Ramification of using large memory card

I'm a proponent of multiple small cards as opposed to large cards but with a 3-week vacation over the horizon I couldn't pass up a deal on some Sandisk Extreme 64 GB cards. These were the 90MB/s version and the closeout sale was $10/card. In using these cards I discovered you lose functionality of the image countdown timer for much of the capacity of the card. The calculated number of images (RAW + best jpeg) is about 1750 but the countdown counter only displays three digits so is stuck at 999 for much of the card capacity.

This might be an annoyance to some individuals.

The newer bodies will give you an actual count (at least up to 9,999).

I don't recall noting such behavior with my 50D, though I've never had any reason to.

Would you kindly state the camera and card?

Top screen might only have 3 digits, but the back screen shows numbers up to 9999.

John from PA wrote in post #18856509
... I discovered you lose functionality of the image countdown timer for much of the capacity of the card. The calculated number of images (RAW + best jpeg) is about 1750 but the countdown counter only displays three digits so is stuck at 999 for much of the card capacity.

This might be an annoyance to some individuals.

If it's displaying 999, does it really matter what the number is? It's a boat load of pictures and just a estimate any way as there is no way for the camera to guess what the size of your images are going to be in the future.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18856908
Top screen might only have 3 digits, but the back screen shows numbers up to 9999.

Oh yes, that's it.
Top LCD is 3-digit count, rear display otherwise.
Top display limited by fixed elements, rear LCD is a dynamic display.

SkedAddled wrote in post #18856885
I don't recall noting such behavior with my 50D, though I've never had any reason to.

Would you kindly state the camera and card?

I checked my 60D and can’t find a 4-digit counter on the rear screen. I also have an 80D currently on loan to a family member with new baby so perhaps that will display the needed info per “cristphoto” mentioning “newer” bodies.

The card being used is a Sandisk Extreme SDXC 64 GB 90 MB/s. Note there is a newer version with a higher speed but at $10 per card these are ample for my needs.

John from PA wrote in post #18859515
I checked my 60D and can’t find a 4-digit counter on the rear screen. I also have an 80D currently on loan to a family member with new baby so perhaps that will display the needed info per “cristphoto” mentioning “newer” bodies.

The card being used is a Sandisk Extreme SDXC 64 GB 90 MB/s. Note there is a newer version with a higher speed but at $10 per card these are ample for my needs.

Thanks, John.
Interesting.

So, I fire up my 50D.
Top LCD indicates around 103 shots left on a CF card.
Rear display also shows an estimated 103 shots left of 2.41GB free, on an 8GB card.
Reading the card on my PC, I see there are 5.2GB used(I'll have to cull that!),
with 2.41GB free. It seems Canon reads the card like Windows does.

Inserting an empty 16GB card tells me I have 647 images' worth of storage.
My camera is set to record RAW only; I'm sure it makes a difference.
Checking further, I see in recording options:
RAW=15M=647
SRAW1=7.1M=999
SRAW2=3.8M=999

So, you are correct, at least as to the older cameras.
My 50D's counter only seems to apply 999 as a maximum estimate for high-capacity cards,
even though it can use the entire available capacity of CF.
The behavior may be different for SD cards, although I do not know and can not verify.

This is an interesting lesson to me, albeit inconsequential to my use.
I'm not much concerned with accuracy of the displayed count, with several cards
at my disposal up to 64GB. I just swap the card on the very rare occasion my camera
reports low capacity remaining.
Still, it may be of some genuine interest to those with limited cards on hand.

My 16 GB cards are like yours in reporting less than 999. I also generally prefer smaller cards (and stated that on these forums) but when these came along at $10/card I couldn’t pass it up. I also have a trip to Spain & Portugal so I should have a comfortable cushion as far as memory.

John from PA wrote in post #18859539
My 16 GB cards are like yours in reporting less than 999. I also generally prefer smaller cards (and stated that on these forums) but when these came along at $10/card I couldn’t pass it up. I also have a trip to Spain & Portugal so I should have a comfortable cushion as far as memory.

