Why after format it doesn't goes back?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alain's Studio, Jul 11, 2007.

  1. I have a canon 30D and one 8 meg memory card, when I install the card new it
    did show 999 picture available / I must have shoot 2000 picture so far and
    right now every time I format the card it as less and less picture available
    now am at around 800 = is there some stuff that stay on the card?

    Alain
     
    Alain's Studio, Jul 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alain's Studio

    Scott W Guest

    Alain's Studio wrote:
    > I have a canon 30D and one 8 meg memory card, when I install the card new it
    > did show 999 picture available / I must have shoot 2000 picture so far and
    > right now every time I format the card it as less and less picture available
    > now am at around 800 = is there some stuff that stay on the card?


    I assume you have a 8 gig card, not a 8 meg card, with 8 megs you would
    get about 1 photo.

    Formating should clean everything off of the card.
    What mode are you shooting in, such as raw, jpeg or raw + jpeg, could
    you have changed the format you are saving your images as.

    Also the number of shots you get on a card will depend somewhat on what
    ISO you have the camera set at, higher ISO will give you fewer shots.

    For a 8 gig card I would think you would get something like 900 raw
    images and close to 2000 jpeg, note the camera will only show 999 at the
    most.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jul 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alain's Studio

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:48:39 -0400, Alain's Studio wrote:

    > I have a canon 30D and one 8 meg memory card, when I install the card new it
    > did show 999 picture available / I must have shoot 2000 picture so far and
    > right now every time I format the card it as less and less picture available
    > now am at around 800 = is there some stuff that stay on the card?
    >
    > Alain


    8 mb is an awfully small card - I'm surprised you get more than half a
    dozen shots.
     
    ray, Jul 11, 2007
    #3
  4. Alain's Studio

    Dave Guest

    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:4694300a$0$8971$...
    > Alain's Studio wrote:
    >> I have a canon 30D and one 8 meg memory card, when I install the card new
    >> it did show 999 picture available / I must have shoot 2000 picture so far
    >> and right now every time I format the card it as less and less picture
    >> available now am at around 800 = is there some stuff that stay on the
    >> card?

    >
    > I assume you have a 8 gig card, not a 8 meg card, with 8 megs you would
    > get about 1 photo.
    >
    > Formating should clean everything off of the card.
    > What mode are you shooting in, such as raw, jpeg or raw + jpeg, could you
    > have changed the format you are saving your images as.
    >
    > Also the number of shots you get on a card will depend somewhat on what
    > ISO you have the camera set at, higher ISO will give you fewer shots.
    >
    > For a 8 gig card I would think you would get something like 900 raw images
    > and close to 2000 jpeg, note the camera will only show 999 at the most.
    >
    > Scott


    Scott,
    Can you explain why storage capacity depends on ISO setting?
     
    Dave, Jul 11, 2007
    #4
  5. Dave wrote:
    []
    > Can you explain why storage capacity depends on ISO setting?


    Higher ISO, more noise, doesn't compress as well, bigger file size, fewer
    images per card.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2007
    #5
  6. Alain's Studio

    Dave Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    wrote in message news:ug2li.21921$...
    > Dave wrote:
    > []
    >> Can you explain why storage capacity depends on ISO setting?

    >
    > Higher ISO, more noise, doesn't compress as well, bigger file size, fewer
    > images per card.
    >
    > David
    >

    Thanks David.
    I can appreciate the theory but never realised it made much difference in
    practise. Taking a 30D, which I think the OP mentioned using, for an example
    of how the noise level increases from say ISO 100 to say ISO 800 do you have
    any feeling as to how much extra storage (percentage) is needed, all other
    things being equal.
    Cheers
     
    Dave, Jul 11, 2007
    #6
  7. Dave wrote:
    []
    > Thanks David.
    > I can appreciate the theory but never realised it made much
    > difference in practise. Taking a 30D, which I think the OP mentioned
    > using, for an example of how the noise level increases from say ISO
    > 100 to say ISO 800 do you have any feeling as to how much extra
    > storage (percentage) is needed, all other things being equal.
    > Cheers


    Dave,

    I think that some cameras actually indicate a number of shots left which
    varies with the ISO setting. If your 30D does that, you can find out what
    Canon estimates for yourself. I think we are talking in the 5-10-20%
    region, rather than anything gross.

    This was mentioned recently on this newsgroup, I recall.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2007
    #7
  8. Alain's Studio

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:54:12 +0100, Dave wrote:

    > I can appreciate the theory but never realised it made much difference in
    > practise. Taking a 30D, which I think the OP mentioned using, for an example
    > of how the noise level increases from say ISO 100 to say ISO 800 do you have
    > any feeling as to how much extra storage (percentage) is needed, all other
    > things being equal.


    That might be hard to say, as the difference in compressibility
    will also depend on the subject. If you have a subject that already
    contains very fine, nearly random detail, increasing the noise by
    upping the ISO shouldn't add much to the file size. That said,
    maybe it's not too hard to say for *your* pictures, if most of them
    have similar content, at least where compressibility is concerned.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 11, 2007
    #8
  9. Alain's Studio

    Dave Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    wrote in message news:Di5li.22003$...
    > Dave wrote:
    > []
    >> Thanks David.
    >> I can appreciate the theory but never realised it made much
    >> difference in practise. Taking a 30D, which I think the OP mentioned
    >> using, for an example of how the noise level increases from say ISO
    >> 100 to say ISO 800 do you have any feeling as to how much extra
    >> storage (percentage) is needed, all other things being equal.
    >> Cheers

    >
    > Dave,
    >
    > I think that some cameras actually indicate a number of shots left which
    > varies with the ISO setting. If your 30D does that, you can find out what
    > Canon estimates for yourself. I think we are talking in the 5-10-20%
    > region, rather than anything gross.
    >
    > This was mentioned recently on this newsgroup, I recall.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >


    I don't have a 30D (I believe it was the OP who mentioned he had one) but I
    just did your suggested experiment with my 2 digital cams, a P&S Casio
    EX-Z750 and a Pana FZ-30. (dare I say here that I also use film !! with a
    Bronica and Fuji GSW690iii)

    And the results were..........

    Pana FZ30 (using highest jpeg compression)
    set on ISO 80, 1133 shots available
    set on ISO 400 (can't get higher) 1133 shots.

    Just as a sanity check...
    Pana FZ30 (set to RAW)
    127 shots at ISO 80 and 400 ...as expected

    Casio, (highest compression)
    set on ISO 50, 967 shots
    set on ISO 400 967 shots

    So either both my cameras don't give a true representation of what I can
    cram onto my SD cards, something which I have never noticed before, or the
    effect of higher ISO on storage is very very minimal (less than around 0.1
    %).

    I am not saying what is correct and what is not but would appreciate if
    someone could do a similar test with different cameras and/or Scott back up
    his original statement.
    In the meantime I'll try to find the newsgroup article, David. that you
    mentioned. I assume it was on this newsgroup?

    Thanks again.
    Dave
     
    Dave, Jul 11, 2007
    #9
  10. You don't say what you are doing with the pictures bofore you "format" the
    card. If you are removing them for storage with a computer some of my
    comments do not apply.

    If you are only erasing them rather than doing a full format be aware that
    the directories that the photo were stored in may still be taking up space on
    the disk. Canon stores 100 photo's per directory and then creates a new
    directory for the next 100 photos.

    If you are formating the card check to see if the total capacity of the card
    in megabytes is decreasing if so then your card may be slowly failing. I am
    not sure about flash memory but when you format a floppy or hard drive one of
    the things the format command does is checks the surface and map out any bad
    spots on the surface. As a floppy or hard drive gets older it may develop
    more bad spots. When you reformat a floppy or HD the bad spots get mapped
    out. Therefore the capacity of your floppy or HD goes down.

    Have a good day.

    William

    --
    Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
     
    William Hathaway via PhotoKB.com, Jul 11, 2007
    #10
  11. Dave wrote:
    []
    > I don't have a 30D (I believe it was the OP who mentioned he had one)
    > but I just did your suggested experiment with my 2 digital cams, a
    > P&S Casio EX-Z750 and a Pana FZ-30. (dare I say here that I also use
    > film !! with a Bronica and Fuji GSW690iii)
    >
    > And the results were..........

