I read a comment or a post recently which inferred that a 7D II file shot as a jpg at one of the smaller sizes was inherently cleaner than a larger file at similar settings (ISO etc).
Is there any truth to that statement? If this is crazy talk just say so.
I bring this up because I own a 7D and if someone can tell me that a Medium Jpg is 10x cleaner than a Large or Raw ... I'm locking those settings in today. Moreover, is that the case with all cameras? Is this phenomenon a jpg exclusive or is it the same with Raw? I mean, I have printed like 40 files of size 8x10 and nothing bigger. So if I can get cleaner images that will print at that size amazing ... Awesome..
Why isn't this 'feature' advertised?
The short answer is NO.
Someone is pulling your leg. The smaller files are made by using more lossy compression, throwing away resolution and image data. You can reduce a image size, and make all the details and noise smaller, but the image is smaller as well.
So, if you view a image at 800 X 600, it looks cleaner than at 5600 X 4200 just because its so small.
You can use more NR to get cleaner looking images, but this is done by blurring the noise in a image to it is not as apparent. There are lots of variations of NR methods, but its just in how the areas are selected to be blurred and how much.