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
Image Size
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
-
sury
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Contact:
Image Size
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper
-
sury
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Image Size
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
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
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper
Re: Image Size
The A900 has almost twice as many pixels.
Winston Mitchell
KM7D, A700, A77, A77M2, A7M3
KM7D, A700, A77, A77M2, A7M3
-
sury
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Image Size
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
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
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper
-
sury
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Image Size
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
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
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper
Re: Image Size
Canon 5D: 12.8mpsury wrote:I believe 5D is 21MP so it is approximately comparable to A900.
Sony A900: 24.6mp
Bakubo http://www.bakubo.com
-
sury
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Image Size
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
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests