Skip navigation

Zibb

Leibson's Law

Steve LeibsonLeibson's Law: It takes 10 years for any disruptive technology to become pervasive in the design community. This blog is about the disruptive technologies that either have or will win over electronic engineers, some that won't, and why. Please feel free to link to these blog entries! Written by Steve Leibson, a marketing consultant specializing in lead generation and content creation for high-tech companies, former VP of Content for Reed Business, and former Editor in Chief of EDN. See my consulting Web site at www.sleibson.com and my history site at www.hp9825.com. You can email me at steven.leibson followed by the magic email symbol @ followed by att.net.

View Steve Leibson's profile on LinkedIn


   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Blog

Thursday, June 18, 2009

New Panasonic Camera Firmware Locks Out 3rd-Party Batteries

Jun 18 2009 8:20AM | Permalink |Comments (14) |


It was inevitable. With the 3:1 or 4:1 cost differential between rechargeable OEM camera batteries and cheap knockoffs and with some spectacular flaming battery incidents with laptop batteries, it was clear that vendors would find a way to prevent customers from using less expensive batteries. Panasonic is one of the first, if not the first, to enforce use of Panasonic branded batteries in its digital cameras through a firmware update to sixteen of its digital camera models because “some aftermarket 3rd party batteries do not meet the rigid safety standards Panasonic uses.”

Conceptually, this is not a hard feature to add to a battery-powered device because genuine branded batteries all have thermal sensors to prevent overcharging disasters and most incorporate battery-management chips to communicate battery status to the host device. Third-party batteries generally don’t have such communications ability. I’ve got three 3rd-party batteries for my Canon 20D dSLR and it’s clear that the camera doesn’t understand these batteries as well as the one genuine Canon BP511 I own. However, the other three batteries taken together cost about as much as one genuine Canon BP511. Two came from eBay and cost less than $10 each. One is a Lenmar and cost $30 at Fry’s. (I needed one fast.) A genuine Canon BP511A runs about $50.

Will the battery situation quickly resemble the ink cartridge situation? Many printers will only work with genuine manufacturer ink cartridges and will not recognize refilled cartridges, making ink more expensive per liter than fine Scotch whiskey. Time will tell.


Related entries in: Consumer Products | Digital Camera | 

Reader Comments



at 6/18/2009 2:03:26 PM, DRich said:
I would rather pay my money for fine Scotch whiskey!



at 6/18/2009 2:12:20 PM, stiggle said:
If the product is popular, the Knockoff accessories will add the needed identity chip to make them work. It is just like the Epson ink cartridge chips, Canon ink cartridge chips, and the Laser toner situation. Otherwise if we're locked into the manufacture for all of the accessories, then we can also be left holding the bag when they simply stop selling the accessories and expect the user the buy a new one.

I like the HP commercials which state that genuine HP ink lasts 65% longer than bargain ink. But since even the most expesive ink refills for HP cartridges cost less than half the cost of a new one, I'll take the bargain ink every time.



at 6/18/2009 2:31:07 PM, Rich said:
another reason to stick with older stuff that isn't so smart. Lets hope the replacement battery makers gbet smart enough to add the chips that will make their batteries work. I really hate being ripped off by the greedy manufacturer. For the last while I have been looking at the costs of replaceable parts, toner and batteries in the things I buy.



at 6/18/2009 2:44:49 PM, Policebox said:
You forget, it is fundamentally impossible to put a knockoff chip in there that can fool the camera into thinking it has a native battery. I am sure they are using encryption techniques to ensure that. In any case, we have to discourage this kind of thing for just the reasons mentioned. Without an aftermarket, Panasonic can leave its customers holding the bag. Don't buy Panasonic until they come up with something more reasonable.



at 6/18/2009 5:50:03 PM, knuckledragger said:
That's Scotch Whisky by the way. Whiskey is an altogether inferior American/Irish knock-off...

I find the genuine Canon batteries to be more durable and dependable than the alternative products. You get what you pay for. Just like with Whisky!



at 6/19/2009 6:37:58 AM, cmccauley said:
I have a Samsung SCH-U340 cell phone obtained through Verizon. It uses a battery (AB553446GZ) specific to the Verizon-sourced phone; when I bought an authentic Samsung AB553446BA battery, guaranteed to work with the SCH-U340, it didn't in fact work 100%: the phone reported "NON SUPPORTED BATTERY", and although the phone is operable, it won't charge the battery. It turns out that Samsung sells two different batteries and two different accessory chargers for SCH-U340 phones: one version specific to Verizon, and a different version for SCH-U340s for all other carriers (Alltel, Cricket, MetroPCS, US Cellular). The Verizon-specifc battery costs $40, but I bought two genuine Samsung AB553446BA batteries for $25 from Cell Phone Shop, and eventually got a compatible charger from Samsung for $10, and now I'm good to go. Clearly, the Verizon-specific battery is intended to force one to buy only from a narrow retail channel.



at 6/19/2009 9:35:51 AM, PEREB said:
Hey guys, do what I did. To ensure that on the "field" I will never have to worry
about recharging problems, I specificaly
looked for cameras whitch take AA batteries. I have a Nicon and an Olympus
without worry



at 6/19/2009 9:39:08 AM, sdsman said:
They make the product cost seem "reasonable" until you factor in the replacement cost (ink, toner, battery). Which winds up to be far too expensive. I would not knowingly buy a product that prohibits using OEMs or 3rd party replacement parts. However the company can tell me that if I use a "lesser" product it would not work as well as genuine replacement parts. This way I can choose.



at 6/19/2009 3:09:19 PM, Larry M said:
Like PEREB, I only considered cameras which accepted rechargeable AA cells. stevesdigicams.com provides a very nice selection tool to show these cameras. (Also filter on "viewfinder" and on "image stabilization" to get a nice set to select from.)



at 6/22/2009 8:50:52 AM, Steve Leibson said:
Although I side with the faction that prefers choice over being "locked in," I also know that in this litigious society, equipment vendors must be able to say that they did all they can do to prevent the use of knockoff batteries that might spontaneously combust and injure someone. If they cannot prove that, then they have a large legal judgement against them in their future. I don't see an easy way of handling both sides equitably in a world of increasingly sophisticated counterfeits.



at 6/24/2009 8:30:05 PM, Bob said:
The question is, is the firmware checking for the battery features (thermal sensor, etc), or is it simply looking for a "panasonic id" that the battery reports ?

If it looks for the capabilities then I have no problem - it means it really is preventing use of dangerous batteries but it allows well-built third party batteries.

But I think it's the other way, since they keep talking about "genuine Panasonic batteries". That is not acceptable because it prevents you from using similarly-equipped brand-name batteries that don't come from Panasonic.



at 6/24/2009 9:22:17 PM, Steve Leibson said:
Bob, I understand your position. However, the only way Panasonic can know that a battery will accurately reflect whatever it is they're looking for is if it's a gen-you-wine Panasonic battery. Counterfeiters could easily do a partial decode of the battery telemetry channel and not provide everything. I doubt that Panasonic is interested in creating a 3rd-party battery certification program, so who will assure that third-party batteries meet spec? Especially when there isn't a spec? Doubt that would happen? It already does. 3rd-party lens vendors must reverse engineer the communications between camera and lens because the major vendors don't document this interface. The result is that sometimes, these 3rd-party lenses stop working when a new camera body is introduced. The camera vendors are under no obligation to certify 3rd-party lenses that are built without their approval. If you buy cheap 3rd-party stuff, the responsiblity is with you and with the 3rd-party vendor. Don't like it? Find equipment that uses standard AA and AAA batteries, as others have suggested. If you find Panasonic's attitude "not acceptable" as you state, then don't buy their cameras. If you don't like the new update firmware, then don't download or install it.



at 6/26/2009 5:30:54 PM, MarshallsCamera Comments said:
This is a correction. I have been selling cameras and lenses since 1980. (MarshallsCamera.com) The only lens that may not work on later models due to the electronics not communicating are Sigma and Quantaray (which are made by Sigma.) It is my understanding that Sigma reverse engineers the IP whereas Tamron and Tokina acutally pay for a license. When we take older lenses in on trade this is one of the first things that we check.

Marshall



at 6/27/2009 12:59:00 PM, Steve Leibson said:
MarshallsCamera: You are correct about Sigma lenses, but they're apparently not the only 3rd-party lenses that can exhibit incompatibilities with newly introduced dSLR bodies. For example, see this online conversation about Tokina lenses and the Nikon D100 at photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/005eAQ. I'm not a Nikon user, so I do not have first-hand knowledge of this issue.

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

About Us   |   Contact Us   |   Free Email Newsletters   |   Free Magazine Subscription  |   Advertising   |   RSSRSS   

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites