DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
Register now and use your old dpreview username.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

D70 frame counter


New Member
I got a D70 with a 1GB memory card. The frame counter reads 95 pictures. I thought at about 5MB a picture, the counter should be closer to 200!
Tried different cards and different D70's in the store, same thing. The salesmen, of course, knew nothing about it.
Tried shooting, and realized the camera actually takes close to 200 pictures on this card! The counter reasses the number of images left after each picture, for ex&le:
95 (initially)
94 (after 1 picture)
94 (after 2)
93 (after 3)
93 (after 3)
I suppose it has to do with lossless compression: the amount of space taken by a picture is only determined after the picture has been taken and compression is complete.

Thought other D70 users should know...
Also, does anyone else have a D70 that behaves differently? Should I take any action with the store or with Nikon?
I do experience exactly the same "feature" with my D70 and a 1 GB Kinston CF Card. Whereby I don't have a problem with the fact that there's still space left for additional card, I would like to put trust on the display and could use exact informations. I assume they will make a firmware update in the near future regarding this "feature". Of course, each photo has a different file size - but honestly, I don't think that this can be noticed by about 100 photos as a surprise.
Same thing with my camera, but I don't really see the problem with that. Just take the number as a worse case scenario, and with the experience, you should be able to get a better feel for how many images you can take with your typical shooting conditions.

> FWIW, I don't have a D70 (I'm still a film guy with a F5) but I bought my > wife a Sony DSC-V1 5 megapixel digital and a 1 gig memory stick. At full > resolution she can get appoximately 430 pictures on the stick before it's > full. I would have thought that the D70 should get slightly less than > that as I believe it's a 6.1 megapixel camera.

Is there that great a difference between 5 meg and 6.1 meg that you only get approx 200 picts (or about half) per gigabit ? Is it the file type that makes the size so different? Her's at the best resolution are TIFF files. Just curious.

Bill Slater
> Hi there, I assume you are shooting Jpegs in Fine? My D70 and 1 Gig compact flash (Dane-Elec) consistently states a capacity of 286-291 Jpegs Fine when empty (altho' I have been able to take about 310 at times). If you are shooting RAW I imagine that will be another matter. (In RAW I get maybe 95) Just FYI

In jpg fine, it starts at 293 images on a 1GB, but in practice, you'll get quite a bit more than that, probably close to 400.

I usually shoot on jpg fine - what is people's experience about shooting RAW? In what situations does it bring an advantage over jpg?

If you shoot RAW exclusively, then the counter should be accurate. However, if you shoot RAW+JPEG or JPEG, the size of the JPEG file will vary greatly. Each image compresses by whatever amount the actual content allows. A picture of a forest may compress minimally, while a shot of an evenly lit card will compress to the maximum the camera algorythm can achieve. The counter reflects this, updating with every shot.

This is true of every digital camera ever made, that does JPEG. It has nothing whatever to do with the camera, but with the JPEG file format. If you actually put some importance in the counter upon commencing use of the card, you mus shoot NOTHING but RAW.

Shooting RAW, you should get about 94 shots every time. If you format the card in the camera each time you have off-loaded your images, the 94 shots should be consistent. I say "about" since if you Move rather than Copy the file files and not reformat, that number should drop and continue dropping until the card is no longer usable.

No matter what camera or file format you use, you should ALWAYS reformat the camer IN THE CAMERA each time you copy the files to the computer.

If you believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, you may believe that camera makers can make a magic camera that is precognizant, knowing what you are going to shoot, and will accurately predict how the subject matter will compress BEFORE it is shot. However, that level of magick seems to be a bit rare in the modern era.

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504
In many cases, there is absolutely no advantage of shooting RAW over JPEG. It certainly slows down every step of the process, and hogs a lot of room on the card and hard-drive. If you do no have Photoshop CS, it offers almost no advantage under any circumstances and is a real bother.

If you have Photoshop CS, it is another matter entirely. Raw is outstanding when you are shooting in mixed light, light of unknown origin and in situations where the dynamic range is beyond what can be adequately expressed in 8-bits per channel. The loader that comes with Photoshop CS is magnificent, allowing you to accurately control almost every parameter of the image in a totally non-destructive way.

Shooting in mixed light, it is breeze to open the image multiple times - colour balancing each area of the image and combining them into a single well balanced image via layers and layer masks. Shooting under street lights, there is no problem getting excellent neutral colour. Shooting interiors where it would be impossible to capture both the highlight and shadow detail with a JPEG, using RAW and again layering, one can extend the shadow range by at least 2.0EV, though not much can be gained at the highlight end, unless the shot was exposed with a bias to preserving highlight detail.

In the case of extreme dynamic range, if it is practical to shoot a long bracket off tripod at no more than 0.7EV intervals combining the eposures in Photoshop, it is much preferable to shooting RAW. However, RAW serves well as an emergency solution when a tripod is either not available or not permitted. The technique is illustrated and detailed at http://www.larry-bolch.com/layers.htm

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504
Doing a little test will show you that even in RAW only, the count changes:
No photos taken: 95 "left"
20 taken: 84 "left"

So the size must vary even in RAW.

Just take the number as a worse case scenario, and with the > experience, you should be able to get a better feel for how many > images you can take with your typical shooting conditions. > > Manu

It's worse than the worst case scenerio. It would still be wrong with NO compression.