When I got my Ring doorbell, almost 2 years ago, I noticed that it’s battery charged via USB-C. It doesn’t have a LED readout but it’s charging is cool. Thanks for your info too!!
My old Alpha 6000 doesn't have this warning and I have been using multiple batteries from 3 different brands other than Sony's official battery. I think the warning is a good thing since there are more horrible 3rd party batteries than the reliable ones. However, a suggestion for Sony is to give some kind of certification for 3rd party batteries that is proven to be safe so this warning won't show up and ruin your critical moment.
I mean, if we're honest, this is simply Sony having a temper tantrum about competition. They're notoriously greedy. But I actually find this dialog prompt a tiny inconvenience, compared to the bigger problem of "Infolithium" incompatibility in third-party batteries (whether or not -- but probably -- also caused by Sony), which results in totally inaccurate "time/battery-remaining" estimates. It's notable that Nitecore currently makes the best dual-charger on the market for this battery type.
Agreed about the dual charger. I tend to agree with you overall but what if there was that really shitty 3rd party battery that had problems during use or while you were charging it in camera. Better would be a big warning in the manual and then let us do what we want - it is our camera after all.
@@photorectoby Yikes, I take that back about the dual charger. Nearly ruined a shoot today, finding it only charged my official Sony batteries halfway after being in the charger all night. Used to work fine; same QC 3.0 charger connected. Simply a badly designed product (via micro-USB plug, no less -- outdated from the gate).
I don't believe the warning to be a good faith measure. Consider two probabilities: (1) The risk that unbeknownst to you a risky third party battery was inserted; notice that it cannot be yourself that consciously changed the battery AND that the battery must pose a real risk or shortcoming. (2) The risk that even with all original parts the equipment still malfunctions in certain situations. For the warning to make sense the (1)-probability must outweigh the (2)-probability, and preferably with some margin. We know for a fact that the (2)-probability is not all that small, or we would be given much greater warranty cover to begin with. This leads me to believe that the (1)-probability was not assessed in good faith.
@@photorectoby Thanks. Bummer. I'll looking to move to Sony full frame, with an A7IV later this year and it's something I'll need to work out. The warning would be a bit painful
