Canon 400d Question?

[PHILLCORNISH]

Can any one advise me? I have been using a Fuji s9500 now for about 2 years and have just upgraded to the canon 400d. I am very happy with canon and have some great photos. They are all better than the Fuji down to I think the better lenses. What I don’t understand is at the highest jpg settings for both I get a 4mb size files on the 9 mega pixel Fuji and 3mb on the 10.1 mega pixel canon. This must be down to the compression of the jpeg. But why does the canon compress at higher level and still give me photos better than the Fuji.

http://host.photogalaxy.net/thumbs/10091_Phillcornish.jpg (http://host.photogalaxy.net/viewer.php?id=10091_Phillcornish.jpg)
[Open Image (http://host.photogalaxy.net/viewer.php?id=10091_Phillcornish.jpg)] [Hosted by (http://host.photogalaxy.net) PhotoGalaxy.com (http://www.photogalaxy.com)]

[devilgas]

yep, down to the compression algorithm. quality is better as the sensor on the canon is (probably) physically larger and therefore produces less noise etc. you won't spot any difference between a 3mb jpg and a 4mb jpg.
i would suggest that you shoot RAW and invest in lightroom to get the best from the camera.

[Ian]

Can any one advise me? I have been using a Fuji s9500 now for about 2 years and have just upgraded to the canon 400d. I am very happy with canon and have some great photos. They are all better than the Fuji down to I think the better lenses. What I don’t understand is at the highest jpg settings for both I get a 4mb size files on the 9 mega pixel Fuji and 3mb on the 10.1 mega pixel canon. This must be down to the compression of the jpeg. But why does the canon compress at higher level and still give me photos better than the Fuji.



Better image quality doesn't necessarily mean larger JPEG image files. In fact a bad, lower resolution image, which has more noise, will produce larger files as the image data compresses less efficiently.

But as has been said, JPEG image size differences are often down to the compression level applied by the camera.

Ian

[Patrick]

Can any one advise me? I have been using a Fuji s9500 now for about 2 years and have just upgraded to the canon 400d. I am very happy with canon and have some great photos. They are all better than the Fuji down to I think the better lenses. What I don’t understand is at the highest jpg settings for both I get a 4mb size files on the 9 mega pixel Fuji and 3mb on the 10.1 mega pixel canon. This must be down to the compression of the jpeg. But why does the canon compress at higher level and still give me photos better than the Fuji.

http://host.photogalaxy.net/thumbs/10091_Phillcornish.jpg (http://host.photogalaxy.net/viewer.php?id=10091_Phillcornish.jpg)
[Open Image (http://host.photogalaxy.net/viewer.php?id=10091_Phillcornish.jpg)] [Hosted by (http://host.photogalaxy.net) PhotoGalaxy.com (http://www.photogalaxy.com)]

You are batting on completely different wicket with the 400D, even though this camera is a entry level DSLR model its capable of extremely high quality results, particularly if you use RAW mode. There is no need at this stage to buy special software use that provided by Canon with the camera for conversion to get the feel of RAW. Then move on to Lightroom (excellent Program) or similar.
Hope you don't mind me commenting on your attached picture (this is note the a critique thread) but I know the area the picture was taken, just opposite the Jaguar plant. Couldn't you have included the whole of that wonderful representation of Spitfires, and I think you could crop of some of the bottom of the picture, its a clutter you don't need.
You have handled the night exposure very well.

Patrick

[PHILLCORNISH]

You are batting on completely different wicket with the 400D, even though this camera is a entry level DSLR model its capable of extremely high quality results, particularly if you use RAW mode. There is no need at this stage to buy special software use that provided by Canon with the camera for conversion to get the feel of RAW. Then move on to Lightroom (excellent Program) or similar.
Hope you don't mind me commenting on your attached picture (this is note the a critique thread) but I know the area the picture was taken, just opposite the Jaguar plant. Couldn't you have included the whole of that wonderful representation of Spitfires, and I think you could crop of some of the bottom of the picture, its a clutter you don't need.
You have handled the night exposure very well.

Patrick

Thanks all you guys for you comments. Thanks for the advice on above image Patrick as soon as I posted this image I could see this error in composition.
I welcome critique as I get a lot pleasure from taking photos and are always looking to improve. Will go and retry this same shot tonight and post it in critique for more comments.

[PHILLCORNISH]

Please see my second photo of the above posted in the correct section for comment.

http://dpnow.com/forum2/showthread.php?p=25731#post25731