[rontz]

I noticed my K-5 is always showing a WAY lower number of images remaining than there actually fit onto the card.
When I'm then taking a pic, it stores it and after that recalculates the remaining space.
Example: Switched to JPG, it says initially 1074 could be taken (highest quality). I can actually take 12 JPG-photos until it stays at 1073. On Raw my starting point is 466 and I can take 2 photos until it stays at the next lower count.

Now that wouldn't be as much of a problem, but it's really bugging me that I have absolutely now idea how much really fits on my memory card from the very beginning and that it's so very wrong at what it says.
I could very well understand if it wouldn't be calculating picture-acurate, but a factor of 2 or even 12 is a big deal in my eyes.
I don't think it's a problem with the SDcard, as I've tried a different card (of a different manufacturer as well) with the same result.
Is this a known problem for the K-5 and is there a solution for it? Haven't found anything about that in the forums.

[Adam]

There isn't a set number of photos that fit on your card, as the size of each photo depends on what you are shooting. Thus, what the camera gives you is more of a worst-case scenario estimate. For example, if you shoot a lot of landscape photos with an overexposed (blown out) sky, they'll take up much less space than regular landscape shots. Similarly, night photos with many dark areas (such as moon shots) will usually be no bigger than a megabyte.

[rontz]

Hm... I see. But wouldn't it make more sense to calculate the estimated remaining pics using an "average" size instead of a worst-case-scenario? As is said - I'm not expecting picture-acurate calculations, but especially with the JPGs ratio of 12 (or a little more or less, as you suggest with different subjects), the counter is making absolutely no sense in my eyes. I'd also appreciate if you could alter the counter like "worst case, normal" or sth like that.
Yep, I know, you can't change it, just sayin' ;D

Thanks for your quick answer - at least I know my cam's ok. That's worth a lot already

[JinDesu]

Hm... I see. But wouldn't it make more sense to calculate the estimated remaining pics using an "average" size instead of a worst-case-scenario? As is said - I'm not expecting picture-acurate calculations, but especially with the JPGs ratio of 12 (or a little more or less, as you suggest with different subjects), the counter is making absolutely no sense in my eyes. I'd also appreciate if you could alter the counter like "worst case, normal" or sth like that.
Yep, I know, you can't change it, just sayin' ;D

Thanks for your quick answer - at least I know my cam's ok. That's worth a lot already

No, because worst case scenario is the proper way to do things. Who knows if suddenly you take a bunch of pictures that do maximize the file size? If it took an average counter - you'd end up short.

Worst case scenario means you get extra, and you never end up running out prematurely.

Giving the option MIGHT be cool, but it doesn't really seem to be a big ticket item.

[Ponosby Britt]

Buy one of these and worry no more. SanDisk 64GB SDXC Memory Card Ultra Class 10 UHS-I

[rontz]

No, because worst case scenario is the proper way to do things. Who knows if suddenly you take a bunch of pictures that do maximize the file size? If it took an average counter - you'd end up short.

Worst case scenario means you get extra, and you never end up running out prematurely.

Giving the option MIGHT be cool, but it doesn't really seem to be a big ticket item.

Given that case, the remaining images would still be recalculated after each image - so the number would decrease by more than 1 or it would would decrease by 1 and would stay at that number. That way you would still end up with a way more accurate counter than by always using the worst case.

But as people seem to see this differently, an option to choose this would be the way to go - and people would understand right from the beginning why the counter acts the way it does

Ponosby Britt: I'm not worrying about too few space, I was worried that my cam might be buggy. Still thinking about a 64gb card though ;D

[Stone G.]

Accuracy (for example using some arbitrary/assumed average file size) doesn't really matter when the card is nearly empty, does it?.

What does matter when the card becomess fuller and fuller is one's safety: How many pictures can I take AT LEAST before my card runs out of available space. Here, the use of maximum file size in the calculation is undoubtedly by far the safest.

[Ben_Edict]

The deviation from the estimated remaining shots and the real numbers is much higher with JPGs, due to their efficient compression. If you shoot RAW, the camera numbers will be a closer match to reality.
In JPGs there is no way to predict with any accuracy the remaining shots, if the card is has lots of free memory. A photog travelling Greenland will have lots of white in his images and these will be much smaller ( = higher compression), than a photog taking images in the rain forest, with so many details, that the compression works far less efficient. How would the camera know?

Ben

[emalvick]

Thinking from the support side... using average would cause a lot of problems. People don't like the feeling of being short-changed. If the camera reports average that means that roughly 50% of the time, people would get less photos than the camera said they would. That would certainly trigger a lot of calls from disgruntled users. People will rarely complain if they get more photos than what the camera initially said.

I don't shoot jpg, but I have noticed that shooting RAW with my K5, I can get RAW files that range from 15 MB to over 30 MB. Most of those 30 MB images I think I attribute to noise in the image, and I am not even talking about noise to the extent a user might reject a shot or go through drastic noise reduction. Rather it's just noise that isn't easily compressed and ends up creating a lot of "detail" that the camera tries to keep. Good, clear, no noise shots generally end up smaller although with enough detail they can get large too. The RAW format does seem to attempt some compression although I would guess JPG compression, being lossless, is more likely to compress the noise, and I am not sure I'd see the same observations as I do with RAW.

Back to the bigger issue, people are very easily upset. Thinking about SD cards, I can't believe how many people leave bad reviews on Amazon because a 32 GB card only shows 30 or 31 GB when formatted. You really are getting what you pay for, it's just the marketers are counting bytes (1000 Mb = 1 GB) different than the OS is (1024 Mb = 1 GB).

Sorry for the digression...

[Verglace]

Yep its just a conservative number and I absolutely believe it is the proper number to display, imagine how angry you will be if you thought you still had space for 20 more shots rather than how pleasantly surprised you are that even though you thought you couldn't fit more shots in you still can.

[Paleo Pete]

I've noticed the same thing with my K-x and don't let it worry me. It gives me an average number of shots I might expect to get, that's plenty good for me. If I'm using an 8 GB card I don't have to worry, I've never filled it in a day. If I use a 2GB card I keep an eye on it, once it says I have 30 shots left, or so, I start edging back toward the Jeep if I don't already have a spare in my pocket. But I've never worried much about how accurate it is, due to the varying size of images, it can't be too precise, why worry? I just keep an eye on it if I expect it to get close, and keep clicking...

[VisualDarkness]

I would probably have killed my camera at least twice if it tricked me that I had loads of shots left when I in reality only have a few RAW ones left. Worst case scenario metering is the best way, both for me and my cameras safety.