Lan: You should have marked the camera *up* for using AA batteries!
Rechargeable AA batteries are much more convenient than having to carry around 80 random chargers and countless incompatible batteries with you, wherever you go.
It also beats paying £/€/$50 for yet another spare incompatible proprietary lithium battery. Of course most of us buy 3rd party batteries and pay a lot less money, but still. A nice set of low self discharge AA NiMH batteries and a charger will usually cost less than one spare proprietary battery.
AA batteries are available everywhere - by contrast a fully charged (insert your choice of random battery) is almost impossible to find anywhere...
I'd like to see manufacturers get marked down for *not* using AA's.
I've had three Canon dSLRs so far, none use the same battery. None of my other cameras do either. Every single camera on the market seems to have yet another proprietary battery type.
Actually what we really need is a lithium cell standard. Anyone?
I have a SX110 which uses AA. I use Energizer Lithium AA and get close to 1000 pics per set of two. Every time I pick it up its ready to go. No charging, no fussing. I also happen to work somewhere that sells Canon products (God bless the 6%-10% markup cameras allows us:(). I'm on vacation right now so I can't count them, but I think we stock 22 different Li-ion batteries for Canon and they are ridiculously expensive. That's just for Canon. Then we have to stock batteries and chargers for other brands. As a retailer its nice to have something we can make a profit on but this is a shame and joke for customers. No the battery from your old Canon won't work in your new one. Here, let me sell you a spare for $50-$70.
How are the rock climbing photos taken in the future? See exif. That's pretty impressive indeed. Makes me want one almost as much as the good images themselves. Does it also come with the portable studio lights? Seriously, pretty impressive for a phone (or P&S).
I thought if you took pictures of landmarks in the UK you were detained and your images confiscated. Seriously,this is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. A quick google images search found many similar images and I must say they look much better with some details in the sky. Kind of funny, one photographer suing another for taking a lame photo somewhat similar to his own lame photo.
Wow, so many complainers.
That's the Epson 3880, not 3000