Panasonic disables uncertified batteries

[akira]

<p>Admitting that today's biggest news for this forum is the release of Olympus' new M4/3 products, Panasonic's announcement should also be worth paying attention to.</p>

<p>Panasonic disables uncertified batteries with the newest firmware to avoid accidental ignition of some third party Li-ion batteries of uncertain origin.</p>

<p>Panasonic has already released the batterie disabling firmware ver. 1.1 for DMC-FX40, FX550, FS25, FS6, and ver. 1.2 for FZ7 and FT1. Firmware for G1 and GH1 will be released on around 22nd of this month.</p>

[rdm]

<p>So is this a good thing?</p>

[martin_hardy]

<p>Hang on a minute....does 'uncertain origin' mean ANY third party cell will not work with the G1?.If so,that's a pretty draconian measure by Panasonic, seeing as they have the audacity to charge around £55 here in the UK for their own product!.If they put their prices for these accessories more in line with the reputable third party manufacturers,people would be more inclined to go for OEM batteries in the first place!.<br>

I fully understand the safety issue,but it's still very annoying if i am right.</p>

[akira]

<p>"does 'uncertain origin' mean ANY third party cell will not work with the G1?"<br>

Martin, read the warning message in red here, for example:<br>

http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/FS25/index.html</p>

<p>Panasonic appears to try to disable all the third party batteries. Part of the price of a battery should be used for better quality control and compensation if something happens. Do you expect any compensation from uncertain third party brands? I've never looked at non-genuine Li-ion batteries for any electric equipments. So, this kind of announcement makes no difference to me.</p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>Doesnt make any difference to me either but what about your right to choose. Yes, they charger more for their product which makes some/a lot of customers go for cheaper alternatives - sounds flakey to me. They shoudl be forced to lower their prices if they are going to force you to use their batteries.</p>

[akira]

<p>Well, so far as the photographic equipments are concerned, I would excercise my right to choose cameras, lenses, tripods, etc. The right to choose questionable batteries seems more flakey to me.</p>

<p>I won't say the prices of the genuine Li-ion batteries are cheap enough, but their excessive prices over those of uncertain brands' batteries are within my personal tolerance.</p>

<p>Horses for courses. I would be willing to choose third party accessories for certain purposes. Someone make cheapo remote release for my Panasonic G1, please!</p>

[william_white8]

<p>I always use third party batteries.</p>

<p>Not convinced that branded batteries are any safer.</p>

 

[hclim]

<p>Does that mean that when Panasonic stops manufacturing the battery, the camera is obsoleted?</p>

[martin_hardy]

<p>Having Googled the issue, i can find no documented evidence of non-original batteries killing any G1's.But it would also appear that the reputable third party makers, like Hahnel and Ansmann do not in fact make a replacement cell that will power a G1 anyway!.However,I certainly would be wary of any 'bargain battery' on E-Bay for example, but i have used batteries for a 10d and an E500 from the above companies with no issues whatsoever.<br>

It looks as though the update is a seperate option at present on their site, but i wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic integrate it into the next major firmware update, so you then don't have the choice.I do understand the logic behind it i guess, as i have known people fry peices of expensive electrical gear that use mains adapters, by buying a cheaper third party alternative with the correct voltage, but the incorrect milliampage!.<br>

It would be nice to think that they would lower the price of their batteries, but by effectively monopolising the market, i can't see it happening at all. :(</p>

[jtk]

<p>"right to choose batteries" , "Panny must lower prices etc ".... :-) :-) :-)</p>

<p>On what planet to those rights and market/price theories apply? </p>

<p> </p>

[geoff_portas]

<p>Akira said "Someone make cheapo remote release for my Panasonic G1, please!"<br>

They do. Go to Ebay and search for "remote shutter G1" and you'll find several.<br>

I bought one for £7 and it works just fine!</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Interesting. If Panasonic were truly concerned about battery safety, they would make it optional. Sounds like they're trying to enhance their revenue stream. Not much different from the printer manufacturers putting chips in their ink to force you to buy theirs.</p>

<p>That said, sounds like you still have a choice with older cameras. Either don't install the update or lose the 3rd party batteries.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[akira]

<p>Hi, Geoff, thanks for the info on the cheapo remote shutter! I'll try it!</p>

[ben_obryan]

<p>This is terrible behavious (and to me makes bad business sense for a fledgling camera manufacturer).</p>

<p>If Panasonic are generally concerned for my safety, I have a suggestion. I'll send in my two third party batteries ($25 for both), in return they can send me a voucher for (at least) 50% off an official Panasonic battery. Those cost £72.50 from Amazon UK (closing in on $120). Still a massive profit for Panasonic but might make me think that there is any motive other than abusing a monopoly position.<br>

<br />On that note, I wonder what the anti-monopoly laws in the European Union and US will say about this (absent some strong evidence of safety issues from Panasonic).</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Some Ukranian garage lab is already working on a hack- battery that will simulate the right codes. I betcha!. I also think this is a non rational measure. Let the buyer beware. No product liability for Panasonic if one uses aftermarket anything, so it is a dubious ploy out of step with the real world. So I judge, unless convinced otherwise.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>This reminds me a little of the caveat that Canon has that they cannot guarantee that 3rd party lenses will work on their cameras and then they seem to design their firmware specifically so it won't. Even though there's technically nothing wrong with *good* 3rd party stuff. This is especialy odd considering that 4/3's is supposed to be an "open standard" (although it's not really)... to me the word "open" implies flexibility, not firmware forcing you to use same brand parts of any kind. What's next, a flash shoe that completely disables the flash if it's not same brand just because a minority of ANCIENT flashes might cause problems? Wouldn't a physical failsafe in the design be more prudent?</p>