Canon jpeg file sizes 300D vs 10D

Today my daughter and I went to take pictures of bicycles races. I filled
up my card (512Mb) very quickly while she did not fill hers (also 512Mb) as
fast. This was very puzzling, for the same number of pictures, she could
take much more pictures on a same size card. We compared settings and both
cameras were on the best resolution and lowest compression, both were on
JPEG, not RAW. At home we then we compared files sizes for about the same
type of picture and we were surprised to find the 300D produced files which
were about twice as big as the files on the 10D.

The only logical explanation is that the 300D has a lower JPEG compression
than the 10D thus producing bigger files, now why would they do that on such
similar cameras?

Jean

 

Were the cameras on the same ISO with the same sharpening? At high ISO, and
with higher sharpening, noise levels are increased. JPEG is very bad at
compressing noise, so an ISO 800 300D shot with the default sharpening
(higher on the 300D than the 10D) would be a much larger file than an ISO
100 10D shot.

Try taking the same shot with both cameras at ISO 100 to 1600 with the
default parameters, and the take the same shot with both cameras at ISO 100
to 1600 with the sharpening set to the lowest value. Look at the file sizes.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

There are a couple of factors to consider. First, JPEG produces file
sizes that vary according to how much detail is in a photo. A minor
focusing problem can greatly reduce the JPEG file size. Noise from an
excessive ISO setting can make JPEGs larger.

Second, the 300D creates high resolution previews that inflate the file
size by 500K to 1MB. The 10D might not do that. You can use a utility
to strip the useless previews off without harming the EXIF data.

 

What ISO settings were used ? Were both cameras ISO's the same ?

The 300D has more sharpening applied by default. This alone will
increase the size of a JPEG. Higher ISO settings will also increase
the size of JPEGs.. Higher ISO's produce more noise and as a result
larger JPEG file sizes..

Sharp pictures and noisy pictures don't compress that well. JPEG
compression varies drastically depending on what you shoot.
Try shoot the sky, then shoot a gravel road.. Compare the file
sizes. They'll probably differ by at least 2 Megabytes.

You can see this easily for yourself. Set either camera to
ISO 100. Put in a formatted 512 Meg card.. Note how many photos are
'left'. Now change ISO to 400.. Now see how man pictures are
left..

 

I had never checked that before, indeed changing the ISO setting will change
the number of pics (from 160 at ISO 100 to 123 at ISO 1600 on a 512Mb card)
but the sharpening settings will not. I set my 300D to the same settings as
my daughter's 10D, hers will be ready to take 209 pics on a 512Mb card. I
guess the hirez preview on the 300D does take up the extra room.

Thanks to all wo responded with such good info.

Jean

 

Do you know of a utility which does that? I have only found JHEAD
(http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/) which strips the thumbnails off but
the saving is barely 10Kb per image.

Jean

 

As far as I'm concerned anyone who even thinks about shooting JPG with
the 300d or 10d has wasted their money on such a camera. RAW is the
only way to go. You want JPG, get a point and shoot.

 

I agree RAW is the way to go, but if I want to put a lot of photos on a
CF card and I'm not too concerned with quality I'll switch over to JPEG.
The compression is very close to loss-less and any major errors can be
corrected fairly well in Photoshop. But for anything else, RAW it is.
Nothing like having total control of the post-processing of the image.

 

Should be no surprise. That's what the Canon specs say.

 

Jim thanks, I love hearing how people claim to be photographers and have to
put others down because you have to correct photo errors by using RAW files.

Hey maybe you will learn how to take a photo correctly in the first place &
then realize wow jpeg is good enough!

 

It's not quite that simple. Digital photography provides some challenges
that film does not (both film and digital provide challenges, but different
ones). Are you saying that a "real photographer" (film) never relies on the
darkroom to enhance the final image?

Think of the RAW file as exposed film. It still needs to be processed.
Compare RAW conversion to darkroom work. Does it make the shooter any less
of a photographer because his film (or RAW file) needs to be processed? Of
course not. Think of a JPG as a polaroid...you take the shot, and
everything is done for you, and you have very little control of the final
product past the point of exposure.

 

As far as I’m concerned that is an extremely ignorant statement.

There are many reasons to shoot JPG just as there are many reasons to shoot
RAW. There are many professional sports photographers that shoot JPG with
expensive cameras like the Canon 1D or the 1D MkII, I’d like to know what
point and shoot they could use to do the same job.

I often shoot JPG with my 10D, you have to be pretty ignorant to suggest
that a point and shoot would meet my needs just as well as my 10D.

Did you realise that you can use a variety of lenses on a 10D, even when
shooting JPEG? What about fast AF? Low shutter lag? Low noise even at
high ISO?

I could shoot sports with a 400 f2.8L IS lens attached to my 10D and use
JPG, please advise which point and shoot camera could be used instead to
give the same results.

 

Hello if you have to edit, jpegs can be edited!!

However it is better to take the photo correctly!!!!!!!!

 

Agreed, RAW is only another option to these cameras. JPEGs can still be
corrected and worked on in Photoshop.

Jean

 

In message <>,

Maybe one day YoYo will take his head out of his butt, and realize that
shooting JPEG on a camera that can shoot RAW is simply throwing away
dynamic range.

You're not a real photographer unless you can shoot sunlit objects with
a camera with one stop of dynamic range, right?

You are an idiot. You lock into one aspect of something and fixate on
it.
--

 

Ya and maybe Pigs will fly.

 

Ya, if you don't mind losing quality bigtime.

Ya, if you don't mind frigging with the camera while shooting.
Besides, you can always do the same with RAW, but you get an extra 2
stops dynamic range. I care about that, guess you don't.

 

In message <>,

Yes! You can paint anything you want in the white canvas created by the
washed-out highlights! If you compensate, you can paint over the noise
in the shadows as well, or the contrast-boosted JPEG artifacts.

There is no such thing as "correctly". Learn the medium, and use it to
its fullest, for your purposes. JPEG is a very limited medium, compared
to RAW. You can do more things with RAW.
--

 

In message <UF5vc.28$>,

Within narrower limits.
--

 

I know, but if I wanted to shoot RAW only, I would have bough a Sigma
SD9/10. You can't in one breath dismiss the Sigma because it ONLY shoots
RAW and then condemn me or anyone else for shooting in JPEG because it is
"unprofessional". I am NOT a pro and if I was I would have bought a 1D!

Jean