5d Mark iii file size?

[yulia]

I just noticed today that in addition to the pictures being very soft my mark III Large jpg files are maximum 5MB (most are around 4MB) ??? I don't shoot in jpeg usually, so i didn't notice it before...I looked at my old Mark II files and jpegs are bigger?? It just does not make sense..The manual says it should be around 7MB...I am not sure if it make a difference or anything...Just strange...they are still 3840x5760...

Does anybody else has this issue?

thank you

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

This is totally dependent on the subject and the JPEG mode. Presuming you're on Large / Fine, the subjects you're photographing could be:
* low ISO (high ISO requires more data to store)
* low in detail (a single coloured wall would take less data to store)
* have lots of out of focus areas (photographs with a lot of out of focus require less data to store)

The camera will create the file that it needs to keep the detail at the level that it needs.

 

[yulia]

This is totally dependent on the subject and the JPEG mode. Presuming you're on Large / Fine, the subjects you're photographing could be:
* low ISO (high ISO requires more data to store)
* low in detail (a single coloured wall would take less data to store)
* have lots of out of focus areas (photographs with a lot of out of focus require less data to store)

The camera will create the file that it needs to keep the detail at the level that it needs.

yes, i understand that...specially * have lots of out of focus areas
i just noticed Mark ii never had such small files under any conditions...

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Do a test against both in the same conditions, if you still have the other one?

You also might find you have sharpness turned down too low? That would increase sharpness (obviously) and file size

 

[yulia]

Do a test against both in the same conditions, if you still have the other one?

You also might find you have sharpness turned down too low? That would increase sharpness (obviously) and file size

i'll check that, thank you! as i said i don't shoot jpeg much so i didn't look deeply into the settings...I don't even know why i switched to jpeg

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Sharply focused files will be larger than out of focus files. Thats because there is more information in a sharply focused file.

Make sure your lens is accurately focused, sometimes the AFMA must be adjusted differently for each body. The Camera body produces sharp images, if they are not, its a focus issue or a operator error. You can check focus by placing the camera on a tripod and taking a image, then using live view perform a live focus(AF-ON Button until the ring around the focus point turns green) and then capture the same image. Live focus normally provides the best possible focus, so if it is noticibly sharper, you need AFMA to fine tune autofocus with your lens.

In camera jpegs may have a lot of NR and appear to be soft, Shoot with raw and use the advance Release Candidate versions of Lightroom, or Adobe dng converter. A new DPP Version is expected this week, and we may see some camera firmware improvements for jpeg sharpness before long.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Do a test against both in the same conditions, if you still have the other one?

You also might find you have sharpness turned down too low? That would increase sharpness (obviously) and file size

i'll check that, thank you! as i said i don't shoot jpeg much so i didn't look deeply into the settings...I don't even know why i switched to jpeg

Switch back if you don't need it?

 

[Janco]

my mark III Large jpg files are maximum 5MB (most are around 4MB) ??? ....... I looked at my old Mark II files and jpegs are bigger??

* low ISO (high ISO requires more data to store)

As implicated by Phil, Noise/grain adds to image "details" = bigger file size. I guess that makes not a big difference in low iso images but the higher iso you choose, the more noisy the image will be, and the bigger the difference probably will be between the two cameras. So a smaller image size could indicate BETTER in-camera noise reduction. Of course, if the images itself are softer in general (maybe AFMA needed) that's something else. Might be the reason for smaller file sizes as well...

 

[facedodge]

my jpgs are usually 7 to 11 MB.

 

[Wiki Tango]

I had the chance to have a 5DIII in my hands and insert one of my CF cards.
The JPGs have 5MB, the RAWs have from 27 to 33MB.
Unfortunately I can't remember the exact camera's settings...

an ISO 5000 example including Exif is here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ef-s/6938593476#

 

[yulia]

my jpgs are usually 7 to 11 MB.

thank you!
never had 11MB...just looked and the photos with higher iso (3200), in focus - 6.9MB....
I do have files that are 3.8MB...
RAW files are fine and big...LOL


anyway, i just wanted to see if anybody experienced the same, or if its normal....

Is there a minimum size? if i photograph white wall on low iso... out of focus...what the file size should be?

 

[rpt]

Most are around 4 to 7M, some are 10M. One is 17M - that is of a tree with no leaves - many branches against the blue sky as a background. The tree fills the frame so jpeg does not get much of compression I guess.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Did you do any tests? Did you try changing sharpness? Are you definitely using large fine? Did you compare the two cameras on exactly the same scene with exactly the same exposure settings (if you still have it)?

Realistically that's the only way forward with this one

 

[Invertalon]

All my JPEG's after LR4 are 13-15MB. SOOC JPEGs much less.

 

[PageWorks Studios]

Came across this blog post today - might shed some light on this perhaps?

http://www.michaelthemaven.com/?postID=2287&why-canon-5diii-owners-should-save-jpegs-if-shooting-with-isos-over-500

 

[Rob Wiebe]

My jpegs run around 5 to 11 mb on 5760 X 3840. Noticeable that a more detailed photo is larger mb.