JPG - 21mp vs 11.1mp shooting

hi there,

lately Im taking photos of stuff that doesnt require RAW or even 21.mp .
I am a member of a Kayak forum and a car forum so I take misc pictures that dont require RAW or any post photo adjustment.

Ill basically take a JPG, transfer it to my PC and re-size it to 1024x768 or a max of 1280x1024.

So are there any advantages to taking at 21mp and then resizing to 1024x768?

A very noob question but for the majority of my DSLR life I shot in RAW.
Lately RAW is unnecessary.

Probably no advantage shooting 21mpixel RAW and downsizing over what you plan to do.

I would probably just set the camera to JPG and automate the downsizing/saving to JPG o0n my computer to speed things up even further.

I am asking about 21mp vs 11 mp all in JPG.

Other than space on the card, I see no advantage/disadvantage to shooting either way. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, the smaller size is the full sise image, downsized, in camera.

The only disadvantage I can see is you coming back later and saying "I wish I had shot that one in RAW"...

I mean picture quality.

Am I anyways loosing the pixels because I'm resizing?
Or is the size getting smaller yet the pixel (quality) remains constant?

You're losing the pixels because you're resizing, but if you don't need them, then you don't need them.

CorruptedPhotographer wrote in post #13328958
I mean picture quality.

Am I anyways loosing the pixels because I'm resizing?
Or is the size getting smaller yet the pixel (quality) remains constant?

A 1024*768 JPEG is a 1024*768 JPEG - no matter where it came from.

The one question that does arise is, how noise is handled on reduced RAW sizes.
Oh, and I'm sure you know that an in camera JPEG is compressed a lot more than a quality 12 JPEG in Photoshop.

There's no RAW.

I'm taking JPGs only.

Detlev, i mean snapping at 21mp then resizing.

CorruptedPhotographer wrote in post #13328958
I mean picture quality.

Am I anyways loosing the pixels because I'm resizing?
Or is the size getting smaller yet the pixel (quality) remains constant?

You can't make an image smaller and not throw pixels away.

CorruptedPhotographer wrote in post #13328975
There's no RAW.

I'm taking JPGs only.

Detlev, i mean snapping at 21mp then resizing.

Well, if you shoot 21MP and then reduce, you can reduce a lower quality JPEG to a higher quality JPEG, which possibly is a higher quality image compared to a smaller lower quality JPEG.

Best way to find out:
Snap two images and compare the results.

JPEG compression shows best in detailed changes in colours - e.g. text. Paint on XP is absolutely horrible (used it to save screenshots) - you'd get this "pattern" around any text. Higher quality JPEGs don't show this as badly (neither do better compression algorithms). If you thus start from a bigger image, you can reduce the vissible effects of such compression. Experiment.

The only advantage I see to shooting at full resolution is that you'll have greater latitude if you need to crop. If you don't plan on cropping, then 11.1 MP should do you fine. Heck, I took a lot of great 6 MP images with my old 10D