Sure, I understand.
I got a 5-pack of 16GB Kingston SDHC cards from Newegg a while back, costing me around $7.50 each.
They work just fine in my PowerShot S3iS, as well as in my SD-to-CF adapter.
Working out great in both cameras, and on the cheap!

gjl711 wrote in post #18856929
If it's displaying 999, does it really matter what the number is?

It does to me, but then I'm a mechanical engineer by education/trade so I deal with numbers all the time and I'm detail orientated. But let me tell you of something related. There is a high end vehicle on the market (German made) that when it first came out was very prone to camshaft bearing failures (a lawsuit cited 10% failure rate). There were reports of people that didn't make it home from the dealership and others that drove for many miles before any issues. Now I happen to own one of those vehicles and lets say it takes 9-1/2 guarts of oil. The gauge on the dash is 5 horizontal bars representing oil level. People (DIY) and dealers were dumping in the extra 1/2 quart (total of 10) and thus overfilling the engine. But the dash gauge read 5 bars - great! But would it have been 6-bars, had the gauge went that high?

Guess what, about two years later the manufacturer advised to only fill the engine so that 3 or 4 bars were lit; leave that extra 1/2 quart out. By not having that 5th bar lit two things happened. The 1st: no overfilling occurred which can (and did) cause foaming and marginal lubrication. The 2nd: if the level was initially set at 4-bars and later seen creeping up high enough to light the 5th bar, you might have a leaky injector. An oil & gas mixture also don't lubricate well.

So having "999" displayed for about 750 frames tells me nothing. I like the idea of the countdown frame counter to know exactly where I am, just as I can in that car that I happen to own for almost 20 years with a huge number of trouble free miles. I like that 4th bar being lit and telling me that if it is headed up or down, neither is a desirable condition and I need to investigate.

By the way, the year after I bought that car, they removed the dipstick, so you only have the on-dash level indicator.

Fascinating tale. I'm curious though, what am I going to damage on my camera, by over filling the memory slot?

I use a 128 GB card on my 7D2 and it sits at 1999 for ages. The false number doesn't bother me. (The first digit can only be 1 or nothing on the 7D2.)

Big cards don't bother me either. I copy all new shots every night from the card to the laptop when on a vacation. I've never had a card fail, but if it did, I would only lose one day of shooting. The big card gives me redundancy because I leave the files on the card. And the big card means I don't have to change the card in the field, which I think is risky. I do carry one or two spare cards, though, just in case.

For longer vacations with a lot of shooting I carry two external hard drives and copy the files to those.

Archibald wrote in post #18860079
For longer vacations with a lot of shooting I carry two external hard drives and copy the files to those.

I would think it would be simpler to carry memory cards, and not hard drives, to capture your travels and memories.

I'm something of a stickler for offloading after a shoot too, but memory cards are really the simplest and cheapest
method of storage we yet have. Besides that, HDDs are sometimes prone to physical failures.

Why wouldn't you embrace the inexpensive and convenient option of multiple low-cost memory cards,
rather than lugging around laptop computers and multiple hard drives?
Seems counterintuitive to me.

SkedAddled wrote in post #18860093
I would think it would be simpler to carry memory cards, and not hard drives, to capture your travels and memories.

I'm something of a stickler for offloading after a shoot too, but memory cards are really the simplest and cheapest
method of storage we yet have. Besides that, HDDs are sometimes prone to physical failures.

Why wouldn't you embrace the inexpensive and convenient option of multiple low-cost memory cards,
rather than lugging around laptop computers and multiple hard drives?
Seems counterintuitive to me.

Me too. Some people like to do things the hard way though. Here's my travel solution. USB-C, so it's quick. Very quick. Save to internal memory, back up to another card in the phone, card to card in the reader, USB stick, upload to the cloud, your choice. Dependent on circumstances of course.