Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 09 Mar 2011 (Wednesday) 09:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

difference in file sizes bewteen lenses.

 
Nickc84
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Jul 2010
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:41 |  #1

I was wondering why my 85 1.8 files are a lot smaller then my sigma 17-70 OS. After resizing and extracting the sigma is around 2mb on my 7D while the 85mm is 1mb or less.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
led ­ hed
Goldmember
Avatar
1,929 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Apsley, On. CAN.
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:42 |  #2

it shouldn't. lenses don't dictate file size, camera resolution does.


Rob - "a photographer is a painter, in a hurry!"
Canon 7D ~ Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MKII ~ Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ~ Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II ~ Canon 430EX ~ Canon EF 2.0X III Telephoto Extender ~ Canon SX230 HS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,159 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 1193
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:42 |  #3

Resizing and extracting?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shockey
Goldmember
1,187 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Boise Idaho
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:45 |  #4

Not sure but depending on what your save settings are some photos with more fine detail may be captured at larger file sizes.


___________
Boise Portrait Photographer
www.alloutdoor.smugmug​.com (external link)
www.aoboudoirboise.smu​gmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nickc84
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Jul 2010
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:46 |  #5

I extract the jpegs from RAW's in the same size. Am I doing it wrong?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KaBlookie
Senior Member
326 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Phoenixville-ish area, PA
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:48 |  #6

From what I've noticeded, file size is to an extent dictated by details, contrast, colors, brightness, etc. So different lenses, as we all know, reproduce colors and details slightly differently, so that can account for slight differences in file sizes.


7D - XTi - Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - Canon 50mm f/1.8II - SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 - Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L - Lensbaby 2.0 - Canon 430EX-II - CBS flash trigger

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,159 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 1193
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:49 |  #7

Nickc84 wrote in post #11987247 (external link)
I extract the jpegs from RAW's in the same size. Am I doing it wrong?

Compare the raw file sizes first to see if its something your camera is doing. The most likely answer is that when you convert to .jpg there is some compression that happens, If there are multiple pixels adjacent to each other that are the same the image can be compressed more. It seems likely that this would happen more on a longer lens than on a wide lens, but thats a total guess.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nickc84
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Jul 2010
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:50 |  #8

KaBlookie wrote in post #11987258 (external link)
From what I've noticeded, file size is to an extent dictated by details, contrast, colors, brightness, etc. So different lenses, as we all know, reproduce colors and details slightly differently, so that can account for slight differences in file sizes.

That makes sense. The 85mm is sharper but the 17-70 OS has rich vivid colors which probably makes the files larger.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rvdw98
Goldmember
Avatar
1,592 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:51 |  #9

KaBlookie wrote in post #11987258 (external link)
From what I've noticeded, file size is to an extent dictated by details, contrast, colors, brightness, etc. So different lenses, as we all know, reproduce colors and details slightly differently, so that can account for slight differences in file sizes.

2 vs 1 MB is not what I would call "slight" though. And with the prime presumably being the sharper of the two, you'd expect it to render more detail and thus larger files.


Roy

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nickc84
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Jul 2010
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:53 |  #10

rvdw98 wrote in post #11987292 (external link)
2 vs 1 MB is not what I would call "slight" though. And with the prime presumably being the sharper of the two, you'd expect it to render more detail and thus larger files.

Yeah, that had me confused as well.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rvdw98
Goldmember
Avatar
1,592 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:55 |  #11

Did you make sure that the two shots were framed exactly the same way (considering the difference in focal length)?

You could post links to the two files to provide some insight.


Roy

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
phigment
Member
230 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
     
Mar 09, 2011 09:58 |  #12

Nickc84 wrote in post #11987207 (external link)
I was wondering why my 85 1.8 files are a lot smaller then my sigma 17-70 OS. After resizing and extracting the sigma is around 2mb on my 7D while the 85mm is 1mb or less.

As stated by others, compression depends a lot on how much detail is in the image. If you are shooting the 85mm at f/1.8 there will be a lot more smooth portions in the image due to the shallow DOF.

Also, your 85mm lens is longer than the 17-70 which will change framing and/or perspective (depending on whether you move to maintain framing). For example, if you try to frame the subject the same with the 85mm vs 70mm, you will have much less of the background in the 85mm version, hence producing an even more blurred background.

So in general, if one lens has a lot of blurred spots, you will get high compression (in both the jpeg and raw).

Another factor is if you are upping the ISO on the 17-70 to compensate for a dark scene. The higher ISO will produce more noise and thus decrease compression efficiency.


A7R, Firin 20mm, CV 21/4, CV 40/1.4, 100ZE, 300 4LIS, Tamron 150-600, Jupiter 8, RX100 IV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nickc84
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Jul 2010
     
Mar 09, 2011 10:03 |  #13

That makes sense.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,431 posts
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Mar 09, 2011 10:14 |  #14

The file size changes as the number of different colors in the scene changes.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 10, 2011 06:19 |  #15

Are you using a higher ISO with the 17-70 to compensate for the narrower aperture? Noise isn't compressible, so will increase file sizes.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,292 views & 0 likes for this thread
difference in file sizes bewteen lenses.
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is yeungr
1143 guests, 325 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.