cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

R6 mk2 draining batteries

Steve07
Contributor

Hi,

I have only had my R6 mk2 for about 8 months, I use the neewer battery grip, canon batteries and canon adapter for my ef lenses, the same set up I had with my 5D mk3, I cannot understand why it’s draining batteries when it’s not powered up. I have had several canon bodies over many years and never had this problem. Probably going to get it checked out as I’m pretty sure this shouldn’t be happening. Hopefully a simple solution. Any ideas please. 

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

So true about the latest cameras not accepting 3rd party products, apple products tend to be the same, think I’ll just have to bite the bullet and buy my two spares as canon originals. It does seem somewhat wrong for these large companies to monopolise on what’s essentially a commodity product, but as you say if it puts a highly prized camera out of action, what can you do. Have a great weekend and many thanks for the valuable comments. 

View solution in original post

17 REPLIES 17

dpsaiz
Enthusiast

The ST batteries that I use, when the battery info is displayed, shows up along side of Canon OEM batteries, battery life as well as a serial number appears. 

Canon needs to put an extra emphasis on their battery production to keep their equipment up and running. Take note, Canon's new flash no longer users AA batteries you gotta use the provided battery which likely cost more than $70 to replace. Do you have any idea how many AA batteries you can buy in bulk from Sam's for $70?

One YouTuber did an unboxing of his new Canon flash he complained that the battery that came with the flash didn't work and spent a few minutes looking for the charger. Guess what, Canon didn't provide a charger for that battery.

There are plenty of used Canon products on sale online and I'll keep buying the Canon products that will use 3rd party batteries, flashes that will use AA batteries.

Canon just needs to double or triple its battery production for its entire line of photo and video products.

 

“ One YouTuber did an unboxing of his new Canon flash he complained that the battery that came with the flash didn't work and spent a few minutes looking for the charger. Guess what, Canon didn't provide a charger for that battery. “

This is hypothetical anecdote cannot be either confirmed or denied.  At the very least you could provide a model number or even a link to the video.  No need to provide it now.

Have a nice day.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

March411
Rising Star

I have been looking/researching mirror-less for quite some time. R3, the R5 or R6 MII have been my focus. 

The reason I mention this is not only third party products have issues. The R6 MII has a hard dissatisfaction rate of 17.2% (1 rating) and a soft rate of 20.6% (1-3 rating) on the Canon website. All electronic components have issues and that is a fact.

Canon isn't attempting to protect anything other than their revenue stream. The perfect example is the Viltrox EF to R adapter, do the research, many amateurs and professionals give it a extremely positive review. And it is the adapter with the control ring for half the price of the Canon.

And for those that want to suggest that I prove it, well I don't participate in internet games but I don't post anecdotal information either. The information is at your fingertips and google or YouTube are your friend. There is no reason to be angry because others need to look at other options.

We all have passion for Canon equipment and should understand that not everyone can afford to purchase the higher priced name brand and assist them with a solution verses poking them with a stick.



Be a different person on the web, be kind, respectful and most of all be helpful!

90D ~ 5D Mark IV ~ R6 Mark II ~ R50 and way to many EF lenses
Photoshop and Topaz Suite for image processing
http://commonhangout.com/piwigo/

Ask anyone in science or academia to determine the veracity of a statement and they will not, repeat not, refer to You Tube and Google searches in general - these are unmediated an edited resources.   If you want to quote statistics, then please provide a link to an specific authoritative source that can be verified.  I cannot, at this time, find the reference to the Canon website to which you allude, so a link would be much appreciated.

Absolutely, OEM equipment has its issues, and we see many of them presented on this site, in part because it's a support site.  That is what a manufacturer's guarantee is for: to provide, in good faith, support for equipment or services produced by them, and purchased from an authorized dealer or supplier.  Absolutely, things malfunction, break or have issues - that is to be expected, within limits.  If such defects impact significant numbers or batches of gear Canon, like other OEMs, will issue a product recall or firmware updates, as they have done historically, otherwise issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

As regards use of 3rd party gear, no OEM will make definitive statements as to the viability or compatibility of such items, as they have no control over their design or manufacture, nor will they provide support or trouble-shoot - that is the responsibility of the non-OEM makers.

