Here is a link that illustrates just how difficult it can be to distinguish between real and fake Nikon batteries -

https://petapixel.com/2019/05/24/how-to-tell-if-your-nikon-battery-is-fake/

 

This post made me think and I have checked my batteries, I have 2 genuine Nikon EN-EL15 for a D600 and they conform to the images shown here. I also have 4 EN-EL3e's for my D700. Two are genuine Nikon and the other two are after market ones sold under the 'Blue Max' name, All are at least 4-5 years old and still working perfectly. However if you shake the Blue Max ones close to an ear, then you can hear they both rattle slightly. I don't know if this is significant or not.

 

I started this conversation to state that *software* in the camera prevents you from seeing the charge indicator on some Canon models and some batteries. However, I firmly believe that there's nothing about the actual electrical circuit which changes how those batteries operate. It's a choice from Canon to not show you something to inconvenience you, so you buy their batteries. Nothing more.

 

Thank you Tony, and I agree. The problem with the internet is that correcting a simple misunderstanding takes several posts and some days. As a Nikon user I am more aware of the foibles of their system, which is, obviously, different from Canon's.

 

I have three cameras which take versions of the Nikon EN-EL15 battery. I have a couple of third party batteries which work fine in the V1 and D750, showing mount of charge and battery life. However, they do not work in the Z6, giving a message about an incompatible battery. Looking on the Internet, it seem that some third party ones work, while others do not.

 

That is as maybe. But counterfeit batteries, whether posing as OEM or branded third party, are a real safety concern so you cannot blame the OEM from trying to provide some protection. It is very worrying that fakes can get into the retail supply chain of major companies as per post #41 but there is the possibility of redress if they do prove fake.

 

As I see it the camera manufacturers have every right to protect their intellectual property but they are going about it the wrong way. If an OEM battery were sold at, say, 10% or 20% more than a third party compatible version nobody would bother with third party batteries. As it is the price of an OEM battery can be prohibitive. An EN-EL18 for a Nikon D4/D5 or D6 sells for £185 to £210 but a third party battery can be had for £49. If the OEM were to sell at £60 I wouldn't bother with the third party offering.

I don't believe Nikon are recouping the development costs of their battery, it has been around for 8 years since the D4 launched. I think they are testing what the market will stand and they are losing sales because of it. The practice of crippling third party batteries is anti-competitive and may even be illegal in some markets, I don't believe it is increasing sales of OEM batteries.

 

The measures taken by Canon are not reasonable though. For example, if they just licensed, at a reasonable price, the encryption technology they use to encrypt the information from their battery to the camera, to legitimate vendors, such as Duracell, then they would would actually be able to take more forceful action.

Instead, they simply cripple the information display, but don't prevent the battery from making electrical contact. In short, they encourage you to buy their batteries but don't provide any actual protection from fakes.

 

It does suggest that the company in question has itself sourced from a dubious supplier, rather than through the normal route.

 

There is a difference between fakes and third-party batteries. Fakes are often of poor quality, many third-party makers produce decent enough products which simply are not masquerading as the genuine article, the fakers are only concerned about making money, the standard or safety of what they are selling is not their prime concern.

 

Given that the JAL 787 battery fire was caused by a small piece of swarf and the Ethiopian 787 fire by a trapped wire it should be fairly obvious that cleanliness and adherence to assembly procedures are essential to Li-Ion battery safety. The only way to be sure that a battery is safe is, unfortunately, to use it. All be it with appropriate caution.

 

The battery market is a rip-off for consumers, and a money-pot for manufacturers.
If one looks at the video camera market, it is possible to pick up batteries from just about everywhere, and put them on a multitude of cameras. The batteries on stills cameras really don't follow much more variance. Different packaging to fit cameras is nothing more than an excuse to charge more - the underlying tech has not changed considerably for a long time. As you point out, £60 is more than adequate for a battery.

 

What might interest many is that the charger I bought for my EN-EL18 batteries came with two adaptor plates, one for the EN-EL4 which isn't really surprising but the other one is for the Canon LP-E4, LP-E19 and LC-E19 which suggests that the Canon and Nikon batteries are very similar, they certainly look much the same. The Canon original is however only 2/3 the price of the Nikon one.

 

Who manufactures the batteries for Canon and Nikon, or do they do it themselves?

 

At least some of Canon's batteries are made by Panasonic, in China. At least some of Duracell's non-OEM batteries are made in China.

 

So £324.00 is a little excessive?

Cheers, Jeff

 

It's a lovely shape

 

That's £60 for the battery and £264 for the label!

 

All of my Nikon ENEL3e, and ENEL15 and the aftermarket versions of the ENEL3e are all marked as made in China

 

There is very little that isn't!