Shel Belinkoff wrote: >How do they compare with the same batteries? >
The K100/110D is *MUCH* faster even if they're both using NiMH cells. You have to use it to notice the big difference in AF, I'm sure upcoming reviews will take not of this. > It seems that, in the past, >someone used NiMH bats that were a little "hotter" than the standard CRV-3 >bats and claimed to have gotten faster autofocus. Several people noted, >iirc, that NiMH bats (maybe rechargeable ones)were not recommended for the >istD cameras. > NiMH cells are ok in Pentax DSLRs, but with the previous generation (I haven't tried CRV-3s in the K100D, yet), CRV-3s will give you AF that is much faster, some claim it's twice as fast, but I don't think so; I do buy CRV-3s for every important and/or payed shoot because they last much longer and generally do very well in the AF department compared to NiMH batteries. NiMH cells also start losing charge after about a week, they have to be freshly charged very often, especially compared to lithium batteries. > Are they an acceptable and recommended option for the new >K***D cameras? > > In a word, yes, the AF on the K100D *with NiMH* cells is faster than the DS on CRV-3s, I'm interested in finding out if CRV-3s make a difference to the K100D as well, probably, but by how much? I'll find out monday, got a shoot. :-) >Being able to focus better in low light is a definite plus. > >Shel > > > > Yep, it's definitely a big plus. -Asad -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
