[shuttertalk]

I know for a fact that non-rechargable alkaline batteries are just chewed up compared to NIMH rechargables, when used in digital cameras. Just out of interest, anyone know why?

One of the bigger battery companies also seems to be promoting their Lithium (not rechargable I assume) batteries heavily on prime time TV, touting their longevity in digital cameras. Wonder why one would use them when they probably cost as much as rechargables anyway?

[gd]

well it'll be the power rating of the batteries. These days I would suggest that most rechargeables have been made to allow for longer battery life at larger power output than in the past.

Typically the non-rechargeable alkalines have a limited ability to be able to meet the required power output and that other compounds such as NiMh have better ability to be able to output to the threshold due to their make-up.

Lithium batteries would be similar again. I would suggest that they are comparing them to alkaline which are kinda at the bottom for the ability to output an acceptable voltage/current output. And for that they are good for those who are going to need a spare set around but probably wouldn't use them all the time.

Happy to be wrong, it was a while since year 11 physics for me. (like 3 years after all the times I repeated)