RX100 Generic 1600 mAh NP-BX1 Battery Review

I did an informal test of these two batteries to see if there is any concern about them heating up in service, and also to see if there may be some indication that the generic really has more capacity. Thinking the flash would be a significant load I took as many consecutive shots with full flash as I could for 15 minutes. Each flash recharge was taking about 6 seconds. At the end of each 5 minutes of shooting I measured the battery voltage and temperature. Here are the results:

Starting conditions, both batteries fully charged at 4.20 volts, and 74 deg F.

Sony @ 5 min, 10 min, 15 min

Voltage: 4.10, 4.04, 3.99

Temperature: 78, 81, 80

Generic @ 5 min, 10 min, 15, min

Voltage: 4.14, 4.08, 4.04

Temperature: 76, 79, 79

Conclusions? On temperature there appears to be no significant difference. Both appear to warm slightly to 80 deg F, and not go any higher. On voltage there does appear to be a small difference, with an indication that the generic may have more capacity. One would have to test a lot longer to be sure, but the voltage on the Sony after 10 minutes was the same as the generic after 15 minutes. Neither battery moved off full charge indication on the camera display. Each battery test produced about 145 images.

Ron AKA said:

Ron AKA wrote:

I did an informal test of these two batteries to see if there is any concern about them heating up in service, and also to see if there may be some indication that the generic really has more capacity. Thinking the flash would be a significant load I took as many consecutive shots with full flash as I could for 15 minutes. Each flash recharge was taking about 6 seconds. At the end of each 5 minutes of shooting I measured the battery voltage and temperature. Here are the results:

Starting conditions, both batteries fully charged at 4.20 volts, and 74 deg F.

Sony @ 5 min, 10 min, 15 min

Voltage: 4.10, 4.04, 3.99

Temperature: 78, 81, 80

Generic @ 5 min, 10 min, 15, min

Voltage: 4.14, 4.08, 4.04

Temperature: 76, 79, 79

Conclusions? On temperature there appears to be no significant difference. Both appear to warm slightly to 80 deg F, and not go any higher. On voltage there does appear to be a small difference, with an indication that the generic may have more capacity. One would have to test a lot longer to be sure, but the voltage on the Sony after 10 minutes was the same as the generic after 15 minutes. Neither battery moved off full charge indication on the camera display. Each battery test produced about 145 images.

Click to expand...

Just curious Ron - what instruments are you using to resolve voltage to 10mV and temp to 1 degree F ?

That was the reason of huge laptop battery recall. Guess who made?

Sony.

It was due to some metal contamination particle as I recalled.

Battery in electric car and 787 are high performance which the two terminals are extremely close together (less than a hair thick). So it does not take a big contamination particle to short out.

Camera and phone battery, they are not using high performance/high risk chemistry/ construction. Also, because of the small size, the heat would transfer away quicker so it may not get into thermal runaway problem.

Sounded like an engineer, am I ?

LSHorwitz1 said:

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

Just curious Ron - what instruments are you using to resolve voltage to 10mV and temp to 1 degree F ?

Click to expand...

I was using a digital multimeter for the voltage and the readings were very repeatable from doing multiple tests. The accuracy (absolute voltage) might be off some, but I believe relative readings are very precise. That said both batteries fully charge to 4.20 volts so I suspect absolute accuracy is not far off either.

The temperature measurement is rough and it is at very best +/- 1 deg F, and more likely +/- 2 deg F. It is an infrared non contact and I was still figuring out how to use it as I did the test. I find they are quite sensitive to color and surface. I spent quite a bit of time shooting a similar spot on each battery. However I would not read a lot into 2 degree differences. That is why I said the batteries just warmed to 80 deg and kind of flattened out. A surface contact thermometer would have been better, but I don't have one.

nofumble said:

nofumble wrote:

That was the reason of huge laptop battery recall. Guess who made? Sony.

It was due to some metal contamination particle as I recalled. Battery in electric car and 787 are high performance which the two terminals are extremely close together (less than a hair thick). So it does not take a big contamination particle to short out.