    []
    > So either both my cameras don't give a true representation of what I
    > can cram onto my SD cards, something which I have never noticed
    > before, or the effect of higher ISO on storage is very very minimal
    > (less than around 0.1 %).


    Very few cameras do this. As ASAAR mentioned, the size of the JPEG
    depends a lot on the scene, perhaps rather more than on the added noise
    level.

    > I am not saying what is correct and what is not but would appreciate
    > if someone could do a similar test with different cameras and/or
    > Scott back up his original statement.
    > In the meantime I'll try to find the newsgroup article, David. that
    > you mentioned. I assume it was on this newsgroup?
    >
    > Thanks again.
    > Dave


    Yes, I think it was here - "Flash card capacity changes based on ISO
    setting" , Jul 03, 2:52am (Google time!). Here's Google's pointer:

    http://groups.google.com/group/rec....sion noise canon size&rnum=2#5ed775816ba395ee

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2007
    #11
  12. David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2007
    #12
  13. Alain's Studio

    Dave Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:54:12 +0100, Dave wrote:
    >
    >> I can appreciate the theory but never realised it made much difference in
    >> practise. Taking a 30D, which I think the OP mentioned using, for an
    >> example
    >> of how the noise level increases from say ISO 100 to say ISO 800 do you
    >> have
    >> any feeling as to how much extra storage (percentage) is needed, all
    >> other
    >> things being equal.

    >
    > That might be hard to say, as the difference in compressibility
    > will also depend on the subject. If you have a subject that already
    > contains very fine, nearly random detail, increasing the noise by
    > upping the ISO shouldn't add much to the file size. That said,
    > maybe it's not too hard to say for *your* pictures, if most of them
    > have similar content, at least where compressibility is concerned.
    >


    Hi ASARR,
    Yes of course you are completely right in that the subject matter will have
    an effect on the compression. I just did a quick test (so not claiming its a
    very scientific) using the FZ30 and this time looked at the file sizes,
    rather than the camera estimate, as to how many shots I could get on a
    card.....as clearly it seems to be making a not very intelligent
    guesstimate.

    I shot a clear sky at highest jpg compression and at both ISO 80 and 400 got
    a highly compressed 161KB file. But shooting a finely detailed fabric
    (locked off camera) I got files of 1.53MB at ISO 80 and 1.59MB at ISO 400.

    This rough test seems to show me at least that although there is a change in
    file size with ISO it's nowhere near as dramatic as it can be with change of
    subject. Perhaps that explains why I hadn't noticed this before.

    Thanks for your help and also that of David J Taylor.

    A great site!!!
    Dave
     
    Dave, Jul 11, 2007
    #13
  14. Alain's Studio

    Dave Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    wrote in message news:ge6li.22037$...
    > Dave wrote:
    > []
    >> In the meantime I'll try to find the newsgroup article, David. that
    >> you mentioned. I assume it was on this newsgroup?

    >
    > No, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    >
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/rec....sion noise canon size&rnum=2#5ed775816ba395ee
    >
    > Sorry,
    > David
    >

    Thanks once more David. Every day there is something to learn!!
    Please also see my reply to ASAAR.
    Cheers
     
    Dave, Jul 11, 2007
    #14
  15. Alain's Studio

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:25:29 +0100, Dave wrote:

    > I shot a clear sky at highest jpg compression and at both ISO 80 and 400 got
    > a highly compressed 161KB file. But shooting a finely detailed fabric
    > (locked off camera) I got files of 1.53MB at ISO 80 and 1.59MB at ISO 400.
    >
    > This rough test seems to show me at least that although there is a change in
    > file size with ISO it's nowhere near as dramatic as it can be with change of
    > subject. Perhaps that explains why I hadn't noticed this before.
    >
    > Thanks for your help and also that of David J Taylor.


    You're welcome.


    > A great site!!!


    And your followup testing contributes to that, too!
     
