Canon 5D MKIV Jpg size

Bigfungun

Suspended / Banned
Messages
272
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Im wondering if someone can confirm the size of the Canon 5D MKiv jpg.
I usually shoot RAW but had to shoot jpeg today due to some very fast action.
Setting were finest jpeg size but when i got home i was faced with 4.58 MB files @72 ppi.
Is this correct?
It just seems to me to be a very small jpeg size.
I would have thought it should have been around the 16 MB size @300ppi.

Bare in mind please that i never shoot Jpeg szo this might be perfectly normal.
Also i was really unimpressed by them.
 
They export at 9 meg at 300ppi so it’s obviously correct.
 
......
I would have thought it should have been around the 16 MB size @300ppi.

Page 171 of your user guide shows that the highest quality JPEG's from your 5DMkIV are approx 8.8 Mb....where did you get the figure of 16Mb from?
 
Page 171 of your user guide shows that the highest quality JPEG's from your 5DMkIV are approx 8.8 Mb....where did you get the figure of 16Mb from?

In all honesty the last time I used jpeg was with a Nikon D810 and they are enormous out the camera. Guess I was just using that as a guide. Wrongly of course.
 
Here's a dumb question, does it matter how much detail is in the image? I know that B&W Jpeg files are almost always a lot smaller file size, the lack of colour clearly having an impact, but what about actual image detail? As in, how much is going on within the image? Like a Jpeg image of a plain wall might be a lot smaller than a chaotic crowd scene? More depth, more colours etc?
 
Here's a dumb question, does it matter how much detail is in the image? I know that B&W Jpeg files are almost always a lot smaller file size, the lack of colour clearly having an impact, but what about actual image detail? As in, how much is going on within the image? Like a Jpeg image of a plain wall might be a lot smaller than a chaotic crowd scene? More depth, more colours etc?

I think you have hit this on the head. There was lots of grey sky and it took up anything from 15 to 80% of the image.
The annoying thing is I know all this but it’s been that long since I used jpeg and I just figured that most mid to top end cameras would be 300ppi like the D810 when using the finest jpeg option which is not the case.
It seems to be the better the technology gets the more I seem to forget.
Think I need to re-teach myself the basics.
 
I think you have hit this on the head. There was lots of grey sky and it took up anything from 15 to 80% of the image.
The annoying thing is I know all this but it’s been that long since I used jpeg and I just figured that most mid to top end cameras would be 300ppi like the D810 when using the finest jpeg option which is not the case.
It seems to be the better the technology gets the more I seem to forget.
Think I need to re-teach myself the basics.

It was the first thing I thought of, as I remember when I shot with the D800 the files were usually huge, but then there would be the odd few that were much smaller and the only difference was they were more minimalist, much less detail, colours or depth/DR.
 
To be clear 72ppi (not dpi) is irrelevant for display, pixels per inch only come into play when it comes to printing your image even then the pixel dimensions are more important.

You can size your image to 1200 x 800 pixels and set any ppi figure from 1 through to 1000 and beyond and the image will always display at the same size.

DPI or dots per inch refers to the number of dots layed down on the paper whilst printing and has no relationship at all to pixels.

The JPEG file straight out of camera will always vary in stored size because it is a lossy format, an image with lots of fine detail will be larger as there is less for the algorithms to discard, images with less fine detail will be smaller as more information can be discarded. As long as your pixel dimensions are correct you can change that ppi figure to whatever you want.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top