I wrote a long rant about this ages ago when the first D500s rolled off and wouldn't work with aftermarket el-15's.
It wasn't immediately obvious to me - but once Nikon issued the buy-back program for their OLD el-15's, it became crystal clear to me.
My belief is that Nikon's newer spec of the EL-15 (probably a management decision to streamline production and allow consumers commonality for future bodys) has a different current/amperage specification than the older EL-15 batteries.
This is impossible, that information is stamped on the battery and part of UL testing/regulation. They are the same–
This doesn't explain anything though. If they're the same batteries why don't they operate the same? Also the UL listings for the rated capacity have nothing to do with overall battery performance, especially with different generations of the same battery. I'm sure it was tested for the ORIGINAL EL-15 cameras long long ago. We aren't disputing that things have changed since then - that's the whole point. You can have 10 different auto batteries with the same RC (reserve capacity, like if you leave a radio on) some might be 800CCA, others 640CCA, etc. Or if you look at starting batteries vs. house batteries in an RV or marine application, one can't deliver the instant starting current, but delivers great continuous power - starting batteries have great CCA and zero RC.
This instant-draw current spec is the only thing which allows the staggering 10fps out of the D500 (at least from a tiny battery - which is unheard of.)
No it's not–have you heard of a cell phone? It can use way more power at a time than you Nikon D500.
Riiight... but I can't hook up my cell phone battery to my D500 so I don't really care, they're designed for different things. I'm talking about the EL-15's. 10FPS @ 21MP processing most likely draws
significantly more current than 6fps @ 16MP of the D7000 when that battery came out 6 years ago. That's all I'm saying. I'm sure if you told their engineers that same battery would have to drive a next-gen camera at 10fps they'd laugh at you!
Such current draw is what the D500 requires to operate at 10fps, process images, continue to focus, etc etc. This specification was an after-thought with the original batteries.
Again, physics is siding against you.
You have yet to give any examples though - and electrical engineering concepts have little to do with physics really - unless you're talking about the wind-up version of the D500 lol
There are conductors and pathways within a given battery, in addition to chemical make-up and other nuances - all of which are WAY over my head, but I know they exist due to my experiences over the years from computer engineering to automotive vehicle diagnostics and repair management, ie electronics nerd. IMHO I feel that such a small battery 6-7 years ago would never have been designed with the power demands of the D500 in mind.
Again I'll mention the D300 argument. The EL-3e can't support that camera at 8fps. The EL-4a can. That automatically implies that instant current usage at high drive rates requires a greater energy source. If the older EL-15's in a discharged state can't supply that current, then Nikon must re-map the discharge status so that 0% isn't an empty battery, but rather the point at which there isn't enough capacity to fulfill that 10fps current draw. This is why we get strange % remaining readings from the older batteries.
Honestly they probably knew about the problem, but what were they going to do? Telling the camera to treat the old batteries in a manner that still allows operation was a brilliant move. Otherwise they'd require a re-design for new battery or a complete EL-15 recall ahead of the D500 which would be deadly for Nikon's profits and public perception.
Nikon knew of the performance limitations of the older EL15's, and programmed the D500 to treat them as a "lesser" battery with reduced overhead allocation. Hence 40% = 20%, etc. When an old spec EL-15 is discharged, it becomes incapable of providing the instant current the D500 needs for 10fps. This explains how some old batteries have an exponential decay with remaining capacity vs. the new spec.
Again, physics is not siding with you. What is more likely is the battery has thermal runaway protection (which most third parties implement their own/don't, causing safety issues). What's more likely happening is the discharge rate was never "foreseen" thus the older batteries operate to different operational specs than the current one. It can also be they changed suppliers of the li-ion batteries for the newer model, allowing for a better discharge curve (likely the result of a newer chemistry, different thermal runaway protection, etc.)
Okay I agree with you here, but this is similar to what I was speaking of above - we don't have the performance data of the batteries OR the cameras on-hand, so we're all guessing, but this is one scenario where the older batteries may be incompatible with the new ones
due to the performance requirements of the D500. Again, requiring Nikon to de-rate the old batteries to provide safe operation in the D500. I think we're on the same page if it's this or an (instant) current supply issue.
The more I think about this, the more I can picture them tinkering with this to the end of pre-production which might explain that initial production delay. Coding the D500 to recognize old EL-15's AND differentiate between 3rd party batteries using methods no one even knew existed. The fact that NO 3rd party batteries work implies they had some kind of hidden ID method in the batteries.
This also explains why 3rd party batteries were disabled entirely. Because Nikon was unable to ensure if the 3rd party adhered to the new spec or the old spec of construction; allowing the full 10fps at full charge and min. charge, or at all period... they had to totally eliminate them for fear of damage to components or just failure in the field in general.
Damaging comments is
highly unlikely. That would mean the internal voltage regulators and power circuitry fail. Remember, it's the the batteries that have this circuitry–it's the camera. Battery is just an energy storage device and our D500's can handle anything from the 7.4v of an EN-EL15 battery to the 14+V of lithium AA's in the MB-D17 battery pack.
Okay again I'll give you that also and it's a good point, but if you've been in the field a long time (or going back to the ancient D1 series cameras with their horrible NiMH batteries) you know how incredibly frustrating it is to have a REALLY important or a REALLY valuable (ie $$$) shot in your viewfinder - hitting that shutter release, and having nothing happen. That's enough to make you switch companies. That little blinking "ERR BAT" or whatever it was. Ohh man don't even get me started. Anyways I don't think they wanted to risk that. But then again operating at 10FPS requires a lot of things to happen in sync, just cutting power mid-shot can't be good.
This is only because 3rd party guys have been making the EL-15 for the older Nikons for some time now, using the old spec for the old bodies. Without the ID chips, it's impossible to ID the capabilities of 3rd party batteries.
With an adequate BASELINE spec like the larger EL-18, you're totally fine - as that battery easily provides enough current and capacity, voltage, etc for the D500 in all shooting situations.
Nope, sorry, not how physics works.
You're killing me with these physics remarks and no explanation.
Obviously nikon always had the ability to ID their own batteries (since the D500 still correctly ID's batteries that are 6 years old) yet they never took advantage of this till now? I think it's more likely that it's a power supply issue. Again, this is also supported by the fact that they had to simultaneously redesigned their OWN batteries as well. This logic is sound and I'm not sure why you just say "no" and drop the mic.
Plus due to it's larger size I believe they gain some additional wiggle-room with the specs.
Really? We now taking very clear electrical engineering/physics and saying that because of size we get wiggle room? Gross over-assumption on a topic you don't know anything about. It's like saying size matters....
Okay I didn't attach pages of specification sheets for the battery performance, but most people of reasonable intelligence would have inferred that I was basically saying a camera which was designed to work with a tiny EL-15 will easily work with a battery that was DESIGNED to power a large high-res high-fps pro camera like the D4. Unlike the EL15 which was
designed to power a consumer lower-res, lower-fps camera years ago like the D7000. Makes sense right? That battery IS overkill for the D500, that's a fact - just look at the sticker. By wiggle-room I was referencing the MUCH higher voltage and capacity of the EL-18.
The fact that they got 10fps @ 20mp out of such a tiny battery is amazing, as my D300 requires the big EL-18-sized battery to achieve 8fps @ 12! Just keep that in mind. They HAD to be near the limitations of the tiny EL-15, and I think that's why we saw so many various issues with the batteries.
Nope! Chip die size has come down due to newer manufacturing techniques so you can actually do more with less now. It's not about limitations of the EL-15 battery. You could drain that sucker a lot faster if you want but you'd have to have high quality li-ion cells in there–not changing anything with the shape, voltage, etc. I could also make a battery half the size that will work in the D500 but take less shots.
This line of thought isn't constructive, perpetuates false myths, and is hurtful to the overall community. If it was a decision to simply ban third-party batteries they could have done this eons ago, and at any time to any model with a firmware update.
The best simplistic explanation is car tires: Up till now all EL-15 tires were rated for "V" Speeds (149mph), they've been making now for a while "Z" rated EL-15 tires, but made no car that went 149+ mph. Now they do, for most of the market it doesn't matter. For some that it does, they're doing a voluntary recall. Woo.
That's one of the worst analogies I've ever heard, and doesn't explain anything or back up any arguments. You're just saying new batteries are better than old batteries, now they're issuing a voluntary recall. Uh.
You're essentially agreeing with me though - I'm not saying it's a miracle, I'm saying it's impressive how far technology has come since the early days when you saw slow drive rates with zero processing power to worry about, and large battery sources.
