All the camera knows is how much space is on the card, and some estimate of the average size of the JPEG files that will occupy the space. This allows it to estimate the number of shots that it will hold. But it's only an estimate, since JPEGs are all different sizes depending on their content - some can be compressed a lot more than others.

If you take some shots, which occupy less space than this average, the shots remaining won't change by as much as the number you've taken.

In fact, you can watch it calculating. If you take a few shots of a featureless wall, the "shots available" goes down by one each time. Then if you wait, and look at the top plate, the indicated value will often go back up.

It's not surprising to get different numbers of shots on to different cards, since the files can be wildly different sizes, from a few hundred Kb if there's a lot of featureless background, to several Mb if there's a lot of detail.

The 2M/6M/10M setting refers only to JPEG. If you set the camera to RAW, I think it just ignores the MP setting - I'm not aware of any setting on the K10D that lets you change the number of recorded pixels in RAW.

So it's not surprising that the "shots available" didn't change.

If you switch to RAW+, it will record the RAW file as well as the JPEG, so the "shots available" changes according to the JPEG resolution selected.

Thanks Brian.

I don't feel at all qualified to offer constructive help - I was just curious as to the difference, and I was quite stunned by just how different it is.

FWIW, I quite liked the second version of the first one. I often don't like the 'studio' look as I call it, since with all the heavy makeup, intense lighting and retouching, you end up, as George points out, with something unreal, and as folk seem to have noted, I often don't like that.

But it has its place, and your #1v2 seems a perfectly sound example of that type of shot.

The skin clearly isn't 'real' as such, but it's no less 'real' than what you get in a lot of glossy magazines - lack of detail due to PP seems little different to me from lack of detail due to a makeup artist cramming every pore with goop.

But I do like the golden hair, and I do like the ambiguity in the expression - not really a smile, nor serious either. I like the softness of the overall effect, and the sharpness of the eyes and lips.

I can also imagine that it would still keep these attributes, though, even in the context of the 'glamour' style, with a lighter touch of the brush.

Forgive a possibly impertinent request, but may we see the un-retouched version of the first one?

I see now you're clearly right. It doesn't take much to expose my complete lack of experience with studio work

Is it my imagination, or in the second one is the dress between her hands quite sharp, but her face closer to the camera and consequently a bit out of focus?

Noticed this:

http://tinyurl.com/2t3wz6

Just out of curiosity, is there anything special enough about it to command such a price?

Edit: I looked a bit closer, it looks like it has "6x7" on the rim so it's presumably not for 35mm format. Is this why it's so expensive?

Whatever...

We so need a :whatever: smiley here

Edit:

Excuse me. I meant, of course:

"Like, we so need a :whatever: smiley here, innit"

I did realise this, chaps. I was just teasing George a little

Actually George, the Canon PIXMA 780 is a printer, not a camera