JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I don't think percentage of card capacity is useful at all. What matters is how many photos can still be stored. And that number/estimate is adjusted according to the image settings. So I am quite happy with how Sony presents battery and storage info. Also, overfilling a card is a non-issue because the camera tells you it was unable to store the image.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

John, in my premise, I did indicate the percentage left, would need be adjusted up or down, dependent on any changes made in the max res. I, too - am quite happy with the way Sony sets up these reminders, but, I just feel they could be a little more accurate.

As far as overfilling a card being a non-issue, it may be so with Sony cameras, but it is not so with Nikon cameras. I just recently discovered an inability to be able to see an overfilled 64GB card used on a D3200, and am quite miffed now, to discover about 75% of the images saved on that card, are now no longer accessible ... so, it doesn't hold a camera won't save if it's coming down to the wire. Apparently, they ARE, indeed, saved, and then - the card corrupts anything that went onto it, beyond its legitimate limits ....

IBM

They all have there weather sealed dust sealed , camera the D300 , D7000 , D7200 , for instance .

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

What, IBM? .... You mean the D7100 ISN'T weather-sealed? ... And what about the D7500, or the D300's replacement, the D500?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

What, IBM? .... You mean the D7100 ISN'T weather-sealed? ... And what about the D7500, or the D300's replacement, the D500?

But these are all Nikon's ProSumer DX Models ... you weren't find any WP on any of the lower class models ....

By contrast - Pentax builds WP into every camera they make ....

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

OK, so it may be brand dependent as to what happens when you overflow a card. I did not know that. I have used several digital cameras over the years and I have NEVER had a problem of overfilling a card to the point of losing images.

But on percentage of card available, how is that number of use? I would have no idea what that number means. If I were storing small images I might get 2000 images onto a card, and 1% space remaining would mean I could store 20 more photos. If I were storing large images and RAW I might get only 500 images onto that same card. Then, 1% would only leave room for 5 images. Note that 1% of card capacity is the same regardless of what size the images are, so the number only has meaning if I know how many images I could store on an empty card. And if I change the size of the images during shooting that percentage value is really of no help, whereas the number of images remaining would adjust immediately after I change the size of the stored images. I'll take #images over %age space every time.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

John ... let me tell you - if it read 0% ... I'd know it was time for a new card! ...

The number of images left, changes - dependent on the RES setting you choose. So, if they did the Percentage Remaining thing, as they do with batteries - that would, I suspect - reflect any recent change in RES settings.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree, but I do find it interesting to follow your line of reasoning... which is, of course, wrong ;-).

First of all, if your card reads 0% I would say you are late to the party. I would swap cards well before the last image; i.e., I never run a card to zero space unless it is by accident. And as I said before, if it happens my camera tells me that the image was not stored.

Regarding RES, that is exactly why #images remaining is more helpful. If my card indicates only 1% available then how can that change with a change in RES? But if I have been storing HI RES images and I run low on the card (say, 10 images left) I can reduce the RES and the camera may indicated I can now store 40 more LOO RES images. That is useful to me.

Now, if %age space is all I can see, how would that change when, at 1% space, I switch to LO RES images? How could the %age value change to reflect the ability to store additional LO RES images?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

That's not for ME to answer, John ... that's for the camera engineers to figure out. If they can do it based on amount of images still available, even when Max Res is changed ... I'm sure they can also figure it out for percentage left, when it's changed, too ....

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

No, I can't accept that. %age space remaining can only reflect the number of bytes of space left on the card based on the capacity of the card. It will not change when you change the RES. However, when you know the number of bytes remaining and you know the number of bytes required to store an image at a particular RES, then you can calculate the number of images that can still be stored on the card. Thus, if you lower the RES you can store more images into the remaining space. But the %age space remaining DOES NOT CHANGE when you adjust RES.

Take a bucket as an example. If you have filled the bucket 90% full by pouring in glassfuls of water, that percentage remaining capacity will not change just because you switched to pouring in teaspoons of water. But I can estimate the number of glassfuls (low) or teaspoons (high) that I can add before the bucket overflows.

Would not not agree with the above? If not, please explain your reasoning.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

John ... your water analogy only works with water. Obviously, the amount of image space left available on a card, changes dependent on the percentage of available space to record images, when the required amount of space allocated is changed dependent on the size of the image required ... ergo ... that same formula can be applied to the overall percentage of space remaining on the card itself. Here's the thing ... why not use BOTH numbers - to inform the user - in order to head off self-corruption?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

BOTH numbers are not necessary because %age space available DOES NOT CHANGE regardless of what you do to the image RES setting in the camera. The number of bytes of storage remains the same. How many images you can store in those remaining bytes DOES change when you change the RES (hence, number of bytes per image).

Take a silly but simple example. If at HI RES the card can hold 50 images maximum, then at 50% remaining space you have room for 25 more HI RES images. If at LO RES the same card can hold 200 images, then at 50% remaining space you have room for 100 more LO RES images. But if I was shooting HI RES and reached 50% of card capacity (i.e., 25 images stored) I would only have room for an additional 25 images at HI RES. But if I now switch to LO RES the card would be able to accept an additional 100 images into that last 50%. Therefore, %age remaining space DOES NOT CHANGE, but number of images that can be stored in the remaining space DOES CHANGE.

Take it to the extreme with a low capacity card... what good is it to see that I have remaining capacity, say 1%, but my HI RES image requires more space than what is left on the card? I would be left with the inexplicable situation that the camera reports I have space on the card, but my image will not get stored (or worse, on your camera it will screw up ALL of the images). But if I switch to LO RES the card will still only have 1% capacity, but that might be enough space for 2 more LO RES images. So which info is more useful????

And BTW, the bucket analogy is actually PERFECT!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Yeah, sure it is ... but it holds the same esteemed position of looking at a half-full glass, and seeing it as half-empty!

BTW ... for me ... having both numbers at my disposal - is the MOST useful ...

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

ok...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Well, John ...

Digi Cams, now ... are virtually computers ... so why the heck not?