Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon D800 frame counter  (Read 1289 times)
Rob Reiter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223



WWW
« on: December 27, 2012, 09:34:24 PM »
ReplyReply

When I put an 8GB flash card in my 800E, the screen on the top tells me I have 100 shots, but I find I can get at least 150 RAW exposures with room for more. At first, I thought maybe instead of reporting number of exposures available it was telling me I had "100%" of the card left, but putting in an old 2GB card produced a figure of 25 instead of 100.

Is this the result of variable compression on RAW files? On my Canon 5D I got an exactly what it reported. Of course, getting 50% more on a card than expected makes me happy, but I do wish I had an understanding of what's going on here...
Logged

http://www.lightroom.com Fine art printing for photographers and other artists
mvsoske
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2012, 10:30:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd be interested to know the answer as well as my old D300, current D700 and D800 all exhibit the same behavior.

Mark
Logged

Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 458


« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2012, 11:09:27 PM »
ReplyReply

It might be that the counter is calibrated for "worst case" behavior. Only very detailed shots without large easily compressible areas, which might be more common with amateurs, while professionals do more studio shots, use shallow DOF etc. which pack tighter. I have noticed the same thing with Canon DSLRs, but not 50% more, though.
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2012, 12:04:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Is this the result of variable compression on RAW files?

Yes.

The count is based on the uncompressed RAW file size ... If you use compression, you will get more shots than the count indicates.
Logged
stevesanacore
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2012, 07:49:19 AM »
ReplyReply

While on this subject, has anyone compared image quality using compression turned on and off for in camera raw files? If the compression is truly lossless, why do they even have the option of turning it off?
Logged

We don't know what we don't know.
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2012, 07:53:45 AM »
ReplyReply

While on this subject, has anyone compared image quality using compression turned on and off for in camera raw files? If the compression is truly lossless, why do they even have the option of turning it off?


Lossless compression is just that - lossless.

Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 458


« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2012, 10:31:16 AM »
ReplyReply

While on this subject, has anyone compared image quality using compression turned on and off for in camera raw files? If the compression is truly lossless, why do they even have the option of turning it off?


Maybe just to make suspicious high-rez shooters happy...
Logged
langier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 600



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2012, 10:33:10 AM »
ReplyReply

JPEG or RAW, all my digital Nikon bodies for the past tens years have been conservative in the frames remaining. Since each image file compresses or saves differently, I'm guessing that the frames remaining has to do with worse case scenario.

Imagine, if the counter said 100 and only give you 80 frames, there's be lawsuits a flyin' here in the U.S. that the camera owner was duped. But, by going the other way the typical consumer can feel he's duped Nikon with all the "bonus" images! <G>

Once you start filling the cards in real life, you'll be able to get a feel how many frames you'll normally get from a card. For me, it's roughly a 50% increase in what the remaining frames show, though I've never actually counted and don't really worry too much about.
Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
colinm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2012, 10:17:13 PM »
ReplyReply

If the compression is truly lossless, why do they even have the option of turning it off?

Performance. There's a slight speed penalty to having to do the compression. It was more substantial on older bodies (or if you're using a truly ancient computer for your post-processing, but that's going to be an issue with the D800 in any case).
Logged

Colin
Rob Reiter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2012, 02:49:04 PM »
ReplyReply

RAW compression was my best guess. Apparently my old Canon 5D didn't offer that, so its counter was accurate. As long as the compressed RAW file is lossless, I'll stick with that. Fractional speed increases in writing the files doesn't hold any advantage for shooting landscapes. Even when I knock off a few frames with HDR in mind, it's seemed plenty fast enough.
Logged

http://www.lightroom.com Fine art printing for photographers and other artists
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad