Resolution of 5D Mark III- what do you shoot?

[idratherplaytennis]

Quick question, I've generally always shot on the maximum L size Raw images (on my old 8mp 20D) but heard that on the full frames, like the Mark III that the images actually turn out sharper (pixel peeper wise) on the S or M settings as opposed to the L. I know for a fact that I don't need L size prints ;D (Yes, I realize that the reason they show up sharper is like with anything, take a big image, shrink it to a smaller size, like when you see the massive image in a 3" LCD screen where everything looks awesome and then you blow it up and realize it's all blurred.. unless I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, hah)

Anyways, I was just wondering what everyone normally shoots at, as far as pros go with full frames like the Mark II and III. Do you shoot L Raw and downsize in PS/LR or do you shoot somewhere in the M range or other (and a reason would be nice ).

I haven't attempted to go smaller yet, although seeing how fast 22mp fill up space... I am verrrrrry tempted to try it out. I almost always wind up downsizing anyways.

 

[lexus82su]

Actually, with Canon cameras, the reason the Raw "L" mode isn't as sharp as MRaw or SRaw is because of how the sensor (and Canon's way of processing sensor data) creates an image. It is NOT because you just cannot see the soft focus on the smaller image produced by an MRaw or SRaw due to not being able to zoom in as much.

Each "Pixel" in a 21.2 MP image from my 5D Mk ii is only one color (Red Green or Blue). The processor uses an algorithm to determine the actual color of that pixel by combining data from each of the pixels around it to create an "Estimate" of the color that pixel should be.

When you use SRaw or MRaw, each actual Pixel in the final processed image is using 2, 3 or more of those primary color "pixels" that create the 21.2 MP resolution of the sensor.

There is less blur between pixels at the "pixel peeping" level in a MRaw or SRaw because it is using a full RGB pixel combo to create each of the pixels in the final product. It SEES a full RGB pixel for each pixel instead of having to calculate a RGB pixel from R, G, or B plus data from others.

If your focus is sharp and you are using newer L lenses (such as 70-200 2.8IS II, second Gen L primes or zoom lenses), you should not see a sharpness difference between Raw, MRaw, and SRaw if they were processed the same way. "Zooming" in isn't why it is less sharp. Its processed differently.
If you are using consumer grade lenses or even "semi-pro" lenses, you are outshooting your glass with a 20+ MP sensor. The glass won't resolve that level of detail in older and/or consumer grade lenses.

So, with Canons at least, you should ALWAYS get a sharper image from MRaw or SRaw than you get from RAW

 

[ctmike]

I knew I had just read a similar thread... check it out and the link included in the first post. Thought it was interesting.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,6088.0.html

 

[idratherplaytennis]

Thanks for the info. I may have interpreted that site as it's better to shoot large for the most part but I still have testing to do, to find what suits my tastes. Interesting to know that shooting with L should have no difference but it would with sub L's. Right now, having sold off my 20D and it's corresponding cropped lenses, I only have the kit 24-105L and the 50 1.4 to test with, but I'll be checking into it.

A lot of my images turn out soft but every now and then (usually just in brighter light or with lower ISO shots), I will get a hit that returns my faith in not needing to send my Mark III to canon with the lenses for a calibration. Already tried the micro adjustments to no avail. Just looking for other stuff- I mean, it's a huge learning curve from a 20D to Mark III.

 

[RLPhoto]

I've made great prints from my D30 and its only 3MP. Its also great for web photos and no-one could ever tell the difference on the web.

 

[prestonpalmer]

A review was done on that here:

http://www.bellissimaphoto.co.uk/photographers/canon-5d-mk-iii-high-iso-raw-file-size.html

 

[psolberg]

full resolution FTW. storage is always cheaper, always faster, always bigger. In 10 years you'll laugh at the notion of 30, 40, 60, 100MP per image and will be dealing with much much bigger files. Yet you won't find it one bit funny when you can't go back in time and retake that one image in time to get more detail or quality out of it. You never know what tools and demands you'll have 10 years down the road and so it makes no sense to capture anything in less than the best quality you can afford.

 

[Tcapp]

full resolution FTW. storage is always cheaper, always faster, always bigger. In 10 years you'll laugh at the notion of 30, 40, 60, 100MP per image and will be dealing with much much bigger files. Yet you won't find it one bit funny when you can't go back in time and retake that one image in time to get more detail or quality out of it. You never know what tools and demands you'll have 10 years down the road and so it makes no sense to capture anything in less than the best quality you can afford.

Heck yes. Don't spend 3500 on a camera if you don't use it to its full potential. Just get yourself a rebel.