Observation on memory card storage

skater

New member
My D7000 tells me I have space for 902 raw pictures on an empty 32 GB memory card. I thought my recent trip to Germany would be when I finally filled up a card.

Nope. I took 1232 images and 13 videos during that time and they all fit on one card. The camera still shows 172 pictures remaining. It looks like I used 24.1 GB of the capacity of the card.

No major conclusion or point here...I just thought it was interesting how many more pictures I was able to get on the card than the estimate.
 

ryan20fun

Senior Member
My D7000 tells me I have space for 902 raw pictures on an empty 32 GB memory card. I thought my recent trip to Germany would be when I finally filled up a card.

Nope. I took 1232 images and 13 videos during that time and they all fit on one card. The camera still shows 172 pictures remaining. It looks like I used 24.1 GB of the capacity of the card.

No major conclusion or point here...I just thought it was interesting how many more pictures I was able to get on the card than the estimate.
Perhaps it was using worst case scenerio sizes for the prediction.

HTH
 

skater

New member
Perhaps it was using worst case scenerio sizes for the prediction.

HTH

Probably. I really put it out there in case people were wondering how solid that estimate really is. My conclusion - not very, but it's at the far lower end, so it's wrong in a "good" way.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
My D7000 tells me I have space for 902 raw pictures on an empty 32 GB memory card. I thought my recent trip to Germany would be when I finally filled up a card.

Nope. I took 1232 images and 13 videos during that time and they all fit on one card. The camera still shows 172 pictures remaining. It looks like I used 24.1 GB of the capacity of the card.

No major conclusion or point here...I just thought it was interesting how many more pictures I was able to get on the card than the estimate.

Not all RAW files are the same size. It depends on the amount of information that is on the file/image.

Do a test. Take a shot of something that has lots of stuff in it, and take one of a single twig or something simple like that. The two image sizes should be different.
 

skater

New member
Not all RAW files are the same size. It depends on the amount of information that is on the file/image.

Do a test. Take a shot of something that has lots of stuff in it, and take one of a single twig or something simple like that. The two image sizes should be different.

Where did I say that they were the same size?
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Where did I say that they were the same size?

I think what he's saying is your 1232 images may have a higher number of smaller files so more images may fit on the card because of it.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
I'm remembering why I don't post here much anymore. Too much condescension.

You made a comment about it that indicated it was a new subject for you, and they are just explaining to answer your puzzlement. You could say "thanks". :)

Nikons "card space for a number of shots remaining" is a very conservative measure. You can believe that many will still fit, and most likely quite a few more will fit too.

File sizes vary with compression degree. Raw too, but speaking of JPG, a couple of hundred JPG files (all same size in pixel dimensions) in one disk folder, sorted by file size, might vary 2 to 1 on file size in bytes. It depends on scene content. Areas of blank space (plain walls, clear skys) compress much better than highly detailed areas. That is the "smaller files" concept that was mentioned. Size in bytes.

Sort your image folder by file size and you will see this. My raw file folders usually do not vary as much as 2 to 1, but I have some that vary more than 3 to 1. So, how many more images will fit on the card "varies", depends on what you aim the camera at. Depends on the compressed file size. The large files will contain much detail, and the small files will contain more blank area.

Anyway, Nikons number of shots in card space remaining is very conservative. The camera does not know what images you will take, so it is more of a worst case, more of a failsafe safety factor. As you fill the card to near 100% (when it matters), it will become very much more accurate. When it gets down to "space for one more image", it will be precisely accurate.
 
Last edited:

skater

New member
You made a comment about it that indicated it was a new subject for you, and they are just explaining to answer your puzzlement. You could say "thanks". :)

Where did I express puzzlement?

Instead I got answers like, "Hey, did you know file sizes can vary?" No shit, really? I've been using computers since 1985.

It was a simple observation I noted and thought I'd share. I wasn't asking for help. I wasn't asking for an explanation. I even said that in the first post.
 
Last edited:

Kevin H

Senior Member
Where did I express puzzlement?

Instead I got answers like, "Hey, did you know file sizes can vary?" No shit, really? I've been using computers since 1985.

It was a simple observation I noted and thought I'd share. I wasn't asking for help. I wasn't asking for an explanation. I even said that in the first post.


Holy crap dude take a chill pill I hate to see if you put up a pic for Critique :D
 
Last edited:

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I think what he's saying is your 1232 images may have a higher number of smaller files so more images may fit on the card because of it.

I'm remembering why I don't post here much anymore. Too much condescension.

Wow! All I did was to clarify what I thought he was saying. There wasn't any condescension intended on my part whatsoever.
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Where did I express puzzlement?

Instead I got answers like, "Hey, did you know file sizes can vary?" No shit, really? I've been using computers since 1985.

It was a simple observation I noted and thought I'd share. I wasn't asking for help. I wasn't asking for an explanation. I even said that in the first post.

Easy, man.

I see no condescension at all, just an explanation for your observation. It's just furthering the discussion.

A new photographer reading this post might find it helpful to understand WHY you were getting more shots than the estimate, or even in just understanding that the number displayed is no more than an estimate. And, again, a beginning photographer very well might not know that image file sizes vary. This is a forum with a wide range of photographic and technological backgrounds.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
Where did I express puzzlement?

Instead I got answers like, "Hey, did you know file sizes can vary?" No shit, really? I've been using computers since 1985.

It was a simple observation I noted and thought I'd share. I wasn't asking for help. I wasn't asking for an explanation. I even said that in the first post.

I'm puzzled by the fact that you make an observation and get mad when people reply. Since you didn't conclude your post by noting that the reason might be that file sizes vary, I thought that you might like to know this fact. As I'm not a mind reader, I had no idea that you have been using computers since 1985.

Congratulations. I've been getting laid steadily since 1979 but no one really cares about that either, do they?
 
Last edited:

skater

New member
Sorry, all, calmer now. I still don't see why anyone thought I had a question or was confused or whatever. I was trying to help out anyone that might have been wondering; it looks like you can get at least a third more than what your camera predicts, which is pretty useful information.

As a peace offering, I offer this just-edited picture of Neuschwanstein Castle...in the snow...in April. (We were unprepared for this kind of weather in terms of clothes. But the results were pretty beautiful.)

D7K_5134.jpg
 
Top