Easy DSLR Shutter Count

<p>I stumbled upon this web site. Upload an image from one of the listed cameras. In a minute it tells you the shutter activation count. No downloading SF etc.</p>

<p>I was surprised about my recently stolen Nikon D50's count. In 4 years I had shot 13,045 images! About 27% of the D50's life expectancy. (the D50 is good for 50K) I shot the hell out of this camera too. 13K equals 9 shots per day for 4 years.</p>

<p><br /> http://www.camerashuttercount.com/<br /> .</p>

How many 'keepers', Steve?

<blockquote>

<p>How many 'keepers', Steve?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Recently stolen, definitely not a keeper :-)</p>

<p>Now, if the data can tell just where the stolen camera has gone...that might be useful (but would likely require that the new user visit the site). I wonder if the limited range of cameras on the site is related to the nature of the camera software, or what? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How many 'keepers', Steve?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Well at least we know, from his online presence, that Steve has "keepers," so we know it's not just chatter.</p>

<p>They're all keepers. I try not to push the button otherwise.</p>

<p>[[(the D50 is good for 50K)]]</p>

<p>Which means it could fail tomorrow or it could fail at 100K. </p>

<p>It doesn't work for my 50D, although the website says it will. I'm so disappointed - I'll have to just keep on shooting photos without knowing how many shots the camera has done.</p>

<p>A side note: 13K images equals about 360 rolls of 36 exposure film. or about $1800 in film costs, and additional $2500 for processing. So that little $500 camera eliminated $4300 in film/processing costs.<br>

As for the keeper issue. Digital has liberated my shot counts. In all likelihood, I shoot about 100:1. So a 100 turds to every dazzler.</p>

<p>Keeper ratio - I wasn't aware it mattered as long as you get the shot when it does matter. </p>

<p>It only matters if you actually have photos to keep.</p>

<p>I was wondering how many actuations I had. I did not like the Opanda site as it wants to put all sorts of things in the computer that I do not want. This site is perfect. My D200 has 9047 actuations. I bought the camera new about 5 years ago. </p>

<i>"Keeper ratio - I wasn't aware it mattered as long as you get the shot when it does matter."</i><br><br>Does it matter how many actuations it took, and how long it took to reach that number?

 

<p > </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"It doesn't work for my 50D, although the website says it will. I'm so disappointed - I'll have to just keep on shooting photos without knowing how many shots the camera has done."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ditto David, . . . It didn't work for my 50D either and, I too will just keep on shooting.</p>

 

 

 

What rotten luck...

<p>Most of the shots I take, I would say 75% of my shots are test shots or practice shots, but they still count...</p>

<p>Didn't work for my D80 either! I googled the name and found another site: http://www.myshuttercount.com and it successfully calculated my camera data and shutter count from a NEF file.</p>

<p>In cs4 open an image and just go to to "file info," "raw data," "picture number" (something like that). Its in there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A side note: 13K images equals about 360 rolls of 36 exposure film. or about $1800 in film costs, and additional $2500 for processing. So that little $500 camera eliminated $4300 in film/processing costs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, thanks for the website tip, but if you are paying on average $5 a roll for film and an additional $6.94 for processing someone is seriously over charging you. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/27701-USA/Kodak_1863505_GA_135_24_Gold_100.html">B&H has 24 exp rolls of Kodak Gold 100 for $2</a>. Unfortunately the 36 exp rolls have been recently discontinued but they were maybe $3. 36 exp Black and white film can be had for a little under $5. But processing is literally pennies and so easy even a cave man can do it. C-41 processing is $1.50 at my local Sam's Club. Seven dollars to process a roll of c-41 film is highway robbery. And any price to process black and white is too much.</p>

<p>Steve, you also have to keep in mind diminishing returns. I normally shoot medium format B&W, so 120 rolls. 645 while not the biggest negative is kind of a good balance. I can get 15 or 16 exposures on a roll depending on the camera. With 6x6 I find I only get 12 exp per a roll. That's a little tight for me. Whenever I load up a 36 exp 35mm roll I'm kind of dragging towards the end of the roll. It's not uncommon for me to end up leaving the loaded camera in the bag with 5 or 6 exposures still left at the end of an outing. After a certain point there really isn't anything to take pictures of.</p>

