1GB CF card, but different number of photos?


Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Hi all,

I have 3 1gb CF cards. A Kingston, a normal Sandisk, and a Sandisk Extreme2.

All 1 GB, but the Sandisks only display capacity of 111 RAW shots on my 350d, and the Kingston shows 114 shots.

Any idea why this is so? Could it due to having some sort of recovery software taking up approx 24MB or something?

Just curious to know..
((=
 

eawtan

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2004
1,370
0
36
Tampines
#2
Hi all,

I have 3 1gb CF cards. A Kingston, a normal Sandisk, and a Sandisk Extreme2.

All 1 GB, but the Sandisks only display capacity of 111 RAW shots on my 350d, and the Kingston shows 114 shots.

Any idea why this is so? Could it due to having some sort of recovery software taking up approx 24MB or something?

Just curious to know..
((=
Recovery s/w could be a possible cause, another possibility is the definition of 1GB, some will say 1000MB, whilst others give 1024MB. Again, 1MB could be 1000KB or 1024KB, and 1KB could be 1000Bytes or 1024Bytes, add all these up and you could gain/lose quite abit.
 

Ah Pao

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
1,662
0
36
Singapore
www.facebook.com
#3
Apparently different cards have slightly different capacities, so not to worry.
One thing to note, though, is to format your cards in-camera instead of using the PC.
 

CanonEOS

New Member
Sep 26, 2006
685
0
0
Hougang
#4
Hi all,

I have 3 1gb CF cards. A Kingston, a normal Sandisk, and a Sandisk Extreme2.

All 1 GB, but the Sandisks only display capacity of 111 RAW shots on my 350d, and the Kingston shows 114 shots.

Any idea why this is so? Could it due to having some sort of recovery software taking up approx 24MB or something?

Just curious to know..
((=
Any also if u use different setting the number of shots is different. example on ISO 1600 my 400D can take 200+ photo but on ISO 100 it can take 300+ :)
 

#5
didnt know ISO settings have such a big difference. what's the reason for that?

i had the camera in the same settings, and formatted all 3 cards together cos i was preparing for a shoot..that's when i noticed the difference.

yup, always format using the camera!

i was thinking it could be because they use different file systems or allocation tables.
 

creampuff

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2006
5,116
1
0
Dover
#6
Any also if u use different setting the number of shots is different. example on ISO 1600 my 400D can take 200+ photo but on ISO 100 it can take 300+ :)
I believe at the higher ISOs, the camera's noise reduction could account for the larger file size. Also during long exposures, the camera could record a dark slide as a reference to reduce hot pixels. Any experts can clarify on this?
 

Ah Pao

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
1,662
0
36
Singapore
www.facebook.com
#7
The number of frames left is only an approximation, since JPEG is a lossy compression format, i.e. the actual compression varies from picture to picture.

At higher ISOs, compression is less because it is more noisy, hence less pictures can fit in the card. Pictures with less details (e.g. cloudless sky) compress better in JPEG. Conversely, pictures with lots of details compress less.
 

David Chin

New Member
Oct 31, 2006
342
0
0
Singapore Central
#8
I recently bought two 4 GB SD cards. Both are Transcend. One is rated at 150X and the other is a SDHC Class 2. Both cards were formatted by my Nikon D80 and the 150X one can capture 222 pictures (RAW + Jpeg Fine) while the SDHC one only 218 pictures. It really puzzles me as well.
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#9
i believe the actual capacity for different models of the same size cards are actually slightly different. My Transcend 1GB has 1011400704 bytes while my Lexar 1GB shows 1019625472 bytes. This was checked under win xp explorer.

If the two cards show the same capacity on the computer, and show a different estimated capacity on the same camera after being formatted by the same camera under the same ISO settings - then we have a mystery.
 

Deadpoet

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2004
4,619
0
0
#10
I recently bought two 4 GB SD cards. Both are Transcend. One is rated at 150X and the other is a SDHC Class 2. Both cards were formatted by my Nikon D80 and the 150X one can capture 222 pictures (RAW + Jpeg Fine) while the SDHC one only 218 pictures. It really puzzles me as well.
Are the pictures identical? Your jpeg compression, different scenes, different size.

Sometimes, maybe there are bad sectors?

What is the estimation of how many frames remaining immediately after you formated the SD card? Do so with the camera format function. That one should be the same.
 

David Chin

New Member
Oct 31, 2006
342
0
0
Singapore Central
#11
Are the pictures identical? Your jpeg compression, different scenes, different size.

Sometimes, maybe there are bad sectors?

What is the estimation of how many frames remaining immediately after you formated the SD card? Do so with the camera format function. That one should be the same.
Both were brand new and formatted with the D80. The numbers 222 and 218 were displayed on the camera immediately after formatting. I am just curious why there should be a difference but there's no problem at all.
 

#12
yes, the different capacities were displayed after formatting, and the cards were empty. camera settings were exactly the same for all 3 cards.

the mystery of the missing megabytes thickens...*gasp*
 

redstorm

New Member
Oct 29, 2002
456
0
0
Hougang
Visit site
#13
Any also if u use different setting the number of shots is different. example on ISO 1600 my 400D can take 200+ photo but on ISO 100 it can take 300+ :)
I think it's a case of the empty card showing the number of shots it can hold even before he starts shooting. The number of shots depending on the ISO used is just another example. I have 2 x 4GB Kingston cards. The older one shows "999", the exact no. is 1015, while the newer one shows exactly "996" on jpeg.
 

Deadpoet

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2004
4,619
0
0
#14
Both were brand new and formatted with the D80. The numbers 222 and 218 were displayed on the camera immediately after formatting. I am just curious why there should be a difference but there's no problem at all.
yes, the different capacities were displayed after formatting, and the cards were empty. camera settings were exactly the same for all 3 cards.

the mystery of the missing megabytes thickens...*gasp*
Any diff in available free space when you look up properties on each of the card on you pc?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom