The lithium replacement for the old everready 544 is the PX28L by duracell but there may be others. I could have sworn I have used everready lithiums too. The lithiums are same voltage and since the camera is a very low current device there is no danger in using them instead of the silver or alkaline versions. I never had a problem with them.
I have no knowledge of improved ES models so I cant comment on that. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Joe Wilensky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ES battery/circuitry (was RE: Lens ruminations on a Monday ...) Hi, JCO, I just completed an on-line purchase of an ES -- I wanted to give it a try after using a couple of ESII's over the last few years. I am holding on to the ESII, though! What is the number/size of this lithium battery that works in the ES? The circuitry handles it fine, even though there were no lithium batteries in existence when the ES circuitry was designed? Also, I've read either online or in one of the Pentax books that the late ES models had improved circuitry that is identical to the ESII circuitry (this is above and beyond the original ES circuitry, which was an improvement on the first Electro Spotmatic models produced in Japan). Does anyone know what serial number or range would represent a "late" ES? Joe >trade it for a ES instead of the ESII. >the ES has a 6v battery that you can >get a lithium that lasts for years.... >JCO > >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 9:56 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Lens ruminations on a Monday... > > > > >Jim Colwell wrote: > >> Here is my review of the SMC Pentax-FA 28-200/3.8-5.6. >> >> "I bought a 28-200mm zoom that turned out to be very unsatisfactory. >> Very few of the many pictures that I took were in sharp focus. The >> few pictures in sharp focus were probably those that I took with the >> SMCP-A 50/1.7. I did a little online research and soon found a number > >> of things, including: >> (i) the zoom lens I bought is generally regarded as having poor >optical >> quality; (ii)..." >> >> This review is in the introduction to SPLOSdb. It does not >> explicitly > >> identify it as the -FA lens, but it is. This lens was made by >> Tamron for Pentax, to specs defined by Pentax. The Tamron branded >> 28-200 lens made at the same time to Tamron's own specs was sold at >> the same price and is reputed to be very good, especially in >> comparison with the -FA. >> >> Jim >> www.jcolwell.ca > >Very interesting. >I think I'll forego both of those lenses... > >I was heading over to the SPLOS database next. >But you brought it here! Many thanks... > >keith
