While trolling about the internets for some info on my 5Dii I came across Ken Rockwells quick guide to usage. The following is his take on image size & sensor relationships. I have plenty of data storage so I always take 21mp RAW but am very unlikely to ever print out to max size (24X16 is about my max print size). He states I will get sharper images at smaller file size so my questions to those in the know
1> True or false??
2>Does a 21mp file size actually have any more usable data than an 11mp given my particular usage criteria?
Cheers for your thoughts
Image Size No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are sharper pixel-by-pixel!When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG.
Even SMALL is good enough for great 20x30" prints. The smaller-sized images out of the 5D Mark II are spectacular. They are much, much sharper and cleaner than images from cameras on which that is their native resolution. When you start with over 20MP, it looks pretty good if you use all those to make 11MP or 5MP. Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at 100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a true scan from film. At the 5MP setting, you have 100% R, G and B pixels, exactly as if you were using a Sigma Foveon sensor. If Sigma was selling this, they'd sell the 5MP (S) setting as if it were 15MP (also a lie).What this means is that the lower resolution settings actually pack away lot more detail than you think. The S (5MP) setting of the 5D Mark II is a lot sharper than any 5MP camera.