File size

[Fruengalli]

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.

[Roosta]

Mate, I shot at small JPG on my 50D, but I shot RAW, process that image to get what I want out of the finished product. Some people choose to shot JPG, and have the RAW off. If you can't be bothered with processing your RAW files. The In Camera Effects - from what I understand, only add to the JPG, as in adding sharpness/contrast and so on, it won't affect the RAW, as it's only capturing the light coming through the lens, and leaving the processing to us.

Don't think I can turn the JPG off, even on the ID, it has a SD back-up, that's set to small. If I miss the shot, no point having it in two formats in camera. Everybody has there opinion, but at the end of the day, Megapixels to sensor size would be a more valid argument IMO.

Not sure about the JPG being sharper, they always tend to look a tad warmer when viewed before the RAW image is processed.

[ameerat42]

Dunno, it reads like a litany of assertions. Try it out yourself and then tell us.
I'm wondering if too long at being a guru dulls ones sense of proper description.

So why does Canon make any camera above 5MP - or anyone else?
Am.

[Mark L]

2>Does a 21mp file size actually have any more usable data than an 11mp given my particular usage criteria?

'spose it's got 10 mp more usable data to PP with.
Wonder if the larger file was sharpened in PP .......