The Canon EOS R5 Mark II will not function with third-party batteries

[PinholeR5]

Practically speaking, the LP-EP batteries have the same voltage as the LP-E6NH ones, the change in the labeled voltage has more to do with how and when you measure than an actual difference.

The main change is that it can deliver twice the current, so you can drain it twice as fast.

Yeah, true. The 2x on current is the pertinant factor. I just assumed that to get that they needed to up the voltage a bit to enable it, but perhaps not.

At any rate, this is a good observation. It means there will be certain functions, presumably those that are disabled when using LP-E6NH batteries, that will cause battery life to drop substantially faster (up to 2x). It will somewhat exacerbate the effect of battery shortages...

 

[blackcoffee17]

Next generation: Internal non replaceable batteries for entry level and mid range bodies for planned obsolescence.

And integrated storage you cannot upgrade, without the possibility to use memory cards. Companies like Canon seriously need a big market share drop occasionally.

 

[koenkooi]

And integrated storage you cannot upgrade, without the possibility to use memory cards. Companies like Canon seriously need a big market share drop occasionally.

People have been asking for hasselblad style non-removable, non-replaceable internal storage, though.

 

[LDS]

With the ILC market shrinking, Canon will try to exploit any revenue streams - I hope they don't take this suggestion - renting batteries instead of selling them... companies are trying any trick they can imagine to exploit those who once were "clients" and "customers" - now are just cash bags to be milked. As long we don't vote with our wallets, they will keep on.

 

[Canon Rumors]

People have been asking for hasselblad style non-removable, non-replaceable internal storage, though.

I have experienced that and it's terrible. Tony Northrip has run with some mindnummingly stupid ideas.

 

[cycomachead]

There are definitely more and less reliable 3rd party batteries.
If Canon is going to do this, I sure as hell want some explanation about why... I've never bought, to my knowledge, counterfeit batteries and that deception there would worry me. But that's a very different story that responsibly labelled and tested 3rd party batteries. The "scare" warnings that have existed in cameras about "unidentified" batteries have been mildly annoying, but the camera+battery still work, so no big deal. I don't really have a problem with that. But I find it hard to believe that the LP-E6P or R5II contain something so proprietary it's impossible to manufacture as a 3rd party.

Personally, while not ideal, I think they could lean into what Apple did with the "MFi" certification program. Maybe the problem is that it'd be hard to find a market for 3rd party sellers that could pay Canon a $5 license fee or something and still price their batteries accordingly... but I'd happily spend a little more for 3rd party "licensed" batteries over unlicensed ones if such existed.

Whereas, today, I seldom pay Canon's prices for batteries, DC couplers, chargers, etc. I supposed I'm in the YMMV camp and while I've definitely had less good 3rd party batteries (yeah, $15 for a LP-E6 was no good LOL!), I've not had a problem in 4 different bodies over 15 years, and now I've got an R3 with a 3rd party LP-E19 and it's going well, too. Even USB-C charging is working which is great, since the LC-E19 charger is a beast and I don't want to travel with it unless I have to.

 

[basketballfreak6]

Well that's disappointing. Have a couple OEM LP-E6NH's and quite a few of Neewer's equivalent. For normal usage I don't notice one to be superior over the other. I get full high speed shooting with the Neewer's like I do the OEM's (though as someone have mentioned it may go down quicker but I've never tested it myself, not my style of shooting); the biggest difference is for a fraction of the price I can get two batteries plus a charger vs the OEM.

 

[cycomachead]

Yeah, let me know.

I didn't even know there were third party LP-E19 batteries. I just checked Amazon... I can't believe how cheap the Wasabi batteries are. I don't see any brands that I'd roll with.

I'd worry that they don't give the boost for the RF 400 2.8.

Here are the 3rd party batteries I have been using.

Amazon.com

I did get one that would not charge but returned it and the replacement charged just fine, other than that I have not had any issues that I can recall.

Yeah, I've been using one from a brand called "Ultimaxx" which I think is the same OEM. No long term testing yet, but it was $45 and so far lasts plenty long, seems fine at high FPS and charges via USB-C through the camera.

 

[jam05]

Same as every electronic device on the planet. Do you expect to use the same power supply for your phone that you used 20 years ago? The amperage changes. How about your laptop, you use the same 25 year old PS for that too? You purchase a $4500 - $5000 camera but can't afford an $80 battery? Something is wrong with that picture. Hey car batteries last 24, 36, 48 months. Then ya need a brand new one. Else you'll be stranded. It's life.

 

[jam05]

Can't afford an $80 battery for the new $5000+ camera, and will be the first people to complain about bla bla bla won't work in bla bla mode. And got a 25 year old third party battery barely putting out one amp.

 

[David - Sydney]

Practically speaking, the LP-EP batteries have the same voltage as the LP-E6NH ones, the change in the labeled voltage has more to do with how and when you measure than an actual difference.

The main change is that it can deliver twice the current, so you can drain it twice as fast.

If 2x the amperage is the only difference then it makes no sense to buy them for my R5... or maybe the high speed mode won't drop after 50% remaining capacity (not that I have noticed it).