Camera and phone battery, they are not using high performance/high risk chemistry/ construction. Also, because of the small size, the heat would transfer away quicker so it may not get into thermal runaway problem.

Click to expand...

I agree shorts are a problem and probably the root cause of the Dreamliner battery issue. And yes engineers do worry about those kind of things. With the "fix" they have applied to the Dreamliner I have serious reservations about flying on one. Essentially all they have done is put each cell in a can to try and contain the fire, so they can keep flying with a burning battery.

It would be interesting to know exactly what type of Lithium Ion chemistry that Sony is using in the RX-100 battery. It quite potentially is the same chemistry as the Dreamliner which is Lithium Cobalt Oxide. The reason they use it is to save weight/space and maximize power. The motivation to use it is probably higher in a very compact camera than it is in a big airplane. And that essentially is what they were designed for. The big problem with Lithium Cobalt Oxide is that once it starts to burn it is exothermic and keeps burning. Others like Lithium Manganese Oxide tend to be self extinguishing. However they are larger and less energy dense.

I don't follow it all that closely but I recall that as well as the Dreamliner the Lithium Cobalt Oxide batteries are used in the Tesla and Volt electric vehicles. It is quite possible that they are also used in Computers, cell phones, and cameras. See this article on types of lithium batteries for a bit more background.

LSHorwitz1 said:

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

I find it absurd that a $650 camera should be an acceptable purchase yet a spare battery from the same manufacturer is too expensive. Why buy a generic cheap battery?

Click to expand...

If this is not just a rhetorical question, here is the answer:

It is very desirable - some would consider it essential - for any piece of industrial equipment to have an independent, "third party" source for "consumables". Batteries, rechargeable or otherwise are, by the simple ratio of their lifespan to that of the device thy power, consumables.

Since cameras are sold in large numbers to amateurs who do not really consider it a piece of "industrial equipment", camera manufacturers are attempting (and to some extent succeeding) to convince their customers to ignore this rule. Those of us however that treat cameras as industrial equipment rather than fancy toys, do what they can to keep third-party suppliers of consumables in business.

Now you know...

MaxTux

Regarding the whole 3rd terminal issue, I see some confusion on here between NiMH/NiCd and LiIon.

Temperature is important, but not essential, for charging NiMH (except at 1-hour or shorter rates). Simpler chargers may be trickle-only or timer based, but those are far and few between these days. Then again, camera equipment that used NiMH does date from that era.

Temperature is almost irrelevant for terminating a LiIon charge cycle. It could be used to see that the battery isn't too cold to accept charge. Accurate voltage limits are paramount, and a close second is terminating charge completely at the correct current at the end of the CV phase (usually C/20). So, in a sense, yes, cheap chargers have been known to "trickle charge" LiIon, and this is the main cause of their danger. LiIon can be charged at more or less any current you like, but charge must be completely shut off at 4.2V and C/20 current. These days, that isn't hard to do, but some chargers don't, and for "universal" chargers configured for larger (2Ah +) cells, smaller ones like this Sony BX1 may be slightly overcharged.

Lithium polymer batteries may swell, but if you're paranoid about that, better hold off on the Sony as well. However, the RX100 is not all that tight a fit. If it's a stuck Sony cell, at least you'd have a warranty claim.

What will make a LiIon battery have a fit is generally manufacturing defects causing an internal short (which you can do nothing about), or cumulative damage from repeated mis-handling (overcharge, over discharge, etc.). If a cell has become compromised, then monitoring temperature isn't likely to do you a heck of a lot of good. As a QC test when you get a new cell it might be worth checking. LiIon should not become warm. That's normal for NiMH, but if a LiIon heats up during charge, and it's not conducted heat from the charger, get rid of it. That's all the Sony camera or chargers could be doing with the thermistor. Last-ditch attempt to detect a defective or worn out cell. Not a normal part of charge termination. It's not a required or even typical part of most chargers. Laptops and electric cars, sure. More cells, more densely packed, high discharge rates at times, and lots of electronics in there anyway so you might as well.

