Since it's roughly the same number of pixels, you should get roughly the same number of shots as a D300 does. I shoot lossless compressed 12-bit RAW, and I usually get 75-90 shots per gigabyte (average of almost 90, but sometimes less). So I end up getting almost 700 shots on average into an 8GB card, and I'd expect you to get 1,300 to 1,400 from a 16GB card.
The number of shots remaining indicated by the camera assumes uncompressed files as a worst case, so it should show about 600 shots remaining when the card is fresh and newly-inserted. But you'll actually get more than double that.
dennisgibson wrote:
Do you guys shoot RAW exclusively?
Yes. Getting JPGs in the computer takes barely seconds and is an automated task, so I see no need to get both file formats at once. Some people have deadlines or other issues that force them to do JPGs, but I'm not one of them. My suggestion would be to use RAW exclusively unless you have a good strong reason to need JPGs.
p.1 #14 · D700, how many RAW files on a 16GB card?
Don't forget that compressed RAW is described as "virtually" lossless. Probably doesn't matter, but then again neither does the having to switch cards after 400 shots. I rarely shoot many more than that at a time andmost of the time many, many less.
When I get more time and the inclination, I'll look at the difference.
p.1 #15 · D700, how many RAW files on a 16GB card?
That "virtually lossless" bit is factually incorrect. Nikon uses "lossless" in the correct sense of the word... zero loss. Here's some support for that:
1. D300 User Manual, p. 58: Lossless compressed files are created "...using a reversible algorithm, reducing file size by about 20-40% percent [sic] with no effect on image quality." In contrast, compressed files use "...a non-reversible algorithm, reducing file size by about 40-55% percent [sic] with almost no effect on image quality." Underlined emphasis is mine.
2. Nikon UK Tech Support Website*: Lossless compressed "...uses a compression algorithm that is reversible. This means that the images are compressed to save space on the card but the type of compression used can be reversed so that the image is restored to it's [sic] full quality when opened." On the other hand, compressed "...also compresses the data to reduce it's [sic] size on the card but this method uses a non reversible algorithm. Therefore data that has been removed from the image can not be restored later."
* Couldn't format the URL correctly in a link, so here's the whole thing:
p.1 #16 · D700, how many RAW files on a 16GB card?
Rodolfo,
Well this is like any debate. You and I can site examples supporting each of our opinions all day. So, just to hold up my side of this, here's my first and last salvo :-) http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=489#more-489
One thing I will debate is any information given by Nikon support. The answer you get from them totally depends on the day and the person you speak to. So since I'm not an expert and memory is cheap and negatives are priceless (well maybe not mine) then I prefer to be conservative.
p.1 #17 · D700, how many RAW files on a 16GB card?
Oh shoot, I can't stand it. Just for fun I searched RAW on Nikon's own site in the Knowlege Base and guess what? Under the description for "Compressed NEF"
"Visually lossless compression method used for NEF in D70 and other Nikon products that support NEF compression"
Nikon always talks out of both sides of their mouth.
p.1 #19 · D700, how many RAW files on a 16GB card?
Howard, the links and content you posted all referred to "Compressed NEF" which I also mentioned. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that "Compressed NEF" uses a lossy algorithm. Mind you, that algorithm's pretty good, and I've seen tests showing that very little image data is lost. But it's definitely lossy.
My point was that there is "Compressed NEF" and "Lossless Compressed NEF" and they are two different animals. And "Lossless Compressed" is, well, lossless.
