New batteries for 5D2: Will 3rd party batteries have a chip inside them as well?

The chip is there for a few reasons:

1. To protect the consumer against counterfeit batteries. It is VERY evident very quickly if you have a fake canon battery as it just won't work.

2. To screw the consumer, forcing them to buy the "expensive" batteries. I mean think about it, why didn't they use the old 5D grip and battery for the new 5D? because they just made like $425 or so off of every person that wanted a new grip and a couple batteries.

3. To "control" the people that make the batteries. I am SURE that Canon will come up with a licensing program for the "chip" so that only "approved" vendors can make batteries. You can bet that those batteries will cost more. Equally one would hope that Canon will show some restraint and actually require their OEM batteries to meet some sort of standard....BAH!

5d2 batteries are more powerful

They will make ones with chips one day,

Only a matter of time I guess

Joshhh

Do you own the camera?

If you do, you should have figured out by now that the new battery and camera combined provide significantly more shots than the old system.

You may have also discovered that with two new power-intensive uses (the new Live View and video), the additional power is a great benefit. Moreover, there is a greater need to have more precise power management.

That power management is significantly improved over the old system. The camera contains a mini-analyzer to track the rechargeability of the batteries, and that requires maintaining a registry of the batteries. This capability means, to me as a professional, that I need stock 30% fewer batteries than I did before because I have no fear of a battery unexpectedly dying before I can order replacements.

This is not like Epson's war against the printer consumer. Epson chips their ink cartridges without providing any additional benefit whatsoever, and they change the chips every few months to prevent 3rd party manufacturers from reverse engineering them.

Epson is your poster child for that kind of anti-consumer practice. This new battery from Canon is not.

When searching for a lower-cost full-function alternative to the rip-off Canon original LP-E6, I came across this:

"IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL INFORMATION
The original Canon LP-E6 battery include a chip which communicates various pieces of data back to the camera[. W]hilst this is very useful it also gives Canon a way of slowing / stopping non Canon branded battery sales.

"The chip with it's encrypted software on-board cannot be copied outright due to patents Canon own, so the 3rd party battery manufacturers have to design a way of getting around the protection. The solution we are selling does not send the battery life to the camera (as this is the part the encryption covers). The replacement battery can only be charged on the supplied charger; charging it on any other charger will damage it beyond repair. The supplied charger can charge the included battery or Canon original LP-E6 batteries."

If this is true, it's apparent why there are so many low-cost imitations that can't emulate the Canon original: they can't duplicate it because of encryption.

Having read this, I'm disinclined to buy a Canon original battery. I wonder what the Digitalrev ones are -- from the original manufacturer, or a copy?

Luke Cern wrote in post #7661494
I've got strong feelings about this and have discussed them in other posts. Canon have specified a proprietary product in order to intimidate consumers into using an unneccessarily high priced product. When they decide to stop supplying an own-brand proprietary battery in a few years time, there would be the risk of "no supplies". However, Canon don't make the batteries anyway, and there will always be copy versions and by then we will all realise that any manufacturer can make a battery to Canon's specification for the 5D2 and there will sensible prices based on a competitive market.
Canon should concentrate on doing what they do best and bringing camera body specifications and features into line with what consumers are asking for. Batteries are just a diversion, and the fact that they haven't been able to source adequate quantities since launch of the 5D2 proves just how bad things can be when suppliers get involved in products they can't make.

My message to Canon is "move over and stick to doing what you do best".

^This completely

It seems slightly odd a £90 Canon battery can be duplicated and sold on at about £10 through replication; even putting aside such arguments as any research and development that went into making yet another battery, that is simply an unforgivable original price marker for others to beat down all of £80. Piracy wouldn't have a market if we weren't being completely ripped off in the first place.

Where did you come across this? Apparently from someone trying to sell you their battery, rather than from a non-interested battery expert.

Nor can you be sure "encryption" is the problem, rather than there is simply a significant reverse-engineering job to be done.

I suspect that if forums such as this had existed when the EF lens mount was released, people would have complained that it was just a ploy to prevent Sigma and Tamron from selling lenses for Canon cameras.

I purchase battery and charger for $40 bucks from B&H workes great. But, does not show up on camera screen.

dfrancey wrote in post #7902489
I purchase battery and charger for $40 bucks from B&H workes great. But, does not show up on camera screen.

how many shots can you get from those batteries?..