The Canon EOS R5 Mark II will not function with third-party batteries

[YuengLinger]

Some of these latest reports in this thread can easily, understandably be interpreted as Canon making life difficult, as hassling customers. They wouldn't be the first company do so. But that doesn't mean the interpretations are correct, that Canon is doing any of this on purpose.

If the bodies are communicating with battery chips, and the code in the body is modified for various, non-nefarious reasons during a FW update, batteries that worked fine suddenly don't.

On the other hand, seems like Canon batteries carry on after FW updates. In the case of the R5II, however, Canon might have outsmarted itself?

Why do Canon chargers from ten years ago work fine with the newest battery? And if they do, why can't the bodies have the same "dumb" charging option so customers can just charge in the body?

Do Canon bodies have the ability to record the use of aftermarket batteries? Can Canon's repair service point to this to show the warranty has been voided?

 

[Moritz_RD02]

Why do Canon chargers from ten years ago work fine with the newest battery? And if they do, why can't the bodies have the same "dumb" charging option so customers can just charge in the body?

I am by no means a mechanical or electrical engineer, but my best guess is that the charger is the dumbest part in this equation. It simply fills them up and reports charging status via a blinking LED. It most likely won’t check for anything apart from voltage etc, that‘s probably about it.

If the bodies are communicating with battery chips, and the code in the body is modified for various, non-nefarious reasons during a FW update, batteries that worked fine suddenly don't.

Again, my guess would be the opposite. It happened before (hello, Apple!) and it definitely will keep on happening if we as consumers don‘t speak up. Canons probably testing the waters on how far they could go - otherwise they would‘ve already declared that they‘re aware of this issue and will fix it in a future firmware update. That would be the sensible thing to do - but what do I know?


To recount all of this: most if not all replacement batteries - including the likes of the more recent NH-type - worked (as far as I can tell, so my basis is my experience) and still do in every single LP-E6-type of camera (5D Series from Mark II and up, 7D series, 60D and up, R6 series, R7….) up until the R5 Mark II.

Now, with the introduction of a supposedly more voltage-stable P-type battery, all of a sudden the only ones that don‘t work are recent NH-type non-canon batteries. I exclude „classic“ LP-E6 ones from this as they‘re not supported and Canon actually confirmed this in their manual. I know that sometimes replacement batteries were kind of janky - but most I‘ve used from quality providers were on par with the originals. I can still highly recommend my Pantona Platinums for non-R5-Mark-II users, even my old Baxxstars that I‘ve bought for my 5D Mark II worked fantastic in both it, my beloved 7D, 60D and R6 back in the day. But, as with everything else, YMMV.

So, to find this situation most curious is an understatement. Especially since my R5 Mark II burns through batteries (original Canon LP-E6NHs, mind you as I‘ve yet to get additional original P batteries) as if they were candy. And you can‘t even register them in camera, and mine don‘t show battery percentage in the battery menu, whereas the P-type does. Insert the „Coincidence? I THINK NOT!“ Pixar-Meme here.

Sure, this is all non nefarious and all.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Patona is releasing, on November 4th, batteries they say are compatible with the R5 Mark II

PATONA Platinum battery LP-E6P with USB-C input for Canon EOS R5 Mark II LP-E6NH LP-E6N LP-E6 2600mAh

Our PATONA Platinum LP-E6P battery was specially designed to meet the high-performance demands of the Canon EOS R5 Mark II. It is compatible with…

patona.de

 

[koenkooi]

Patona is releasing, on November 4th, batteries they say are compatible with the R5 Mark II

PATONA Platinum battery LP-E6P with USB-C input for Canon EOS R5 Mark II LP-E6NH LP-E6N LP-E6 2600mAh

Our PATONA Platinum LP-E6P battery was specially designed to meet the high-performance demands of the Canon EOS R5 Mark II. It is compatible with…

patona.de

Those are the 4A variants, not the promised 6A variants. I have one of the 4A batteries and it only has 2/3s of the capacity compared to the Canon batteries. I still need to contact patona to ask if that is expected or if I received a faulty one.

Canon does 8A discharge current if I understand correctly.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I understand that, and I am unaware of the specifications of the new Canon LP-E6P, but Patona says this battery is compatible with all the features of the R5 Mark II, and this has not yet been released, so I would suppose this is a different version of what you have.

Does the R5 Mark II turn on with that battery you own?

I have an original R6, so I haven’t been dealing with these limitations. I own two Patona Protect LP-E6NH, one with a capacity of 2250mAh, and another one with 2400mAh, and both batteries surpass the original Canon LP-E6NH. I’m looking forward to purchase the new Patona Protect LP-E6NH with 2600mAh they released earlier this year, or maybe this LP-E6P, for future-proofing, but this one seems to be a lot more expensive.

 

[koenkooi]

I understand that, and I am unaware of the specifications of the new Canon LP-E6P, but Patona says this battery is compatible with all the features of the R5 Mark II, and this has not yet been released, so I would suppose this is a different version of what you have.

Does the R5 Mark II turn on with that battery you own?

I have an original R6, so I haven’t been dealing with these limitations. I own two Patona Protect LP-E6NH, one with a capacity of 2250mAh, and another one with 2400mAh, and both batteries surpass the original Canon LP-E6NH. I’m looking forward to purchase the new Patona Protect LP-E6NH with 2600mAh they released earlier this year, or maybe this LP-E6P, for future-proofing, but this one seems to be a lot more expensive.

The label with the specs and partnumber is the same, including the ‘4A’ label, see my report on it in the accessoires section.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

The label with the specs and partnumber is the same, including the ‘4A’ label, see my report on it in the accessoires section.

Yeah, I understood you meant that, but I noticed with my batteries that they don’t really change the SKUs on the items. For instance, both my batteries have the number 13435, despite having different capacities, and the 2600mAh version states the same number as well.

So I’d give it the benefit of the doubt…