None of the clock/trickle charger data sheets I've seen refer to a voltage cutoff. At some point the oscillator will stop oscillating, but I'd expect that to be at well below 2V.It’s likely (I would hope) the internal circuitry would cut the coin cell supply to the clock before it reached a critically low voltage.
No. PC motherboards have almost universally used primary CR2032 cells. Some DSLRs have user-replaceable CR2016 or CR2032 primary cells.Similar design has been used in computer motherboards for decades to supply BIOS chips power for the internal clock.
To kill a motherboard cell it generally would have to be left without any external power for months or years.
Check the scale on the graph. It goes down to 30 cycles.From the example spec sheet the deeper discharge can lower cycle life from 1,000 to 300.
Months, AFAICT. The capacity of an ML421 is 2.3mAh (yes, a thousandth of the capacity of the main battery).Quite significant, but I would guess to hit deep discharge it would have to be stored for a long time without the main battery, months, possibly longer?
We would hope so. But clock battery failure does seem to be a thing on other Panasonic cameras using the same battery.but even if storing a camera for 1 month at a time caused the coin cell a deeper discharge, you’d probably still need 10+ years to reach end of life.
These are stock phrases copied from one manual to another. Studiously vague.
Is anyone experiencing battery drain in the S5 (or panasonic bodies generally)? I had that issue with a G85 and GX8. Drove me crazy as I don't shoot every day. Is anyone seeing that in their Penny FF bodies?
My S5 does it just like my S1R did.Is anyone experiencing battery drain in the S5 (or panasonic bodies generally)? I had that issue with a G85 and GX8. Drove me crazy as I don't shoot every day. Is anyone seeing that in their Penny FF bodies?
You mean like this:
View attachment 186
?
Nah. Why go to the trouble of measuring the problem, when it's more fun to just waffle on?
You mean like this:
View attachment 186
?
Nah. Why go to the trouble of measuring the problem, when it's more fun to just waffle on?