1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. markyboy.1967

    markyboy.1967

    Messages:
    7,465
    Name:
    Mark Molloy
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks that helps a lot, will likely just get another 64g card now.
     
  2. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    5,254
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've been using XQD since the D4 introduction and I've never had a single issue with them. I have had issues with SD/CF cards, but they are rare and I've been using them a lot more/longer. Still, my preference is to have fewer images per card and change them more frequently, or to have the images written to two cards simultaneously.
     
    markyboy.1967 likes this.
  3. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    10,310
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Did you know this question is actually answered in the camera's user manual? Page 362.
     
  4. markyboy.1967

    markyboy.1967

    Messages:
    7,465
    Name:
    Mark Molloy
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Stuart, i havent had my camera delivered yet so havent looked at the manual.
     
  5. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    10,310
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  6. rampanthamster

    rampanthamster

    Messages:
    1,283
    Name:
    Rowan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I always find the camera's estimate from an empty card is much lower than the reality. I shot a wedding with 64gig xqd cards last weekend and the camera told me I'd get about 760 shots per card but i got well over 1,000 before needing to change.

    edit - this was lossless compressed RAWs
     
  7. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    4,660
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've found the Nikon's I have had to greatly underestimate the number of images available on a card. :rolleyes: Good that it underestimates of course, but sometimes by 25-50%. :eek:

    If I need to guestimate how many images I can get I just go to folder of pics and take the largest file size and divide it by the size of the card. It will give a more accurate estimate than what Nikon works out. Hard to do if you don't have the camera already I know, but the manual does give you an idea, which Stewart has linked to. ;) I always download the manual for any camera I am waiting to get, jut to flick through and see if there is anything I haven't read about from reviews or users.

    It works out I can get about 1200+ Lossless Compressed RAW files on my D500 on a 32Gb card as the largest files are about 25Mb for example, and the camera says it can get 859. :thinking: And not every image is going to take up that much space if there is not much detail in the image, so probably quite a few more that 1200 images on 32Gb.
     
  8. itsdavedotnet

    itsdavedotnet

    Messages:
    6,100
    Edit My Images:
    No
    This may help, some real world numbers from a variety of shoots, with 14bit raws, lossless compression turned on. And one row of medium raws to compare too

    upload_2017-11-13_17-52-4.png
     
  9. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,828
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I think initially it quotes the number of uncompressed files but of course as the file then gets written it compresses it hence why you end up with more than it predicts. Looking at the D850 and D810 file sizes lossless compressed 14 bit are 44% smaller than uncompressed 14 bit so I would assume the D750 would be similar if we had the uncompressed option.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  10. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    4,660
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You would think after all these years it would adjust the estimation for the settings used in camera. :rolleyes:
     
  11. gary43

    gary43

    Messages:
    3,088
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi all

    Please accept my apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.

    Anyway, I am seriously thinking of getting a D850 to replace my D810 for wildlife. In dull conditions, I am constantly in the iso 1600-3200 range.

    I have looked at the DP Review comparometer tool and the D850 seems to give significantly cleaner high iso images than the D810 when shooting a studio scene.

    The question to those here who have the D850, and who will have had the D810, is, do you see much difference in real life shooting conditions ? I am particularly interested in noise and retained detail as you can imagine.

    I would be particularly interested if anyone can point me to a link showing D850 images shot at iso 1600+.

    Thanks in advance and again please accept my apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.

    Gary
     
  12. Eloise

    Eloise

    Messages:
    953
    Name:
    Eloise
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The problem is that it doesn't know what you are going to take photos of. If you take an image of a single coloured, evenly lit wall, then that will compress highly. If you on the other hand take an image of a multi-coloured landscape, it will compress less.
     
    TLR-330 likes this.
  13. wilt

    wilt

    Messages:
    722
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I have a grip for my D850 on order.
    I'm looking to get the rest of the kit to take it to the 9fps.
    I'm confused as to which battery and charger is designed for the D850, as there is EN-EL18a/EN-EL18b and MH-26/MH-26A.
    Can anyone enlighten me to which is the one to go purchase?
    Also has anyone bought a third party charger? And if so how has it performed and would you recommend it, as the official Nikon charger is daylight robbery.
     
  14. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    10,310
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I don't think there's any practical difference between the EN-EL18a and the EN-EL18b. They're both 2500 mAh.
    Similarly I don't think there's any practical difference between the MH-26 and the MH-26A.
    You can mix and match either battery with either charger, so far as I can tell.
     
  15. mike weeks

    mike weeks

    Messages:
    4,226
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I am trying the infamous buffer test and getting about 22 shots before slow down

    RAW lossless compressed 14 bits

    Only card is a Lexar x2933 XQD

    Point is that I should be getting about 55 shots before that occurs

    Only difference from my testing and specs quoted in handbook is that Nikon used a Sony XQD (have one on order) - have grip and 18b battery so should be good.

    Anybody else tested and what are you seeing?
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017 at 1:24 PM
  16. mike weeks

    mike weeks

    Messages:
    4,226
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I had the official charger for the D700 high capacity battery and bought a cheap 3rd party version for D500 high capacity and no issues, now charged the 18b without issue
     
  17. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,828
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That's disappointing. What's the write speed of your lexar, and the Sony used in the handbook? I assume your test is just writing RAW to one card and you're not doing a backup or RAW + jpeg?
     
