Right from the Source
As reported yesterday, a new DSLR will bring about a new battery, the LP-E8. Canon Asia has an MSDS sheet for the battery on their web site.
Link (.pdf): http://support-ph.canon-asia.com/
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Wow! Hope I can shoot 2000 photos!
Sorrey, it only does 1999 im afraid!
section 9 Its only 3.6 volts, so for a smaller camera, i’d expect a bigger camera to use a higher drive voltage for faster focus etc. Googled a while to verify – EOS-1Ds Mark III takes a LP-E4 apparently 12v
Hah, I read some of the MSDS – I didn’t know these batteries were so hazardous!
In any case, this proves something new is coming down the pipe, and likely very soon. Awesome!
Hm, I shot about 30,000 photos already…
Is 3.6 v
and use organic material for power retention
this is good for Enviromental and + for Rebel Line
Predicting based on the past and recient rumors.
A new slighly larger/fancier Rebel. The Rebel line used to be it at the cheep end. A couple of years ago they released the Xs as an only slightly smaller camera squeezing the Rebel from below. Then they released the 7D slighly higher than the xxD leaving lots of room above the traditional Rebel line that needs to be filled.
A 50-150 2.8 EFS IS, similar to the 17-55. They released an upgrade the 70-200 IS L in December so the high end customers would not feel threatened by this lens.
Sect.9 reads:
Nominal voltage: Single cell: 3.6 volts
Because a battery consists of at least 2 cells, I vote 2 cells (7.2 V) or 3 cells (10.8V) depending on the destination.
For the curious:
The Supplier address that is blocked by the image is trivially read by free PDF viewers that don’t obey DRM restrictions. Supplier reads “Canon Singapore Pte Ltd” / “1 HarbourFront Avenue, #04-01 Keppel Bay Tower, 098632, Singapore”
I have no idea why the address was “blacked” out, it’s probably no big secret …
The LP-E6 has been really durable for me on the 7D. On it’s first charge, got slightly over 2,000 shots. I’m on the second charge now and with 55% of the charge left, it’s taken 3,155 frames! Part of this explanation is that I’m using 8 fps a lot so the LCD doesn’t light up much.
Eh…that’s “organic” as in “hydrocarbon-based chemistry”, not “organic” as in “made from recycled, free-range, pesticide-free lettuce leaves”. It’s the kind of “organic” that is more likely to be related to the pesticide than it is to the lettuce.
EF-S 50-150/2.8 IS USM lens would be awesome, no doubt about that. Problem would be the pricing. Look at EF-S 17-55/2.8. This way, EF-S 50-150/2.8 would cost somewhere around 1200-1600$. With no L build, I’d rather go for EF 70-200/4L IS USM for this price or could as well use EF 70-200/2.8 USM if I wanted faster lens. This lens would have to be around or under 1000$ price tag to be competitive with 70-200Ls and I highly doubt that such price would come up unfortunately :(
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:0y4PRjH37ecJ:www.amazon.com/Power-LP-E5-replacement-Battery-Canon/dp/B0027UYZXE+LP-E8&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk
The above is a cached link to Amazon’s LP-E5 listing that offers this little insight – Compatible Battery: Canon LP-E8
SINGLE cell = 3.6V!
look at sheet for eos7D battery LP-E6, same single cell voltage of 3.6 is mentioned, take 2 would lead to 7.2V and 3 = 10.8V
http://support-ph.canon-asia.com/fuseaction/support/safetyinformation/pdf/digitalcamera/LP-E6.pdf
lol, excellent response.
I would like to see a price under $1200, but an initial price <$1500 may still work. You need to consider what they are asking for the new 70-200 2.8 IS II, it isnt cheap.
Yes, I know. The problem is, that Canon would probably never make EF-S lens as much mechanical quality as L, yet the price tag would be among L class. I hate this about 17-55/2.8 IS USM. Optically, it’s an amazing lens, but it’s no match for L class, even 70-200/4L USM employs magnesium-alloy shell and it’s priced 60% of 17-55/2.8 IS USM. I’d like to get some sturdiness as well, for this kind of money. That’s why I chose 17-40/4L USM over 17-55/2.8 IS USM. Optically it’s mostly on par with each other, but EF-S is left in the dust in the mechanical side of things. That’s my worry about lens as such abovementioned.
I am also very happy with the endurance of the LP-E6. While I was never disappointed by the endurance of the LP-E5 in my 450D, the 1800mAh vs. 1080mAh really make a difference.
But, as you mentioned, I guess the most significant difference comes from the rear display being lit much less often (unless one enables Q menu), so that the durability is more than doubled.
When I go for a walk I do not hesitate to leave the spare battery at home even if the one in the camera is at less than 50%.
I have not really used video so far, I guess then the larger capacity will be really needed.
I two doubt that the price point of such an EF-S 50-150 2.8 would be too attractive compared to the 70-200 f4 IS and non IS.
While the 17-55 compares favorably to the 24-70 or 24-105 due to the latter two missing wide angle on APS-C, the difference between 50 and 70 at the wide end is much less pronounced and I think most people would prefer the 200 on the long end over having 2.8.
Well, if such a lens was introduced, if it was less than 1000€, and if it were a REALLY great performer in particular regarding wide open sharpness and bokeh quality, then I might consider getting one, despite already having the 700-200 f4 IS.
But these are some considerable IFs here, and I guess in particular the one about the desired price point would not be met.
While I agree that an EF-S 50-150 would have a hard time against the existing 70-200s, I find the 17-55 much more competitive. I have always been wondering why people were going for the 17-40. Its not only slower, with 40mm its already so short that it is no longer useful for portraits. It also lacks IS. And even the usual justification “if I ever go full-frame, I can keep it” does not really apply here, given the rather mediocre reviews this lens gets on FF (corner sharpness!).
You’re right. The only thing I don’t like on 17-55/2.8 is the mechanical build (for the price, if that lens would have cost 650-750$, it would be appropriate). It’s just not simply what would you expect from such high price tag. That’s what bothers me. 17-40/4L is cheaper (for obvious reasons, slower aperture and no IS, but it’s FF so glass amount should be about same), yet much better built. Look at 24-105/4L IS USM, the price is basically the same. Now this is not any general opinion or recommendation, it’s simply that I care about mechanical build, not just optical. I want stuff that I don’t have to be too careful, call me brute, but it’s just that :)
I also probably would not have bought the 17-55 at its normal asking price, but I came across one in a local electronics store while they had a special discount (buy 4 items over 200€ and you get the cheapest one for free). I teamed up with some colleagues and in the end, I payed about 650€ instead of the 850€++ the lens normally costs.
While I like the extra f-stop over my 24-105, it didn’t replace the latter as my favorite lens. I like the 24-105’s added reach for across the room portraits, and most of the time I would use bounce flash anyway indoors. And for true AL the 2.8 is still not enough. I now use it mainly when on vacation and when doing city tours, or when 24mm are just not wide enough.
Bringing out all these new batteries is a nice little money earner for Canon: new batteries, chargers, battery grip etc.. What’s wrong with simple AA batteries! :-)
The Material Safety Data Sheet doesn’t say if it’s chipped.
What’s funny to me is the address of the business on it. Ohta-ku. Otaku means pervert or geek/addict. Figures.
I have used this battery. On first charge I got about 520 photos only. Now I am on 2nd charge
I’ve noticed that most replacement batteries for the T2i (550D) are 7.4v and not 7.2v supplied by Canon, is this a concern?
Thanks
Brian