Page 1 of 1
Image Size
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:20 pm
by sury
Recently a friend of mine bought a Canon 5D. The image size for highest resolution JPEG on 5D was around 10MB. Whereas on A900 the typical size of file for L/Xfine is around 17MB give or take few MB. I am curious as why 5D file sizes are so much smaller compared to A900. More efficient or more loss of information? Just curious.
With best regards,
Sury
Re: Image Size
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:01 pm
by sury
Sonalta,
Thank you. That answers explains the difference. Your point about quality is acknowledged. How they (Canon) can compress so much without materially impact the quality of an image (i.e. loss of detail)?
With best regards,
Sury
Re: Image Size
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:02 pm
by Winston
The A900 has almost twice as many pixels.
Re: Image Size
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:43 pm
by sury
Sonalta,
Thank you. That answers explains the difference. Your point about quality is acknowledged. How they (Canon) can compress so much without materially impact the quality of an image (i.e. loss of detail)?
With best regards,
Sury
Re: Image Size
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:45 pm
by sury
I believe 5D is 21MP so it is approximately comparable to A900.
Also, my apologies for replying twice to Sonalta. My system went awry for a minute.
With best regards,
Sury
sury wrote:Sonalta,
Thank you. That answers explains the difference. Your point about quality is acknowledged. How they (Canon) can compress so much without materially impact the quality of an image (i.e. loss of detail)?
With best regards,
Sury
Re: Image Size
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:52 pm
by bakubo
sury wrote:I believe 5D is 21MP so it is approximately comparable to A900.
Canon 5D: 12.8mp
Sony A900: 24.6mp
Re: Image Size
Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:18 am
by sury
I stand corrected. I meant 5DMKII. Thank you.
sury wrote:I believe 5D is 21MP so it is approximately comparable to A900.
Also, my apologies for replying twice to Sonalta. My system went awry for a minute.
With best regards,
Sury
sury wrote:Sonalta,
Thank you. That answers explains the difference. Your point about quality is acknowledged. How they (Canon) can compress so much without materially impact the quality of an image (i.e. loss of detail)?
With best regards,
Sury