The lack of USB-C charging is disappointing. I believe (with no data) that this would significantly reduce the purchasing of 3rd party batteries. The batteries must be capable of this (charging within the camera via USB-C) so the change would be just to add the USB-C port to it.

How would dummy batteries work for the R5ii? Would you need to buy the Canon one ie it must have a custom chip to connect it rather than just the electrical through wiring?

 

[David - Sydney]

on second thoughts.... the LP-E6P is the same or cheaper than LP-E6NH and my batteries will be 4.5yrs old at New Year.
Strangely enough, they are also 50% more expensive locally than B&H so it looks like a New Year's gift to myself when I visit in 6 months

 

[John Wilde]

Really do not think it is worth buying cheap batteries that may *fry*/damage your body mainboard....

E-Bikes that were built with cheap batteries have caused quite a few fires/explosions.

 

[Chig]

Canon Imaging must have been talking to the printer division and saw how they were scamming customers with their overpriced ink cartridges and not allowing 3rd party inks

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I've never bought 3rd party batteries for any of my cameras. I have always bought a spare battery for each camera...or in the case of my R8...a pair of extra batteries
I think another battery variant from Canon is dissapointing, but it's progress. The new battery is slightl better than the old version and streets ahead of the versions found in the old DSLR cameras. I just hope this closed market approach doesn't provoke Canon's greed and subsequent jacking of the the new battery price.
I'm still very much on the fence with the R5ii. I was quite excited about it pre-launch. However, now that it's here...I'm a bit Mehh...for £4.5K. Especially now that I can buy a new R5mk1 for only £2.2K. Sure the new sports AF modes are nice...I don't shoot sport. Sure the Eye controlled AF is nice but not essential for me. Sure the super fast sensor readout is nice to reduce rolling shutter....but I'm finding the 40fps of my R6ii to be excessive and the 1st Curtain 12fps is really more than enough for me. At 12 fps, the buffer lasts longer and I have a LOT less images to cull. So that basically leaves me with the slightly better EVF, which is the same resolution as the R5mk1. Hmmm if that's the only upgrade here for double the price...I'll probably get a mk1.

 

[Richard CR]

Craig and I differ on this - one of the rare times.

I think it will just take the third party manufacturers a bit of time to get their hands on the new batteries - or just to see what the R5 Mark II does differently when communication happens with the battery than prior batteries.

It seems like the "unrecognized battery" warning went away and defaulted to "no", but we won't know until people start getting the cameras in their hands and playing around with it.

But where this does affect you is if you have a half dozen of current third party batteries and expected to use them in your new R5 Mark II - that simply won't happen.

I have two minds to third party batteries - when it was a cheaper camera, i really didn't care - but when it was the 7 or 5 series, etc I always used Canon's batteries - but everyone has different pain points and adding 200-300 to the cost of the camera is for some a pretty large hurdle.

ALso consider that batteries have a higher margin, so if you are purchasing it from your favorite vendor you are doing them a good service as well.

we'll have to wait for third party LP-E6P batteries instead this time around - if they do come. From my recollection from times in the past, this can take a considerable amount of time (up to 6+ months).

It would be very wise to order at least 1 spare battery (or more if you getting a grip) and it would be even smarter to preorder it now versus waiting. I added the links into the article (I'm shameless that way).

for those R5 users, consider that the R5 Mark II gets around 12% more battery usage when using the EVF, and nearly 70% more when simply using the back LCD and use that to judge how many LP-E6P's you need.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Does anyone know the specification difference between the LP-E6NH and the new LP-EP6P battery? Does the newer battery have more capacity or is it a re-program of the charge / discharge rate chip of the previous battery? It's quite possible the the R5ii can draw such a fast load from the battery that the old chip will prevent the battery from delivering such a burst. Lithium Ion batteries are prone to explode if their charge / discharge speeds aren't carefully managed.

 

[ComradYUmad91]

Canon pulling another anti consumer move, why am I not a surprised?

 

[reisi007]

Does anyone know the specification difference between the LP-E6NH and the new LP-EP6P battery? Does the newer battery have more capacity or is it a re-program of the charge / discharge rate chip of the previous battery? It's quite possible the the R5ii can draw such a fast load from the battery that the old chip will prevent the battery from delivering such a burst. Lithium Ion batteries are prone to explode if their charge / discharge speeds aren't carefully managed.

I'm not from Asia, but I like Canon Asia for that ( https://asia.canon/en/consumer/battery-pack-lp-e6p/product )

The LP-E6P is the successor to the LP-E6NH, which is used in many existing cameras. Despite having the same capacity, the LP-E6P has a higher maximum continuous discharge current of 6 A, allowing for higher performance and functionality in newer cameras (EOS R5 Mark II onwards).

 

[David - Sydney]

for those R5 users, consider that the R5 Mark II gets around 12% more battery usage when using the EVF, and nearly 70% more when simply using the back LCD and use that to judge how many LP-E6P's you need.

can you point to a link with the comparison?