<p>My point being if someone knows what they are doing and gives some care and attention to their work it would be exceedingly difficult for them to come up with 9 meaningful photographs a day for four years as an amateur. Maybe you did but that would be such an outlier that it really should be ignored. Honestly there is little to nothing to be gained from such an exercise. Sure maybe if you lived in New York, Paris, or some other amazing location, but most people that live in America live in the suburbs of boringville, USA. One guy on a thread I read a long time ago actually lamented no longer being inspired to shoot because he had covered his own little corner of suburban hell extensively.</p>

<p>Anyway if you are shooting that much and have a ton of keepers I envy you, but I would not extrapolate your results to the average or even the fairly above average shutter bug.</p>

<p>Neither site worked with the D1X, but it was worth a shot.</p>

<p>BTW Jeff, I disagree somewhat with your perspective. As much as I love film and prefer it to digital as a medium, I exploit my digital cameras to the fullest. That means taking over 1,000 frames at a wedding if need be. If that happened only once a month, and we don't count other assignments, that averages to over 30 shots a day. Yes, some will be redundant but I'm not going to hold back for piety's sake. :-)</p>

<i>"That means taking over 1,000 frames at a wedding <b>if need be</b>"</i><br><br>And that's the thing. How and why would it "need be"?

<p>And why wouldn't need be, Q.G.? </p>

Because you know that noone is going to look at a wedding album containing over 1,000 pictures, and you know what people do want to see in such an album. Because you thus know that some 90% of those 1,000+ attempts will end up in the bin.<br>And because it doesn't take over 1,000 attempts to get those few pictures. If, that is, you have a basic understanding of what you are doing.

<p>Actually I don't know those things Q.G. "Because you know" is not correct. Have you been to a wedding lately? Young people today are barely interested in the formal, get-it-all-right setup for photos, or most other aspects of the event. I've had four children married in the past decade, and for them its a major social event and they want photos of everyone, with everyone, doing everything. I think you have decided that the way it was way-back-when is how it should always be. What I know is that 1000 pictures at a wedding is probably a little high, but not uncommon and my kids have been through everyone of those photos over and over again. They are screen savers on computers, presentations on digital frames around the house and often used in follow-up postings on social media. What I also know is that they pretty much wasted their money on prints - they got 30 or so of those in a book that probably hasn't been out in years. Its a different time, with different equipment and I'm an old guy that thinks its great.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW Jeff, I disagree somewhat with your perspective. As much as I love film and prefer it to digital as a medium, I exploit my digital cameras to the fullest. That means taking over 1,000 frames at a wedding if need be. If that happened only once a month, and we don't count other assignments, that averages to over 30 shots a day. Yes, some will be redundant but I'm not going to hold back for piety's sake. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br />Karim, I'm not sure why you disagree with me. Nothing you said contradicts my overall point. You are a professional that does assignments. My remarks were about the average or above average amateur. If someone paid me and for some insane reason that is what they wanted... sure I would push the shutter 1,000 times over the course of a few hours. Why not?</p>

<p>Here is the final line of the post you are responding too...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Anyway if you are shooting that much and have a ton of keepers I envy you, but I would not extrapolate your results to the average or even the fairly above average shutter bug.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In any good internet debate the bulk of what is written is a bunch of people cherrypicking personal anecdotal stories that are in no way extrapolatable to the general population. I sought to avoid that.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>They are screen savers on computers, presentations on digital frames around the house and often used in follow-up postings on social media. What I also know is that they pretty much wasted their money on prints - they got 30 or so of those in a book that probably hasn't been out in years. Its a different time, with different equipment and I'm an old guy that thinks its great.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not everyone has good taste. There is a reason a clothing section in Walmart exists. I can't believe I'm saying this but K.R. may be on to something. For a certain oblivious down market portion of the population a 3MP camera may be all that is needed... even for a wedding.</p>