NikonWeb.com

I finally got my new DS-565 (E3S) today. Not as nice as my E2N (which is like brand new), but still in very good shape. Paid $235 on eBay.

A few first impressions:

Battery wasn't charged (as expected), so I got my EH-1 Nikon charger only to find out that the plug doesn't fit!

For some reason Nikon/Fujifilm changed the charger plug for this newer model - probably because the E3 uses a Ni-MH battery instead of the older Ni-Cd version. Right?

Instead of the jack plug on the EH-1 charger, this battery requires a proprietary (?) 4 pin plug. New camera, no battery. Very, very frustrating (especially since there are not too many E3 chargers around anymore).

Idea: Perhaps I could use the Nikon AC adapter instead? Got my ES-1 AC adapter when I suddenly realized I could simply use the battery from my E2N. And so I did. It works!

For future reference, the E2N uses a Nikon EN-1 battery (7.2V 1200mAh Ni-Cd) while the DS-565 uses a Fujifilm BP-D56 battery (7.2V 1150mAh Ni-MH). Physically, both batteries are identical, except for the charger plug.

Camera ergonomics has been improved (or at least changed) from the older E2 design, but at first glance both cameras looks more or less identical. The DS-565 includes an additional SCSI connection on the back (covered by a very robust rubber cover which is secured by two screws), and a CSM and BKT button. The DS-565/E3 also includes GPS support (a first?) and other improvements.

As usual, the camera has a very low serial number: 8300032. All E-models I've seen so far have these xx000xx serial numbers, except for one: E2N no. 7100103.

Put in my one and only 40 MB ATA PCMCIA flash card and fired away. This camera is definitely much faster than my E2N: It can shoot an amazing 3 fps for up to 12 frames!

So far I've only shot a few frames around the house, so I can't really comment on image quality yet. I have a feeling that it may be a tad better than the older E2N, but I don't think there's a huge difference.

The fastest aperture is now f/4.8, compared to f/6.7 (?) on the E2N.

For more details, download Fujifilm's own DS-560/565 brochure (507 KB PDF document).

Jarle

"Battery wasn't charged (as expected), so I got my EH-1 Nikon charger only to find out that the plug doesn't fit!

For some reason Nikon/Fujifilm changed the charger plug for this newer model - probably because the E3 uses a Ni-MH battery instead of the older Ni-Cd version. Right?

Instead of the jack plug on the EH-1 charger, this battery requires a proprietary (?) 4 pin plug."

Did you try your mh-4(d1 charger),I think the plugs are the same.
Kiu

The D1 manual states that the charger from the E3 can be used to recharge the EN-4, so I suspect that the MH-16 should work. Both packs are 7.2v. The 4-pin plug (may) be for the discharge-recycle feature?

I will be looking for an E3, most do not have chargers and I suspect I can make one if the MH-16 does not work.

You're correct. The Nikon chargers will work:

"The MH-15 is further compatible with the Ni-MH Battery Pack EN-3 for the Nikon E3/E3s"

"The MH-16 can also be used to recharge or refresh EN-3 batteries for the E3 and E3s digital cameras and the MN-15 batteries for the F100 film camera."

Thanks for the tip!

Jarle

Hi,

I suspect that you are correct. The NiMH chemistry requires a variable charge curve, unlike the older NiCd chemistry. That means that one needs some intellegence inside the charger.

It also helps if one has a method of reading the cell temperature, which is the best indication that the NiMH cells are approaching end-of-charge. So, there should be a thermistor (temperature-variable resistor) inside the pack, which explains the extra pins.

It also explains why they kept the same connection scheme for the D1. It also uses NiMH cells. Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

After reading about the improved usage of the E3s vs the E2N, I have to sit here and daydream on what might have happened if Nikon had stuck to the basic E-series design and incorporated the D1's advanced imager behind the ROS to produce a 'full-frame' 2.75 MP DSLR......

That's the downside of being an engineer, BTW. It's far too easy to daydream up stuff that doesn't exist!

Stan

_________________
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

That's one of the beauties of Nikon,compatibility.
Kiu

Hi Stan,

Obviously, that's engineer talk (and I fully agree)

Unfortunately, the business guys (and girls) don't always agree: "I know it works, but let's change it and make some more money!" (I'm sure it's not that simple, but it often feels that way. Also, there's nothing wrong with companies wanting to make more money, but I'd rather spend *my* money on new cool stuff instead of new chargers).

Almost every new camera and other piece of electronic equipment you buy these days needs a different charger. In my perfect daydream world one single charger would be enough. Would be a nice birth present: "Dear baby John, here's your charger. Treasure it well, it shall last your entire life!" Wouldn't that be something?

Ok, enough ranting. Luckily, the D1 chargers will work with DS-565/E3 batteries. Kudos Nikon!

Jarle

I'm glad they didn't. I don't think it would have been a huge success. People would only have seen another bulky, awkward camera with light- and quality-reducing optics. Unlike today, most people were not overly impressed by a 'full frame' camera, since that was already the standard at the time (with people being used to their 35mm film bodies).

I'm convinced Nikon did the right thing introducing the smaller D1, even with a 1.5 crop factor ("hey, I don't even need to carry my heavy telephoto lenses anymore! My 80-200 zoom is now a 300mm!").

Jarle

I have to agree with this thinking. The D1 offered just the right combination of performace and price to take off and sell like the proverbial hotcakes. It was the D1 that defined what a DSLR had to be. Before the D1, we had all sorts of different design schemes out there. After the D1, everything came out using the same basic design.

Note that it is a design that follows what evolution had produced in the way of a 35mm film camera. Once again, it wasn't broke, and so it didn't need fixing. In hindsight, it's clear that the outfit that first managed to make a DSLR that was the same as a FLSR was the one that would win in the marketplace.

In my case, I had the E2 in hand before I bought my first D1, and I can tell you changing bodies was like waking up from a nightmare. Fortunately, I had already seen that the future of photography was digital, so I admitted to myself that the $750 E2 was a mistake and I really needed to ante up the $5000 for a D1.

However, I still sit here and think of what might have happened if the E-series had been extended to the E4 using a more advanced imager. I can't help it. I'm an engineer, after all!

Stan

_________________
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer