Tweet
Having just become the happy owner of an E-M1 MkII I thought it was about time to update the data-logging equipment and repeat the tests I have done in the past on BLM-1, BLL-1 and BLN-1 clones. Just as with modern multi-EMU/ECU cars our cameras are completely dependent on the battery to drive the electronics and the electro-mechanical components of our modern digital cameras. As a past radio-controlled 10th scale car racer I learned first hand the importance of being able to measure and monitor the state of the cells in the packs and this has carried over into batteries of all types. I hope the information here will be of some use to other owners.
There are seven key characteristics which define a re-chargeable battery such as the BLH-1.
In this, the first round of tests I can only really address 1, 3 and 7 from my small personal stock of BLH-1's (there should be two Olympus samples but the second pack has been delayed). A little later I hope to be able to report on 6. I would like to present here my findings on the Olympus BLH-1 as shipped with the camera (1720mAh stated), the EXPro BLH-1 (2450mAh stated) and the DSTE BLH-1 (1750mAh stated).
The results presented in the attached graphs are the averages of three runs each into a 40-ohm load (to approximate the manufacturers stated capacity - note 1) and into a 10-ohm load to approximate a heavy continuous shooting session with much focussing and chimping. The Olympus pack is charged in the BCH-1 and the other two packs are charged in the EXpro LCD-B.
First to be tested, the Olympus pack. This performs exactly as you would expect giving a nice flat discharge curve before starting to drop at 480 minutes and cutting itself off at 5.06 volts. The test load capacity at 1665mAh is a good result and adjusted to 1817mAh to equate to the manufacturers figures is well over specification.
Second in the queue is the EXpro BLH-1. Again, producing a nice discharge curve holding a slightly better voltage than the Olympus pack before rolling nicely off at about 580 minutes and cutting off safely at 5.4 volts to produce a tested 1956mAh, adjusted to 2135mAh to match manufacturer ratings albeit significantly less than that stated on the pack. This will definitely become a usable backup to the Olympus packs.
Lastly the DSTE BLH-1. Producing a test capacity of 1575mAh (adjusted to 1718mAh) this is the worst performance of those tested and slightly below the stated capacity. This in itself is not a major issue but the discharge curve is a cause for concern as there is a distinct peak at 7.74 volts followed by a steeper drop in the remainder of the curve before cutting off safely at 5.3 volts. This behaviour was consistent throughout the test cycles and is also quite apparent in the high-discharge test. I will not use this pack.
Physically, all packs seemed quite well constructed. The contact patches of all three were consistent in size with the Olympus having a better looking finish to the gold plate. The EXpro at 83g is the heaviest followed by the DSTE at 77g and the Olympus at 72g. Without cutting the packs open the mechanical test has to be subjective but simply by squeezing the sides and top/bottom the most solid feel goes to the EXpro followed by the DSTE with the Olympus pack surprisingly in last place. This is perhaps due to the air-space around the cells as this is the same order as the weight. None of the packs gave any problems sliding into or ejecting from the battery bay.
In summary, the EXpro and the Olympus pack are to be recommended but the DSTE with its discharge curve issues (which goes to cells and/or controller issues) should be approached with caution, especially as the EXpro is not a lot more expensive and has a far greater capacity.
The star of these tests has to be the EXpro. I have tested EXpro packs before, both grey and white BLN-1 types and have never been impressed with them, failing as they frequently do to come anywhere near the stated capacity and often showing high self-discharge and signs of premature failure. While this pack also fails to produce the stated capacity by almost 13% it nevertheless produces an admirable 17% extra over the Olympus pack for about a quarter of the price. If the self-discharge and longevity are equally as good then this will indeed be a good addition to the camera bag.
Of course, the clone packs are only partly decoded (at time of writing) which means that the E-M1 will nag at you when you put them in, you can't charge them in the BCH-1 and the battery condition data will not be displayed by the camera but if you don't mind that then the good news is that there is at least one clone pack worthy of consideration. I will hope to add some more packs to the tests as time goes by.
Note 1: As the 40-ohm test load results in a slightly higher discharge rate than the standard 0.1C rate the capacities have been adjusted upwards by 9.14% to compensate so will differ slightly from those shown on the graph. This does not apply to the high-discharge test graph.
