I'm using a D70 with a Scandisk Extreme 1 gig mem card, and shooting
raw it shows it only holds 94 shots. Shouldn't it hold about twice
that amount. I've formatted both in camera and using fat 32. No
difference. Ken
Randy W. Sims - 29 Mar 2005 02:29 GMT
> I'm using a D70 with a Scandisk Extreme 1 gig mem card, and shooting
> raw it shows it only holds 94 shots. Shouldn't it hold about twice
> that amount. I've formatted both in camera and using fat 32. No
> difference. Ken
Nikon D70 + Sandisk Extreme III 1GB. Mine shows 94 in raw mode when
empty, but its obviously reporting conservative. ATM mine shows 83
available while there are 22 shots on disk, which adds up to 105. I
think the 94 is worst case. Image compression is variable depending on
the content of the images, so the best it can give is a worst case estimate.
MrB - 29 Mar 2005 03:20 GMT
Mine shows 94 when empty.
> I'm using a D70 with a Scandisk Extreme 1 gig mem card, and shooting
> raw it shows it only holds 94 shots. Shouldn't it hold about twice
> that amount. I've formatted both in camera and using fat 32. No
> difference. Ken
Tom Scales - 29 Mar 2005 03:50 GMT
Don't forget it recalculates on the fly and ALWAYS reads low to start.
Tom
> Mine shows 94 when empty.
>
>> I'm using a D70 with a Scandisk Extreme 1 gig mem card, and shooting
>> raw it shows it only holds 94 shots. Shouldn't it hold about twice
>> that amount. I've formatted both in camera and using fat 32. No
>> difference. Ken
Bubbabob - 30 Mar 2005 02:25 GMT
> Don't forget it recalculates on the fly and ALWAYS reads low to start.
Not just to start. It's off by 100% throughout its range.
Jeremy Nixon - 29 Mar 2005 04:22 GMT
> I'm using a D70 with a Scandisk Extreme 1 gig mem card, and shooting
> raw it shows it only holds 94 shots. Shouldn't it hold about twice
> that amount.
Yes, it grossly underestimates the capacity. You should be able to get
about 170 on there, if not a few more.

Signature
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
DoN. Nichols - 29 Mar 2005 04:27 GMT
>I'm using a D70 with a Scandisk Extreme 1 gig mem card, and shooting
^^^^^^^^
Do you mean "SanDisk"? That is, at least, a brand which I know.
>raw it shows it only holds 94 shots.
That's pretty close to what I get (97) with a 1GB Lexar 80X CF
card.
> Shouldn't it hold about twice
>that amount.
Why? Neglecting overhead for EXIF data, and the JPEG thumbnail
built into each image, a 24-bit (e.g. 8 bits per color) image at
3008x2000 image would add up to 6,016,000 bytes -- which would give
166.22 images in 1e9 bytes (commercial "gigabyte") or 178.48 images in a
*real* gigabyte (1,073,741,824 bytes) -- but the RAW images are not
24-bit images. There are extra bits per pixel, which is what allows
adjusting the image intensity without serious loss. Assuming 12 bits
per pixel comes close, and since you consider that in reality you need
to store *four* 4-bit lower sections of each pixel (three colors, and
the rest to use up the remainder of the last byte), it comes out pretty
close.
> I've formatted both in camera and using fat 32. No
>difference. Ken
You're just not accounting for the extra information stored in
RAW mode beyond the storage of the 8-bit pixel values.
Enjoy,
DoN.

Signature
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Fyimo - 29 Mar 2005 14:53 GMT
They do the same thing with Jpeg. My one gig card says 225 pictures
with the highest level Jpeg yet I easily get 350 to 375.
Art
Steve Gavette - 29 Mar 2005 15:12 GMT
It always reads low. I have a 2GB card, and it shows 189 remaining when
empty (RAW mode). I have 120 shots on it now, and it shows 135 remaining.
Similar to a '65 Mustang gas gauge, it's accuracy increases when you get
close to empty.
> I'm using a D70 with a Scandisk Extreme 1 gig mem card, and shooting
> raw it shows it only holds 94 shots. Shouldn't it hold about twice
> that amount. I've formatted both in camera and using fat 32. No
> difference. Ken
Alan Browne - 29 Mar 2005 15:24 GMT
> I'm using a D70 with a Scandisk Extreme 1 gig mem card, and shooting
> raw it shows it only holds 94 shots. Shouldn't it hold about twice
> that amount. I've formatted both in camera and using fat 32. No
> difference. Ken
That's about consistent with my 7D with 1 GB (108 is the predicted
number). Minolta reccomend that you use the in-camera formatter. I
agree that that makes sense.
1 x 1024^3 / (6.3Msens * 1.5 bytes) = ~114. Not counting thumnails and
other file overhead. The prediction may be biased low to account for
worse case thumbnail sizes.
Cheers,
Alan.

Signature
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
John - 29 Mar 2005 19:15 GMT
> I'm using a D70 with a Scandisk Extreme 1 gig mem card, and shooting
> raw it shows it only holds 94 shots. Shouldn't it hold about twice
> that amount. I've formatted both in camera and using fat 32. No
> difference. Ken
Mine shows 94 NEF exposures remaining when empty, but I've never gotten
fewer than 170 NEFs and as many as 210. Nikon is just being *really*
conservative with their counting.
- John
Robert Brace - 29 Mar 2005 19:46 GMT
Does your D70 have "compressed" raw capability. If so, Nikon's exposure
counting seems to always assume you have it "on" whether or not you actually
do. A comparison of the exposures available with and without the compressed
raw on will bear this out. Nikon just says the "compressed raw mode will
take up roughly 1/2 the uncompressed raw space", so you have to watch your
counter recording as you go along if shooting in "compressed raw" mode.
You'll find the actual exposure capacity to be almost double that shown.
Bob
> I'm using a D70 with a Scandisk Extreme 1 gig mem card, and shooting
> raw it shows it only holds 94 shots. Shouldn't it hold about twice
> that amount. I've formatted both in camera and using fat 32. No
> difference. Ken
John - 30 Mar 2005 03:00 GMT
> Does your D70 have "compressed" raw capability. If so, Nikon's exposure
> counting seems to always assume you have it "on" whether or not you actually
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>that amount. I've formatted both in camera and using fat 32. No
>>difference. Ken
FYI, the D70 *only* supports compressed RAW. Therefore the counter is
*always* off (I think they just used the same algorithm they used for
the D100 and didn't bother re-writing for the D70!).
- John
Robert Brace - 30 Mar 2005 03:20 GMT
>> Does your D70 have "compressed" raw capability. If so, Nikon's exposure
>> counting seems to always assume you have it "on" whether or not you
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> - John
Thanks for the info. I know the D2H has the "normal (uncompressed)" raw and
the "compressed" raw with both settings showing the same "exposures
available" info. I wasn't sure about the D70 though.
You'd think Nikon could get a better estimate in their programming.
Bob
Bubbabob - 30 Mar 2005 07:29 GMT
> Thanks for the info. I know the D2H has the "normal (uncompressed)"
> raw and the "compressed" raw with both settings showing the same
> "exposures available" info. I wasn't sure about the D70 though.
> You'd think Nikon could get a better estimate in their programming.
> Bob
They could, but since they've denied that a problem exists, fixing it now
would be a 'loss of face' for them. We'll have to live with it.