I have used 3rd party equipment: battery grips and optics with Canon and other brands - but I do so fully cognizant that it is my responsibility and risk in doing so - I don't expect the OEM to support that gear, and if I had an issue I would approach that maker.


cheers, TREVOR

"The Amount of Misery expands to fill the space available"
"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris

Hey Trevor while I respect your opinion I will respectfully disagree.

I am unsure why you feel like you have to attack me, I did exactly as you stated, I gave valid statistical information with the source for that information. Simply go review the feedback on the R6 MII body on the Canon website, the math is easy. Beyond that I sited no additional statistics. People overall should simply become more knowledgeable, the information is readily available and there is no reason to attack others when there are differing opinions.

I will do this once because I respect you Trevor but the Internet bashing amongst people with the same passion that may have different resources or preferences is uncalled for simply because they don't agree.

Data is here: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/eos-r6-mark-ii?color=Black&type=New

For reference :

Reviews29  
Rating51965.5%
 4414%
 313.4%
 200%
 1517.2%

As to your statement regarding Google and YouTube, both resources are now used for training and education across the globe. Additionally many professionals now use YouTube for in depth reviews that accompany statistical information as well as bench tests of third party equipment. Many have different results/opinions than others here but that is no reason to doubt their results. 



Be a different person on the web, be kind, respectful and most of all be helpful!

90D ~ 5D Mark IV ~ R6 Mark II ~ R50 and way to many EF lenses
Photoshop and Topaz Suite for image processing
http://commonhangout.com/piwigo/

First, thank you for providing the link, that is all I have asked for and I shall examine the material therein. However, my first reaction is to look at the number of reviews - 29.  In all honesty, I would not consider that a valid population for a definitive conclusion, it is an extremely small sample compared to the number of items sold.  For an academic comment on this I would refer you to this article from Yale: Can You Trust Bad Online Ratings? | Yale Insights

I am not driven to attack YOU, I am asking you to provide definitive reference material to back up your statement - I would expect anyone to challenge me in the same way.   As to your statement: "As to your statement regarding Google and YouTube, both resources are now used for training and education across the globe. Additionally many professionals now use YouTube for in depth reviews that accompany statistical information as well as bench tests of third party equipment. "  I would immediately say that this, again is a vague and blanket statement.  Having been married to a university professor for over 20 years I can assure  you with absolute certainty that simply using Google as refence will not get any credit - one has to refer back to a specific paper that has peer review and authority.  Similarly Wikipedia has not academic credit unless the sources can be verified.   I am happy to accept your statements with the right authority of source and content to back them up.  So far that has failed to materialize. 

As to Internet Bashing...  I spent a good chunk of my life in IT blocking propaganda, misinformation and disinformation from vested sources, particularly with regard to political, social and scientific issues.  Simply because someone puts a statement on a web page does not make it true, nor does the number of people who like it or the number of times it is linked to.  When I look at something on the web, my first reaction is to check the source, its veracity and, if necessary, its sources - I don't care who they are, and I continue to do so until I develop a level of trust in that source.   I continue to be amazed at the number of pages with bogus credentials and references that offer misinformation. 

The web and its material are neither good nor bad, just as books were neither good nor bad, they reflect the state of our society, which pedals clear information, brilliant research and useful material, right alongside propaganda to push points of view, economic and political agendas and social policies or biases.   If you go to a lecture at a university, or open a scientific paper the importance of veracity are expected to be upheld to the upmost.  I certainly am expected to do so when I write papers.

I often refer to reviewers that I have have checked and developed a level of trust for, so I am not bashing the web per se, I am saying it must be used with caution, with verification, in exactly the same way as a book providing a statement or opinion needs to have references.  I will always challenge blanket statements made without references.


cheers, TREVOR

"The Amount of Misery expands to fill the space available"
"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris

 “However, my first reaction is to look at the number of reviews - 29.  In all honesty, I would not consider that a valid population for a definitive conclusion, it is an extremely small sample compared to the number of items sold.  For an academic comment on this I would refer you to this article from Yale: Can You Trust Bad Online Ratings? | Yale Insights”

If the sample size is consistent within your data group, would you agree that it validates the findings. It’s fairly consistent across the R bodies. Now please don’t get me wrong, I have always run Canon Equipment and will probably never change. The point is this, all providers have issues and there are some very good third party providers that reduce expense and provide excellent results..

