New Folder created every 1000 images

[PCPix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All - I have an M10 and an SL2.

On the M10 the file numbering only creates a new folder every 10 000 images. The SL2 does it every 1000 images.

Is there any way to change the SL2's behaviour to match the M10? There are enough digits in the filenames to allow this.

[helged]

3 hours ago, PCPix said:

Hi All - I have an M10 and an SL2.

On the M10 the file numbering only creates a new folder every 10 000 images. The SL2 does it every 1000 images.

Is there any way to change the SL2's behaviour to match the M10? There are enough digits in the filenames to allow this.

As far as I understand/know, (unfortunately) no. 

[thighslapper]

This  issue started many years ago with the M240.

Leica fixed it with the M10 but have been too lazy to do anything about it when that part of the firmware code was ported over into the SL line. 

I ... and others have moaned and complained about this for years and even emailed the firmware development team. 

Correcting it presumably involves just a few lines of code. 

There was a similar chronic problem with the numbering re-setting to zero every time you updated the firmware. 

If it was Fuji, Nikon, Canon or Panasonic this would have been fixed within months of release. 

NB. If you have a memory card that holds >1000 images it will force a folder increment when you get to 1000 as that's part of the card numbering protocol .... but even Panasonic have a menu setting that allows you to override that eventuality and continue sequential numbering. (If you never get past 1000 on the card before re-formatting it this never happens)

The SL issue is just slipshod programming. 

[PCPix]

23 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

Leica fixed it with the M10 but have been too lazy to do anything about it when that part of the firmware code was ported over into the SL line

Thanks... it does seem odd that current models from the same manufacturer have such a discrepancy.

Would be interesting to know what S and Q bodies do after frame number 999...?

[Photoworks]

32 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

This  issue started many years ago with the M240.

Leica fixed it with the M10 but have been too lazy to do anything about it when that part of the firmware code was ported over into the SL line. 

I ... and others have moaned and complained about this for years and even emailed the firmware development team. 

Correcting it presumably involves just a few lines of code. 

There was a similar chronic problem with the numbering re-setting to zero every time you updated the firmware. 

If it was Fuji, Nikon, Canon or Panasonic this would have been fixed within months of release. 

NB. If you have a memory card that holds >1000 images it will force a folder increment when you get to 1000 as that's part of the card numbering protocol .... but even Panasonic have a menu setting that allows you to override that eventuality and continue sequential numbering. (If you never get past 1000 on the card before re-formatting it this never happens)

The SL issue is just slipshod programming. 

Any reason why anybody should care? don't you all use the organized ingest function . Don't tell me you are still using the finder.

anyway to me it is the same, it is probably a database in the camera limitation.

 

[thighslapper]

3 hours ago, Photoworks said:

Any reason why anybody should care? don't you all use the organized ingest function . Don't tell me you are still using the finder.

anyway to me it is the same, it is probably a database in the camera limitation.

 

Well why not just assign the impenetrable 'image id' to the files then we will all have to use renumbering software when we import photos ..... or give them no numbers at all ?

We've had all these 'I don't care' arguments before.  

If you are going to have a file assignment system that should number sequentially to 9999 then you should make some effort to make it work. 

[helged]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, PCPix said:

Thanks... it does seem odd that current models from the same manufacturer have such a discrepancy.

Would be interesting to know what S and Q bodies do after frame number 999...?

File numbering on S3 is similar to that on SL/SL2.

[Photoworks]

14 hours ago, thighslapper said:

Well why not just assign the impenetrable 'image id' to the files then we will all have to use renumbering software when we import photos ..... or give them no numbers at all ?

We've had all these 'I don't care' arguments before.  

If you are going to have a file assignment system that should number sequentially to 9999 then you should make some effort to make it work. 

I use custom name and numbering in photo mechanic, the final number is long and keeps going on for years, I have no duplicate name or numbers on my system.

Considering that I shoot about 2-3000 photos almost daily there is no other way that makes sense for me to keep order. When the clients calls and give me only the last 10 digits of the file I can always find it.

[thighslapper]

21 hours ago, Photoworks said:

Considering that I shoot about 2-3000 photos almost daily there is no other way that makes sense for me to keep order. When the clients calls and give me only the last 10 digits of the file I can always find it.

with that volume of images the number protocol used for card storage will never be of any use.... particularly if using more than one body concurrently. 

Anyway, I gave up worrying about it years ago and use NameChanger to bring a bit of coherence to my catalogue numbering. 

It's Leica's intransigence and laziness that I find annoying..... 

[BernardC]

On 6/15/2021 at 1:19 PM, PCPix said:

On the M10 the file numbering only creates a new folder every 10 000 images. The SL2 does it every 1000 images.

Is there any way to change the SL2's behaviour to match the M10? There are enough digits in the filenames to allow this.

I am surprised that the M10 lets you save 10,000 images in the same folder. The reason why camera makers limit their folders to 1,000 images (or some other number) is that many computers slow-down to a crawl when they encounter folders with too many entries. That's especially true when those folders are on memory cards, since they don't use more advanced Unix-like file systems.

This is mostly transparent to end-users, unless you archive images on memory cards. The folder structure is reorganized in your computer's file system (depending what system you use to ingest images).

I do agree about the inconvenience of repeating file names, but in practice it never happens on the same day/job, so there's very little risk of confusion.