Unfortunately companies are shortening the production/support lifespan of products and with pandemic supply chain issues many people were "socialized" further into rapidly replacing new products because repair parts weren't available. Current production/consumption patterns are one of the reasons I consider "green marketing" a bad joke (and I have a PhD in marketing) because corporations and cultures have gotten used to throw away short life products. I bought my home nearly 35 years ago and it came with an already several year old Frigidaire refrigerator in the kitchen which I considered too small so it became a second refrigerator in the mudroom. During my time in this house, the kitchen has now had 5 "modern energy efficient" refrigerators replaced due to failure while the GM produced Frigidaire with its cast iron low speed compressor soldiers on without complaint and has never even had a replacement fan, only a new light bulb. So which is greener, a land fill with 4 not economically repairable refrigerators combined with all of the environmental costs and damages from all of the supply chain activity needed to manufacture and ship them versus one less efficient product that just keeps quietly doing its job? Companies ultimately make what consumers are willing to buy at a profit for the company.
It isn't just Canon and the classic old line from the Pogo comic strip from Earth Day 1970 is still very appropriate, "We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us". Corporations make the somewhat valid argument that is isn't economically feasible to keep replacement parts available for older products due to changes in products/productions but that is largely based upon consumer willingness to constantly buy into the latest hype somehow believing that a product that has fully met wants and needs for years is no longer acceptable because something with additional bells and whistles has been released. Walt Kelly hit a home run with his phrase in the "Pogo" strip.
Rechargeable batteries have a finite life based upon architecture, use, and actual chronological aging so rechargeable doesn't mean forever. And although battery "health" indicators are very useful, they aren't perfect and the best test of failing battery health is the change in behavior that you the user observe (inability to maintain a reasonable charge during short-term storage, rapid depletion in use from a full charge compared to historic behavior, etc.) At some point, cells lose so much performance from original that it is time for either a new battery or in some cases the old pack can be rebuilt with new cells. The only rechargeable battery architecture that has a near infinite life of which I am aware is the ancient technology Edison cell which dates back to around 1900. It uses a nickel iron and potassium hydroxide chemistry and can be discharged repeatedly to complete discharge without damage. It is extremely rugged and can be returned to as-new behavior decades later simply via cleaning and replacement of the potassium hydroxide electrolyte. They were used by years by railroads because they are built like a tank but the downside is they are extremely heavy and large for the energy storage density so entirely unsuited for cameras, phones, and even EVs. So we have to limp along with less robust batteries.
I would get a decent third party battery and move on with camera life.
Rodger
EOS 1DX M3, 1DX M2, 1DX, 5DS R, M6 Mark II, 1D M2, EOS 650 (film), many lenses, XF400 video