R5 Hard rate 15% - soft rate 26.7% against 120 reviews

Reviews120  
Rating57461.7%
 443.3%
 31411.7%
 265.0%
 11210.0%

I’ve found that over my thousands of hours reading here that many associates/colleagues have a tendency to ask others to provide definitive reference material to back up a statement. It is my belief that if you wish to challenge that person’s assessment you should bring data/information back so that you can have an intellectual conversation with a person. Basically, stating I don’t believe you prove it doesn’t really bode well for building and growing an affable community that inspires growth. People appear to come and go quickly or simply slide away and just read without engaging. And ss it pertains to failure rates of third-party gear, well it appears that everyone, not just third parties have some challenges.   

As to your statement: “I would immediately say that this, again is a vague and blanket statement.  Having been married to a university professor for over 20 years I can assure you with absolute certainty that simply using Google as refence will not get any credit - one has to refer back to a specific paper that has peer review and authority.  Similarly Wikipedia has not academic credit unless the sources can be verified.   I am happy to accept your statements with the right authority of source and content to back them up.”

Two things come to mind, first I never stated that the data or information can or should be used to gain credit, that is a completely different conversation and I would appreciate it if you did not put words or statements into my mouth. Within that statement you also state that you would be “happy to accept my statements with the right authority of source and content to back them up.” I’m going to assume that you determine the right authority of source. I'm sorry but that statement just seems a bit superior to me and de-values others.

Second point would be you do seem to believe that YouTube can provide expert information and should be used as a resource.

https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/EOS-R6-Viewfinder-Lag-with-Back-Butto...

“As to Internet Bashing...  I spent a good chunk of my life in IT blocking propaganda, misinformation and disinformation from vested sources, particularly with regard to political, social and scientific issues.  Simply because someone puts a statement on a web page does not make it true, nor does the number of people who like it or the number of times it is linked to.”

You and I strongly agree on this point. Our political environment is the poster child for that specific paragraph!

“When I look at something on the web, my first reaction is to check the source, its veracity and, if necessary, its sources - I don't care who they are, and I continue to do so until I develop a level of trust in that source.”

Agreed, but that’s not really what we are talking about is it Trevor. Bashing can be when someone approaches a group of knowledgeable people and to the best of their ability seek guidance. I have seen people belittled for their desire to purchase a certain piece of equipment or accessory. I won’t make direct quotes because my intention is not to embarrass others but this thread is a decent example. Explain the possible risks of third party but don’t attack someone because they don’t agree. People may not be fortunate enough to have $70 to purchase batteries that aren’t significantly better than third parties that they can get for $20. If we really were interested in helping we would point them in the right direction. I would be I am concerned about the hostility.

“The web and its material are neither good nor bad, just as books were neither good nor bad, they reflect the state of our society, which pedals clear information, brilliant research and useful material, right alongside propaganda to push points of view, economic and political agendas and social policies or biases.   If you go to a lecture at a university, or open a scientific paper the importance of veracity are expected to be upheld to the upmost.  I certainly am expected to do so when I write papers.”

But you aren’t writing papers, you are helping others expand their knowledge, grow and assisting them in making decent decisions. It should be in line with their original request. And hopefully in the most cost-effective fashion.

"I often refer to reviewers that I have checked and developed a level of trust for, so I am not bashing the web per se, I am saying it must be used with caution, with verification, in exactly the same way as a book providing a statement or opinion needs to have references.  I will always challenge blanket statements made without references."

Again, we agree, but the approach when having those discussions doesn’t have to be caustic, challenging or angry. And I am not specifically talking about you.



Be a different person on the web, be kind, respectful and most of all be helpful!

90D ~ 5D Mark IV ~ R6 Mark II ~ R50 and way to many EF lenses
Photoshop and Topaz Suite for image processing
http://commonhangout.com/piwigo/

dpsaiz
Enthusiast

Canon EL-5 uses the LP-EL batteries and they run over $100 and charger is NOT provided. If you have one of the following cameras, you may have lucked out because they use the LP-E6 battery, the charger is compatible with the LP-EL battery, should be included with following camera bodies: EOS 5D Mark II/III/IV, 5DS/5DS R, 6D, 6D Mark II 7D, 60D, 70D, 80D, R5, R6, R7 and R.

If you have one of the following camera bodies R8, R3, R50, R10, RP, R100, RP,  and you buy the EL-5 flash you'll need to fork over for the charger because these camera bodies use the LP-E17 battery.

So the info is NOT 'hypothetically anecdotal' as you eloquently attempted to state.

I am happy for you to do your own homework.

Announcements