Note 2: These tests are on single samples and I do not therefore assert that they are representative of the entire brand but I am sure you can draw your own conclusions.
There are seven key characteristics which define a re-chargeable battery such as the BLH-1.
- Capacity
- Fused for safety
- Cut-off to avoid irrecoverable deep discharge
- Shelf life if used occasionally
- Charge cycles if used frequently
- Internal self-discharge
- Mechanical construction
In this, the first round of tests I can only really address 1, 3 and 7 from my small personal stock of BLH-1's (there should be two Olympus samples but the second pack has been delayed). A little later I hope to be able to report on 6. I would like to present here my findings on the Olympus BLH-1 as shipped with the camera (1720mAh stated), the EXPro BLH-1 (2450mAh stated) and the DSTE BLH-1 (1750mAh stated).
The results presented in the attached graphs are the averages of three runs each into a 40-ohm load (to approximate the manufacturers stated capacity - note 1) and into a 10-ohm load to approximate a heavy continuous shooting session with much focussing and chimping. The Olympus pack is charged in the BCH-1 and the other two packs are charged in the EXpro LCD-B.
First to be tested, the Olympus pack. This performs exactly as you would expect giving a nice flat discharge curve before starting to drop at 480 minutes and cutting itself off at 5.06 volts. The test load capacity at 1665mAh is a good result and adjusted to 1817mAh to equate to the manufacturers figures is well over specification.
Second in the queue is the EXpro BLH-1. Again, producing a nice discharge curve holding a slightly better voltage than the Olympus pack before rolling nicely off at about 580 minutes and cutting off safely at 5.4 volts to produce a tested 1956mAh, adjusted to 2135mAh to match manufacturer ratings albeit significantly less than that stated on the pack. This will definitely become a usable backup to the Olympus packs.
Lastly the DSTE BLH-1. Producing a test capacity of 1575mAh (adjusted to 1718mAh) this is the worst performance of those tested and slightly below the stated capacity. This in itself is not a major issue but the discharge curve is a cause for concern as there is a distinct peak at 7.74 volts followed by a steeper drop in the remainder of the curve before cutting off safely at 5.3 volts. This behaviour was consistent throughout the test cycles and is also quite apparent in the high-discharge test. I will not use this pack.
Physically, all packs seemed quite well constructed. The contact patches of all three were consistent in size with the Olympus having a better looking finish to the gold plate. The EXpro at 83g is the heaviest followed by the DSTE at 77g and the Olympus at 72g. Without cutting the packs open the mechanical test has to be subjective but simply by squeezing the sides and top/bottom the most solid feel goes to the EXpro followed by the DSTE with the Olympus pack surprisingly in last place. This is perhaps due to the air-space around the cells as this is the same order as the weight. None of the packs gave any problems sliding into or ejecting from the battery bay.
In summary, the EXpro and the Olympus pack are to be recommended but the DSTE with its discharge curve issues (which goes to cells and/or controller issues) should be approached with caution, especially as the EXpro is not a lot more expensive and has a far greater capacity.
The star of these tests has to be the EXpro. I have tested EXpro packs before, both grey and white BLN-1 types and have never been impressed with them, failing as they frequently do to come anywhere near the stated capacity and often showing high self-discharge and signs of premature failure. While this pack also fails to produce the stated capacity by almost 13% it nevertheless produces an admirable 17% extra over the Olympus pack for about a quarter of the price. If the self-discharge and longevity are equally as good then this will indeed be a good addition to the camera bag.
Of course, the clone packs are only partly decoded (at time of writing) which means that the E-M1 will nag at you when you put them in, you can't charge them in the BCH-1 and the battery condition data will not be displayed by the camera but if you don't mind that then the good news is that there is at least one clone pack worthy of consideration. I will hope to add some more packs to the tests as time goes by.
Note 1: As the 40-ohm test load results in a slightly higher discharge rate than the standard 0.1C rate the capacities have been adjusted upwards by 9.14% to compensate so will differ slightly from those shown on the graph. This does not apply to the high-discharge test graph.
Note 2: These tests are on single samples and I do not therefore assert that they are representative of the entire brand but I am sure you can draw your own conclusions.
Attached Files
Comment