LiIon packs should have some safety circuitry in them, and cheap packs may omit this stuff. Primarily, they should have over and under-voltage lockout transistors. Also, short circuit or overcurrent protection of some kind. This is to protect against rare faults in the charger or device. They're not to be relied on, but should be there just to help prevent a disaster in case the charger fails and tries to dump current with no voltage limit, or there's a short circuit.

It may depend on the specific type of Lithium Ion battery. If the Sony (and generic equivalents) are Lithium Cobalt Oxide then you have to be more careful of charging rates. This article suggests 0.8 C as the maximum for an optimal fast charge. Since the capacity of the standard Sony is 1240 mAh and the charger is 1.5 amps this works out to a C rate of 1.2 C. A Lithium Manganese Oxide can easily take that, but that is pushing it for a Lithium Cobalt. The rate will drop off as the battery charges, but it could warm up the battery when it starts out with a very low charge.

The C rate for the generic is lower based on the 1600 mAh rating and works out to 0.9 C.

The difference is in the internal resistance of the battery. Low resistance means more current capability and less heating. LMO's are lower resistance, and LCO is higher.

Ron AKA said:

Ron AKA wrote:

It may depend on the specific type of Lithium Ion battery.

Click to expand...

Lithium Polymer cells are all pretty much in the 1-2C range. If the charger is outside the safe range, it doesn't matter what temperature measuring you do, as cumulative damage is probably being done to the cell. No idea if the camera pulls the full 1.5A off their USB supply or not.

FWIW, Sony's BCTRX external charger puts out 700mA and claims a 90min charge. Probably not a 100% charge, if I had to make a bet.

Ron AKA said:

The rate will drop off as the battery charges, but it could warm up the battery when it starts out with a very low charge.

Click to expand...

If it's a very low charge, it shouldn't be slamming the full CC current in there to begin with. Even the cheap controller chips will have a gentle start. No guarantee Brand X charger will, though.

The seemingly universal Very Cheap Charger is rated at 420mA output, so, safe for any camera cell I know of, though, who knows how the charge termination is.

Ron AKA said:

The C rate for the generic is lower based on the 1600 mAh rating and works out to 0.9 C.

Click to expand...

If you believe that capacity Given that I got <1Ah out of the sony and a $12 aftermarket, I really don't.

I'll assume that over-discharge, sometimes a big problem, isn't an issue if the RX100 is properly designed.

In any case, from what's _visible_ on the aftermarket cells and chargers, there's nothing being done wrong. We can't tell without dissecting a pack, and measuring charge current, whether the likely problems are present:

1. No safety cutoff circuit in the pack

2. Charger still putting in a few mA after terminating charge.

3. Bad cell that fails for internal reasons

4. Unreliable charger QC causes immediate or eventual out-of-spec overvoltage charging (even 4.25V)

Ron AKA said:

Ron AKA wrote:

Ron AKA said:

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

Just curious Ron - what instruments are you using to resolve voltage to 10mV and temp to 1 degree F ?

Click to expand...

I was using a digital multimeter for the voltage

Click to expand...

I just was curious since there are $8 digital multimeters from Harbor Freight and $800 digital multimeters from Fluke and lots of other ones in between !!



The performance of the generic versus Sony battery is, as I am sure you appreciate, way, way more likely to show up in testing which goes beyond the partial discharge test you conducted. I would not personally draw any conclusions as to the "similarity" of these two based on using such a short, basic, and inconclusive comparison, since the real story of their differences / similarities lies in their total charge / discharge cycles, their endurance, their self-discharge characteristics, their degradation at low temperatures, their presence / absence of safety features (thermistor, vents, etc.), their total number of useable cycles, and so on.



Frankly, I think that publishing a simple comparison showing similar temperature rise and voltage decay over a narrow region of testing to somehow demonstrate that the generic should be considered an adequate replacement is actually a very misleading and incorrect conclusion. The less advanced reader is likely to come away with the impression that the generic and the Sony are indeed interchangeable and similar, when this is totally not the case at all if the entire set of specifications and characteristics were actually known / measured.



