that night, when you needed to charge them).  Have a new pair FedEx'd to you at the Ngorongoro Crater Lodge?  The package absolutely, positively won't be there overnight...not to mention the high cost of getting bona fide LP-E6s shipped there at all.

Maybe you wouldn't care if you missed hundreds of shots on a once-in-a-lifetime vacation.  I suspect most people would consider that a significant risk - it seems quite reasonable to fear such an occurrence, be uncertain about the possibility, and thus doubt the wisdom of saving a few dollars on a cheaper 3rd party battery.

This is why I carry a minimum of three batteries, and at the moment, six... so having one die over Thanksgiving and one die over Christmas didn't cause me to lose any shots.  :)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 04, 2014, 06:45:54 PM
This is why I carry a minimum of three batteries, and at the moment, six... so having one die over Thanksgiving and one die over Christmas didn't cause me to lose any shots.  :)

Ok, so let's see...  A Wasabi LP-E6 is $30, buying six and having two fail raises the average cost to $45.  You carry at least three, meaning $135.  Two Canon LP-E6 (they're reliable, you only need two) costs $120. 

Cheaper batteries save money?  Sure.    ;)

(Ok, I did double count the failure rate.  Still, they're not 1/2 to 1/3 the price of OEM once you factor in the failure rate.  Is saving 25% - $15/battery - really worth having to carry extras and worry about when they'll fail?)
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 04, 2014, 06:52:17 PM
It has been entertaining reading the back and forth this topic has generated.  There are many ways to look at it and everyone has their opinion and what works for them.

Whatever one thinks or how it affects them, I think we can all agree that this is something we can do without.

The firmware change does less to help and more to hinder our ability to do what we all paid $3000+ to do - use our camera.  With that in mind, why don't we all simply agree that Canon needs to stay the hell out of accessory control through firmware and just concentrate on improving the camera itself.  I don't recall anyone complaining over the years that Canon should do more to control batteries through firmware.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: dgatwood on January 04, 2014, 08:13:27 PM
This is why I carry a minimum of three batteries, and at the moment, six... so having one die over Thanksgiving and one die over Christmas didn't cause me to lose any shots.  :)

Ok, so let's see...  A Wasabi LP-E6 is $30, buying six and having two fail raises the average cost to $45.  You carry at least three, meaning $135.  Two Canon LP-E6 (they're reliable, you only need two) costs $120. 

Cheaper batteries save money?  Sure.    ;)

(Ok, I did double count the failure rate.  Still, they're not 1/2 to 1/3 the price of OEM once you factor in the failure rate.  Is saving 25% - $15/battery - really worth having to carry extras and worry about when they'll fail?)

The batteries that failed are almost certainly more like the $10 variety than the $35 variety.  Non-garbage batteries don't usually die within the first two weeks, get replaced by the vendor, then turn around and fail again after 2–3 months.  Four failures in three months is record low quality even in my world, where my luck with hardware resembles Murphy's law....

By contrast, I shot with a pair of semi-name-brand third-party batteries (and one Canon battery) in my XTi since I got it in 2007.  I had the first failure (stone dead) earlier this year, after more than five years of fairly heavy use.  I decided not to bother replacing it because I was about to buy the 6D, which uses different batteries.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: bluewolf37 on January 10, 2014, 09:10:11 AM
Don't try little tricks Canon - just make your batteries more affordable. LP-E6 is old enough, if you sell it for 25-30$ nobody will think about 3rd parties and your profit will be very good.
Sometimes I'm wondering what marketing specialists do they have...

I agree i would always buy canon batteries if they had reasonable prices, but some of my batteries are priced at $150-190 a piece for the official canon version. I found a two pack of Wasabi Canon BP-828 batteries and charger for my Canon XA20 for $80 and a Wasabi LP-E4N for $60. I would rather own two good batteries for less than the price of one than one overpriced battery. I have used off brands for several years and have yet to have any problems so I don't see a reason to buy canon for now. I haven't upgraded my firmware yet so it could break things but then i could buy the new chipped version and still pay less than one canon battery.

I think a lot of people would buy canon batteries if canon lowered their price. Not only would get sales from the people buying off brand batteries but they would also get sales from the people that decide one battery is good enough after seeing the high price.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: JPAZ on February 07, 2014, 11:43:14 AM
I've used non-OEM batteries in my g6, XTi, and 50d without issue.  But, I am reluctant to do the same in my 5diii.  First of all, I get way more shots per charge than the older bodies achieved.  The "shots per battery" ratio is better so this reduces the amortized cost (although it is still higher than the off brand).  Second of all, I am often in remote places where replacement batteries are just about impossible to obtain (OEM or non-OEM). 

But in the same vein, that's also why I am reluctant to get a non-Canon lens.  I don't know what the camera - lens communication and function could do in the future, but I am pretty sure Canon will see to it that their lenses work with their cameras.  It's the same logic, eve if this is a "monopoly" of sorts.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Marsu42 on February 07, 2014, 01:22:08 PM
but I am pretty sure Canon will see to it that their lenses work with their cameras.

You're lucky here: Latest Sigma lenses (and Yongnuo flashes/controllers) have usb ports so they can update the firmware if Canon changes something- so I'd say these are as future-proof as Canon originals.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Random Orbits on February 07, 2014, 02:43:11 PM
but I am pretty sure Canon will see to it that their lenses work with their cameras.

You're lucky here: Latest Sigma lenses (and Yongnuo flashes/controllers) have usb ports so they can update the firmware if Canon changes something- so I'd say these are as future-proof as Canon originals.

Except for the time that the lenses are bricked while Sigma creates the updated firmware.  Not so bad if you have multiple options, but not worth it if you rely on it for a living.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Marsu42 on February 07, 2014, 04:27:56 PM
Except for the time that the lenses are bricked while Sigma creates the updated firmware.

You should apply to Canon as an independent fud agent :-)

I understand the necessity of pro shooting are different than for the rest of us, but 3rd party items don't just brick by looking at them, but only after camera fw updates. But *esp* as a pro you don't just update your fw on first day of the release and just before a shooting. You will evaluate what the changes are, and if necessary wait some, for example until 3rd party vendors updating their fw.
Title: Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
Post by: Random Orbits on February 07, 2014, 09:27:36 PM
Except for the time that the lenses are bricked while Sigma creates the updated firmware.

You should apply to Canon as an independent fud agent :-)

I understand the necessity of pro shooting are different than for the rest of us, but 3rd party items don't just brick by looking at them, but only after camera fw updates. But *esp* as a pro you don't just update your fw on first day of the release and just before a shooting. You will evaluate what the changes are, and if necessary wait some, for example until 3rd party vendors updating their fw.

Yeah, because people love losing functionality of their gear... not so much.  In my industry it takes months to release new software because of safety and certification issues.  Consumer electronics is different but it will still take time to reverse engineer and test the changes.  And it doesn't have to come with a fw update; it could come with a new camera release.  Of course, they never list incompatibility with extant 3rd party gear as features of a new camera.  ::)