    ASAAR, Jul 11, 2007
    #15
  16. Alain's Studio

    King Sardon Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:54:43 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

    >Dave wrote:
    >[]
    >> Thanks David.
    >> I can appreciate the theory but never realised it made much
    >> difference in practise. Taking a 30D, which I think the OP mentioned
    >> using, for an example of how the noise level increases from say ISO
    >> 100 to say ISO 800 do you have any feeling as to how much extra
    >> storage (percentage) is needed, all other things being equal.
    >> Cheers

    >
    >Dave,
    >
    >I think that some cameras actually indicate a number of shots left which
    >varies with the ISO setting. If your 30D does that, you can find out what
    >Canon estimates for yourself. I think we are talking in the 5-10-20%
    >region, rather than anything gross.


    For the Rebel XT shooting fine JPGs, the number of shots on a 2 gig
    card are:

    ISO Shots
    100 581
    200 545
    400 518
    800 489
    1600 471

    KS
     
    King Sardon, Jul 11, 2007
    #16
  17. Alain's Studio

    Somebody Guest

    "Alain's Studio" <> wrote in message
    news:VNVki.19011$...
    >I have a canon 30D and one 8 meg memory card, when I install the card new
    >it did show 999 picture available / I must have shoot 2000 picture so far
    >and right now every time I format the card it as less and less picture
    >available now am at around 800 = is there some stuff that stay on the card?
    >
    > Alain
    >



    I can only think of three things that could cause this...

    1. Something is wrong with your memory card.
    2. You changed from shooting say JPG to RAW.
    3. You camera is smart enough to learn the types of images you are taking
    and as it does so is giving you a more accurate count of how many images you
    can get on the card (this is unlikely.)

    Somebody!
     
    Somebody, Jul 11, 2007
    #17
  18. Alain's Studio

    Bill Guest

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:48:39 -0400, "Alain's Studio"
    <> wrote:

    >I have a canon 30D and one 8 meg memory card, when I install the card new it
    >did show 999 picture available / I must have shoot 2000 picture so far and
    >right now every time I format the card it as less and less picture available
    >now am at around 800 = is there some stuff that stay on the card?
    >
    >Alain
    >


    Alain,

    I have a 30D and I just looked at a series of 24 raw files that I shot
    at about the same time. The file sizes range from 6.7 megs to 8.1
    megs. The ratio of difference is about the same as the ratio of the
    number of remaining shot difference you mention.

    I've noticed that when shooting, the number of shots remaining does
    not exactly correspond with the number of shots taken. Apparently the
    camera reports remaining shots based on the previous file size
    average.

    HTH
    Bill
     
    Bill, Jul 11, 2007
    #18
  19. Alain's Studio

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Alain's Studio <> wrote:
    >I have a canon 30D and one 8 meg memory card, when I install the card new it
    >did show 999 picture available / I must have shoot 2000 picture so far and
    >right now every time I format the card it as less and less picture available
    >now am at around 800 = is there some stuff that stay on the card?


    No.

    8GB is about enough to hold 800+ picture in RAW format. Most likely
    you changed the camera settings.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jul 12, 2007
    #19
  20. Alain's Studio

    Stewy Guest

    In article <4694d2f8$0$15851$>,
    "Dave" <> wrote:

    > "David J Taylor" <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    > wrote in message news:ug2li.21921$...
    > > Dave wrote:
    > > []
    > >> Can you explain why storage capacity depends on ISO setting?

    > >
    > > Higher ISO, more noise, doesn't compress as well, bigger file size, fewer
    > > images per card.
    > >
    > > David
    > >

    > Thanks David.
    > I can appreciate the theory but never realised it made much difference in
    > practise. Taking a 30D, which I think the OP mentioned using, for an example
    > of how the noise level increases from say ISO 100 to say ISO 800 do you have
    > any feeling as to how much extra storage (percentage) is needed, all other
    > things being equal.
    > Cheers


    Back in pre-history, us oldies who used film used to call it graininess.
    Sometimes it worked to your advantage, but usually not.
     
    Stewy, Jul 26, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Faustino Dina
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    859
    Faustino Dina
    Aug 23, 2004
  2. Kracka

    Clock goes back exactly one hour

    Kracka, Nov 23, 2003, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    6,862
    Jerry G.
    Nov 23, 2003
  3. Ed
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    573
    Toolman Tim
    Mar 2, 2006
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    335
    Enkidu
    Oct 22, 2010
  5. Robert Coe

    Re: And the E-PL2 goes back

    Robert Coe, Jan 30, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    685
    John Turco
    Feb 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page