The low cost chargers and batteries may be a very adequate substitution for those who are looking to knowingly trade safety, durability, endurance, etc. for a savings of $20, and to those who make such a choice in an informed manner I applaud their thrift. I just object to the proliferation of opinions and pseudoscience which claims to prove their similarity, ignores or dismisses the differences, and attributes the price difference to greed on the part of the OEM.



Larry

MaxTux said:

MaxTux wrote:

MaxTux said:

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

I find it absurd that a $650 camera should be an acceptable purchase yet a spare battery from the same manufacturer is too expensive. Why buy a generic cheap battery?

Click to expand...

If this is not just a rhetorical question, here is the answer:

It is very desirable - some would consider it essential - for any piece of industrial equipment to have an independent, "third party" source for "consumables". Batteries, rechargeable or otherwise are, by the simple ratio of their lifespan to that of the device thy power, consumables.

Since cameras are sold in large numbers to amateurs who do not really consider it a piece of "industrial equipment", camera manufacturers are attempting (and to some extent succeeding) to convince their customers to ignore this rule. Those of us however that treat cameras as industrial equipment rather than fancy toys, do what they can to keep third-party suppliers of consumables in business.

Now you know...

MaxTux

Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree Max, but......



I spent a significant fraction of my electrical engineering career dealing with military electronics and their upgrades, and am painfully aware of the issue of "sole source" parts and the extreme difficulty supporting equipment which uses them. Repair and continuing use becomes impossible without these parts being available.



However........



I frankly think this is, in the case of a consumer product such as a camera with a relatively short life cycle, a specious issue, and would not personally buy or reject a purchase of this item based on the availability or lack of availability of a battery or charger from alternate vendors.



Consider the simple truth that EVERY OTHER PART of the Sony RX-1 is, essentially, sole source, and relies on the continuation of Sony to supply such parts if future repairs are needed. I thus feel that the likely of ultimately not being able to use the RX-1 as it ages has NOTHING at all to do with the availability of a second source for batteries or chargers.



Larry

Each to their own. Some will like the security of Sony and others will be insulted by the price Sony charges for that security. I'm a retired engineer and quite confident in my technical decisions. It is not a money issue. It is that I do not like to be insulted. I own a new Toyota hybrid car and like to do my own oil changes. I buy both the oil and the filter from Toyota. Why? They offer quality oil and a quality filter at a very reasonable price. I am not insulted, and I have the technical background to know I am getting good value. Sony does not offer good value on their batteries and I won't buy them for that reason. I also have a personal philosophy of not being afraid of the "bogeyman". I'm aware of the risks and find them quite acceptable. Others may not. As I said, each to their own.

Ron AKA said:

Ron AKA wrote:

Each to their own.

Click to expand...

Amen !!

Ron AKA said:

Ron AKA wrote:

It may depend on the specific type of Lithium Ion battery. If the Sony (and generic equivalents) are Lithium Cobalt Oxide then you have to be more careful of charging rates. This article suggests 0.8 C as the maximum for an optimal fast charge. Since the capacity of the standard Sony is 1240 mAh and the charger is 1.5 amps this works out to a C rate of 1.2 C. A Lithium Manganese Oxide can easily take that, but that is pushing it for a Lithium Cobalt. The rate will drop off as the battery charges, but it could warm up the battery when it starts out with a very low charge.

The C rate for the generic is lower based on the 1600 mAh rating and works out to 0.9 C.

The difference is in the internal resistance of the battery. Low resistance means more current capability and less heating. LMO's are lower resistance, and LCO is higher.

Click to expand...

Sure, chemistry is part of the picture, but how the cell is engineered is another. I just showed a couple Sony batteries to our chief scientist in electrochemistry (my company, among other things, designs and synthesizes Li-ion cathode and anode materials). One was from my 6 year old W200, the other from the RX100. Significant advances have clearly been made since the RX100's battery boasts 30% higher capacity in a package that's probably 20% smaller compared with the W200's battery (an NP-BG1). He says both these batteries likely use LiCoO cathodes, however they probably differ both in construction (the tapes are manufactured to tighter tolerances) and anode material (the RX100 may contain a tin-based anode, which can offer much higher capacity compared with the old technology, which was graphite-based).

Other things of note - 1.5C is clearly stated as the safe limit for the RX100's battery (the label gives both capacity and max charge current). This is impressive for a consumer device, but as someone already pointed out, a lower rate appears to be used when charging in-camera (but the new BCTRX external charger from Sony may approach this rate). I suspect the extra current capacity of the supplied 1.5A usb outlet may simply to allow simultaneous charging while the camera is operating (something the camera doesn't seem to allow when plugged into any other USB power supply I've tried).

I have also recently confirmed a safe charge of an aftermarket battery in-camera (accidentally, since I usually prefer to charge them in the supplied charger). Resting voltage several hours after charging was a comfortable 4.17V.

LSHorwitz1 said:

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

LSHorwitz1 said:

nofumble wrote:

I got 2 batteries and a charger for less than half of what you paid.

Sure, there may be a risk of fire (no different to a Volt or Boeing 787). I just don't leave the charger overnight nor unattended. However, I don't feel any heat from the battery.

Click to expand...

So you got 2 batteries as well as a charger for less than $18, eh?

Buying cheaply made batteries and chargers for any camera but especially a $650 RX-100 makes no sense.

Saving $50 is not the issue.

Having the proper voltages both during discharge / load and charging internal resistance as well as strong, leak proof design along with pressure relief and safety design are the important issues.

Buy whatever you want on eBay as supposed replacements. There are all sorts of crap there, and not worth the risk for the insignificant savings IMHO. If you can afford a $650 RX-100 then a $29 battery should be an absolute no-brainer.

Click to expand...

I have had used generic batts for my HX100V and my A65 since more than a two years now and they have worked perfectly, the charger disconnects them when are already charged, no overheat at all while charging nor when using them in the camera and even having better performance than original ones, for only $8 and $10 respectively, so instead of paying $216 for six batts for my cameras I spent just $54 and kept $162 in my pockets for other more important things than satisfying my Ego.

I can't find any valid reason for paying quadruple for the same but just been too conservative and comfortable, a bit lack of courage, not needing to worry about their cost, or a combination of them all, because there're no special secrets about batteries, it's a simple industrial technology without mysteries (but what brands want us to believe), generic batts are just the same without a recognized and expensive logo on them.

--

aaanouel
Truth is a pathless land.
The dead past darkens the ever living present.
Corrections and critics are more than very welcome, desirables.

aaanouel said:

aaanouel wrote:

aaanouel said:

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

aaanouel said:

it's a simple industrial technology without mysteries (but what brands want us to believe), generic batts are just the same without a recognized and expensive logo on them.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

aaanouel
Truth is a pathless land.
The dead past darkens the ever living present.
Corrections and critics are more than very welcome, desirables.

Click to expand...

Since you apparently are happy with your generic choices, see no differences, and consider truth a land with no pathes, who am I to tell you otherwise? Some folks like Pepsi, some prefer Coke, and you may prefer generic cola.

There are in fact actual differences. And the cost difference may not be worth it to you. To each his own.

Larry

LSHorwitz1 said:

The low cost chargers and batteries may be a very adequate substitution for those who are looking to knowingly trade safety, durability, endurance, etc. for a savings of $20, and to those who make such a choice in an informed manner I applaud their thrift. I just object to the proliferation of opinions and pseudoscience which claims to prove their similarity, ignores or dismisses the differences, and attributes the price difference to greed on the part of the OEM.

Larry

Click to expand...

Is there data confirming the assertion that we are trading away safety, durability, and endurance when we purchase generic batteries and chargers? The RX100 has been out for about a year now. Is there evidence that generic batteries and chargers for the RX100 (and the RX1) are unsafe, poorly made, and short-lived? How about for any other camera?

Chris Crevasse said:

Chris Crevasse wrote:

Chris Crevasse said:

The low cost chargers and batteries may be a very adequate substitution for those who are looking to knowingly trade safety, durability, endurance, etc. for a savings of $20, and to those who make such a choice in an informed manner I applaud their thrift. I just object to the proliferation of opinions and pseudoscience which claims to prove their similarity, ignores or dismisses the differences, and attributes the price difference to greed on the part of the OEM.

Larry

Click to expand...

Is there data confirming the assertion that we are trading away safety, durability, and endurance when we purchase generic batteries and chargers? The RX100 has been out for about a year now. Is there evidence that generic batteries and chargers for the RX100 (and the RX1) are unsafe, poorly made, and short-lived? How about for any other camera?

Click to expand...

Chris,

To an electrical engineer, the deliberate omission of a heat sensing device in the generic battery like the thermistor used by Sony in their OEM battery is a very clear piece of evidence. In Canon OEM batteries which have gold plated contacts and the generic replacements do not, it is very clear evidence.

Weigh the generic battery and compare it to the OEM battery. The differences show a lighter generic with either less electrolyte, less case, or both.

Is it so hard to imagine that a 6 dollar generic battery differs internally from a $30 OEM battery?

There are tear downs and comparisons on thr Internet and both good and horrendous experiences with generics depending on the particular generic battery. The very absence of manufacturing uniformity and standards to characterize the generic makes them a crap shoot, some acceptable, some not.

I objected to them being presented as if they are the same as OEM batteries, particularly when a few measurements over an extremely limited testing approach with questionably accurate instruments are being used to pass judgement. They are, for certain, not the same, and a sample size of 1 battery would hardly become the basis for snyone with even basic scientific training to make such an outrageous proclamation. They are, at best, measurably similar under very limited testing conditions, and we cannot conclude anything beyond this.

In the final analysis, as I have already said, to each his own. The roast beef sandwich I could barely chew today at lunch was tough and unappetizing to me. It came home in a doggy bag. The dog loved it.....

LSHorwitz1 said:

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

I objected to them being presented as if they are the same as OEM batteries, particularly when a few measurements over an extremely limited testing approach with questionably accurate instruments are being used to pass judgement. They are, for certain, not the same, and a sample size of 1 battery would hardly become the basis for snyone with even basic scientific training to make such an outrageous proclamation.

Click to expand...

Just for clarity, I did not make any such claims that the generic I tested was the same as the Sony original battery. There are differences:

1. The generic has no thermistor to indicate temperature, assuming the RX100 uses it.

2. The capacity of the generic (listed in the OP) based on voltage during a load test is more than the Sony. Roughly it shows 50% more capacity, but it was not a controlled enough test or extended long enough to say that with any certainty. The test was good enough to say the generic has more capacity though.

3. There is a difference in the price. The Sony Store in Canada sells the Sony version for $60. The generic cost me about $6.

Ron AKA said:

Ron AKA wrote:

Ron AKA said:

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

I objected to them being presented as if they are the same as OEM batteries, particularly when a few measurements over an extremely limited testing approach with questionably accurate instruments are being used to pass judgement. They are, for certain, not the same, and a sample size of 1 battery would hardly become the basis for snyone with even basic scientific training to make such an outrageous proclamation.

Click to expand...

Just for clarity, I did not make any such claims that the generic I tested was the same as the Sony original battery. There are differences:

1. The generic has no thermistor to indicate temperature, assuming the RX100 uses it.

2. The capacity of the generic (listed in the OP) based on voltage during a load test is more than the Sony. Roughly it shows 50% more capacity, but it was not a controlled enough test or extended long enough to say that with any certainty. The test was good enough to say the generic has more capacity though.

3. There is a difference in the price. The Sony Store in Canada sells the Sony version for $60. The generic cost me about $6.

Click to expand...

How can you possibly conclude a 50% capacity advantage for the generic based on the short test comparison and data you reported ???