naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: original sony batterys vs. clone

Subject: Re: original sony batterys vs. clone
From: "Rob Danielson" danielson_rob
Date: Wed Apr 4, 2007 9:49 am ((PDT))
At 2:11 PM +0200 4/4/07, evs wrote:
>hi,
>now i have my 702, and i have to buy more Batterys.
>i=B4m a bit confused, because the sony M- Series Batterys are shorter
>than the L-series, (which are as long as the Battery shipping with
>the 702, a CTA Battery..)
>The original sony Batterys may be really good, but also very
>expensive. there are a lot of cheap alternatives, like the CTA
>Battery sound devices sell.
>Anybody tried those alternatives? are they SO much worse?
>i would buy one of those:
>http://www.akku.net/AKKUINFO/Sony%20Typ%20NP-F970/1.30.2.SON.999.52
>(its a sony L-series ripoff)
>
>anyone sees here any mistakes?
>
>beside from not just lasting long, can alternativ batterys damage my
>702 in any way?
>
>all the best
>emil

Hi Emil--
In addition to current suggestions:
http://tinyurl.com/2eh3xg
or (orig)
http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/cgi-bin/namazu.cgi?query=3D722=
+battery&submit=3DSearch%21&idxname=3Dnaturerecordists&max=3D10&result=3Dno=
rmal&sort=3Dscore
Rob D.










<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU