herman:
Why are they better than AA's?
If 1500-1700 is their rating your losing a lot of operating time. A good NiMh is in the 2500-2700 mHa range, almost double the capacity. What am I missing?
What you're missing is the way electricity works and how a mAh is calculated. Two AA batteries puts out 2.4v whereas the CRV3 batteries put out aprox 3.3v (some put out up to 3.7v)
Since a camera will draw X amount of watts power and a watt = Amps * volts you can see there are several ways to get the same watts of power.
For example; let's say the camera draws 20 watts of power. It will draw 20/2.4v amps which is 8.33 amps. That means to run it for 1 hour, it would require a 8330 mAh battery at 2.4v (2 AA NiMH).
The same example with a 3.3v CRV3 battery would draw 20/3.3v amps which is 6.06 amps. For the same hour, it would require 6060 mAh battery at 3.3v. which is 137% more "efficient". So, a 1700 mAh batter is equal to 2329 mAh at 2.4v if NiMH was equal to Li-Ion, which they aren't. Li-Ion is better for giving up all of the power it is rated for whereas NiHM will not do it as well.
Now, if you find a Li-Ion CRV3 battery that does 3.7v output, it would be 154% more "efficient". So, the same 1700 battery would be equal to 2669 mAh AA's (again given if NiMH and Li-Ion were equal).
Hopefully I didn't do any math wrong, but I hope it explains the general idea.