Both my wife and I got new D7000s this week. She noticed that the file number did not start from 1. Rather something like 5700. I checked my camera and it also had a file number that high. Any idea on why the file number does not start at 1. I did check the Exif data and that is correct for the number of images taken.
#4. "RE: File number oddity" In response to Reply # 1
Paul, There are two sets of numbers in play in this discussion. The "actuations" number is stored in the EXIF shooting data and can be viewed with several utilities, or by snooping around in the File Info in Photoshop (works best on a JPG). The camera will store that actuation count throughout the camera's life. I sent a D300 in for a new shutter at 204,000 actuations, and when it came back, it still read roughly 204,000.
The other set of numbers are the ones people most often see. The file sequence number starts out as something like DCS_0001 and will advance one shot at at time until it reaches 9,999. On the next shot, the camera will read DCS_00001 again. This assumes you have File Sequencing set to ON. Also, when it hits 10,000, it creates a new subfolder on the CF or SD card. I believe it will also start the File Sequence number at 00001 when you change the prefix numbers such as NIK_ or NI7_.
Lastly, Lightroom and probably Bridge will let you assign custom file names to every photo as it imports them (if desired). It changes the original DSC_000x numbers to some sort of string that will usually insure a unique file name. I chose to use the Year, Month, Day, Hour, Minute, Second, and Sub-second, but there are various other options. A photo taken yesterday morning at 10:55 was labeled 2010-11-21-105554-2.NEF. This seems safer to me as my D300 mentioned above could have generated twenty of each of the same file name if left at the default file naming. (200,000 divided by 10,000)
Hope this helps. I am sure if I am wrong on any of this information, someone will straighten me out!
#6. "RE: File number oddity" In response to Reply # 5
I was just curious on the actuations when I got it back. I guess it is similar to replacing an engine on a vehicle. The engine might still have only a few thousand miles, but the vehicle might have 200,000 miles. A buyer would probably get more information knowing the latter. If they set the odometer back to 0 when they put a new motor in a vehicle, it'd be tough to know much about the life of the vehicle. I am satisfied with the way they did it and would endorse the procedure.
Actually, that was my first D300. The "new" one has just shy of 200,000 on it now, too. That was part of the reason I was buying a D7000. I wanted a mid-priced DX body to take some load off the D300 bodies until a D400(?)comes out.
#2. "RE: File number oddity" In response to Reply # 0 Mon 22-Nov-10 09:52 PM by richardd300
I think I can help you on that issue. I suspect you used an SD card which you had used in a previous Nikon camera. If the card isn't empty and any images deleted, then formatted on the PC, then formatted again in camera, embedded in the card is reference to the historical image numbers from the old camera. When the card is installed in the new camera it reads these and up jumps your shutter count. I know this because I've done it myself. It actually proves that formatting a hard disc does not delete the files completely!
I have many times argued that people who sell cameras on auction sites and claim a number of shutter actuations they are possibly innacurate. All you need to do is as you have done and go by the exif data.
Interestingly, I have had the count both ways. My D700 when new read "1" on the CF card after I took about 2 pictures it read about 4500. I hadn't done what I mentioned above. A few months ago when I put a new card in and assigned the file characters of my initials e.g. _ABCXXXX the count went down to zero. It now shows _ABC5364 the exif data shows the actual count as 10562.
A lengthy explanation, but I'm willing to bet that's what you've done.