  18. wilt

    wilt

    Messages:
    722
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Just seen your post and tested mine, depending on what I'm photographing it ranges from 28-70 images before choking. I'm shooting without grip continuous high speed shutter, 14bit compressed RAW only to the Lexar XQD card. Lens cap on 28 shots, photo out of my window chokes at 78.
     
  19. wilt

    wilt

    Messages:
    722
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Just retested as i see your trying 14bit lossless and i'm getting 48 shots before choking the buffer, lens cap off.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017 at 1:05 PM
  20. mike weeks

    mike weeks

    Messages:
    4,226
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    No
    RAW only no SD card inserted and the Lexar x2933 has a slightly faster write/read speed than the best Sony

    Mike
     
    snerkler likes this.
  21. mike weeks

    mike weeks

    Messages:
    4,226
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Which Lexar card?

    Mike
     
  22. wilt

    wilt

    Messages:
    722
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    No
  23. mike weeks

    mike weeks

    Messages:
    4,226
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    No
  24. mike weeks

    mike weeks

    Messages:
    4,226
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    No
    What size as wondering if there may be an optimum size

    Mike
     
  25. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,828
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Strange that it's such a wide range. I know different scenes have varying amounts of info surely we're only talking a few MB so to range from 28-70 seems pretty extreme to me :eek:
     
  26. wilt

    wilt

    Messages:
    722
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    No
    128GB, just tested again and got 28, then again and got 45. Nothing changed between the two.
     
  27. wilt

    wilt

    Messages:
    722
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    No
    38 shots before buffer chokes on the third test, why such a big difference in what is essentially the same shot with maybe minor lighting variations?
     
  28. wilt

    wilt

    Messages:
    722
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The 28 shots was 14bit compressed with lens cap on, i got up to 70 shots 14bit compressed shooting out my kitchen window with lens cap off.
    I then seen Mike was testing 14bit lossless compressed, so i retested at 14bit lossless compressed. I get various numbers of shots before the buffer chokes, ranging from 28-48 taking essentially the same shot out my kitchen window.
    Still a big variation in numbers, i could live with a few shots below Nikons stated but 28 (lowest number i got) is still far off the highest i got 48.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017 at 1:51 PM
    snerkler likes this.
  29. Unlocker

    Unlocker

    Messages:
    319
    Name:
    Danny
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I think the quoted specs are for no grip at 7fps, with grip at 9fps it is less, it's worth trying with and without to see what the difference is
     
  30. mike weeks

    mike weeks

    Messages:
    4,226
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yep, somebody has just linked to the manual and going to 9fps drops the buffer capacit, the clue is in CH setting although I think they may have some figures in the wrong order http://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/d850/en/19_technical_notes_06.html#buffer_capacity

    Mike
     
    snerkler likes this.
  31. Eloise

    Eloise

    Messages:
    953
    Name:
    Eloise
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you are shooting at a higher speed, then the buffer will fill quicker (less shots) because as you are filling the buffer, you are also emptying it; however you are filling at a quicker speed, emptying at the same speed.

    Its like if you take a yoghurt pot (or a bucket for that matter) and poke a hole in it. Hold it over measuring jug and start filling it with a tap - at some point (so long as the hole is smaller so drains slower than the tap fills) the pot will be filled; at that point turn the tap off and let it drain into the jug. Now repeat the process (empty the jug first) but have the tap turned higher; again stop the tap when the pot is full and let it drain into the measuring jug. You should find that there is less water in the pot the second time than there was the first time.
     
  32. Unlocker

    Unlocker

    Messages:
    319
    Name:
    Danny
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Good description, I'm fully aware of it, it's just that Mike mentioned his buffer was low and that one of the differences was that he had the grip on and that really reduces the buffer size which would account for the differences he his seeing.

    As another idea, I think it was Photographylife that worked out that there was no discernible difference using 12bit RAWs above 400 iso, so if that's where you're at, the buffer is a lot larger.
     
  33. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    5,254
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It does seem odd. But I don't see where it will much matter... I've never taken a 28 shot burst of images in my life.
     
    snerkler likes this.
  34. wilt

    wilt

    Messages:
    722
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That's only 4 seconds, a lot can happen that time, and a lot more could be captured if that was extended to 7-8 seconds before buffer chokes. I shot MMA and occasionally athletics, a large buffer is essential. Luckily I have a D500 but was hoping that the D850 could have taken over from it.
     
  35. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    5,254
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I shoot a lot of action stuff as well. I agree that a whole lot can occur in 4 seconds, but most of it isn't what you want ideally. You can hold the shutter down, or try to time the shots better... either way you'll probably miss the perfect shot 4 out of 5 times. IMO, perhaps more important is how fast the buffer clears.
    I'm half convinced that the "perfect shot" doesn't occur a lot of the time...
     
  36. Eloise

    Eloise

    Messages:
    953
    Name:
    Eloise
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Out of interest, each time you tried did you format the card first? Is the card new or has it been used for a while? Just trying to help you get to the bottom of the variations (though it might just be random)
     
  37. wilt

    wilt

    Messages:
    722
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I did format in camera each time so I knew for certain the number of images taken. It's quite a new card, maybe used on half a dozen shoots of 1000 images each time
     
  38. wilt

    wilt

    Messages:
    722
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yeah I'd have to agree with you about the perfect shot, still searching for it though.
     

Share This Page