dont have a 1Ds2 , but every other body I have used (350D / 30D /40D 1D2n /50D 7D) seems to be able to give raw files that vary a hell of a lot . generaly when I look back at the file sizes the biggest files are about double the smallest (all raw) and most are 40-50% larger than the smallest.
As mentioed above ISO is a big factor , as is the actual scene detail .
1Ds2 file is only 12 bits, there is no ( or very tiny) low iso banding baseline noise underneath the real data so result is smaller output file size. At hi-iso, 1Ds2 shares banding noise just like any canon bodies out there so output file is larger size. I've rather have small file size w/ better IQ than big file with lots of noise
Just about to hit the pit but just wanted to express my thanks once again to everyone, and the later posters too. When I've finished my urgent PP, I'll get on and try out the suggestions above. The range of file sizes folks are mentioning is an eye-opener, something I never experienced with smaller DSLRs.
What a terrific forum and site this is. I've always recommended it to folks looking for information but this is the first time I've tapped it myself for help. I feel bad that I won't be able to reciprocate by helping others on here. I just need to up my rate of random acts of kindness here in Scotland instead!
I sympathize with your struggles in moving from analog to digital. Two utterly different skill sets particularly in PP. You're to be congratulated in working with the 1DsII. To my mind it is one of Canon's finest efforts. I shoot with it extensively. In fact unless I'm shooting action or working in low light it is my camera of choice.
I sort of randomly bounced thru my 200 GB worth of RAW files watching changes in size. The smallest I saw was 11.6MB and the largest 22.3MB. I'd guesstimate that the average is around 15.5GB. There is not a direct answer to what makes a file bigger. Certainly higher ISO does - though I have some ISO 100 shots in the 17MB range. Complexity of subject matter influences it, but then I have a single hawk on a blue sky that comes out at about 16MB!? If you never get over 12MB then I'd say you are either working at low ISO in good light with simple (i.e. not a lot of variation in tonal quality) images. If that doesn't describe your work then some of the suggestions above should be considered. (Like making sure you are shooting in full RAW and not something else.) I have noticed that there is a tendency for my long lenses e.g. 400 f/5.6L to create a larger file than my 16-35 f/2.8L but this may be more a factor of subject matter rather than the lenses themselves.
Entering the world of digital photography is like crossing into a strange other dimension where they use the same words but it often means something different and where instead of a hands on in the developer connection to your images, it always begins at a distance, in abstract on a computer. All I can say is that despite the challenges of learning, I'll never go back to analog photography for anything other than the occasion B&W for old time's sake.
Thanks Robert. I DO miss my transparency film but I don't miss the costs involved. There is no way I could run even the small business that I do if I had to rely on slide film. I've been at this digital lark for a couple of years now but have never managed to get my head around anything but the basic basics. It's really annoying because my father and brother are complete technophiles and know their stuff back to front and any other which way. Those genes gave me a wide berth.
I do try to work in only good light so that may be a factor. I'm also only using a 300mm lens (I mostly rely on good fieldcraft to get close to subjects, something I haven't yet had a good opportunity to do with this camera body yet) so I'm optimistic the posters here have identified the relevant issues. Just need to find out which it is (probably a combination). Thanks again for your input.
mttran wrote:
1Ds2 file is only 12 bits, there is no ( or very tiny) low iso banding baseline noise underneath the real data so result is smaller output file size. At hi-iso, 1Ds2 shares banding noise just like any canon bodies out there so output file is larger size. I've rather have small file size w/ better IQ than big file with lots of noise
Completely agree with you there. But I also shoot on ISO 100 because my agency tells me I have to! I need to send them a couple of examples just to check the shots are OK for them.
I'm actually starting to look forward to getting to the bottom of this problem, might even learn something which would make a nice change!
Hey I don't really have an answer as to file sizes.
There's no need to be embarrassed.
You don't need to be, unless it's like, how do I wipe my butt or something along those lines.
You came to the right place, many of us have experience with many different types of equipment, and can help you out when we know something about it.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
dont have a 1Ds2 , but every other body I have used (350D / 30D /40D 1D2n /50D 7D) seems to be able to give raw files that vary a hell of a lot . generaly when I look back at the file sizes the biggest files are about double the smallest (all raw) and most are 40-50% larger than the smallest.
As mentioed above ISO is a big factor , as is the actual scene detail .
Thanks Ian. It's odd but I've never noticed this wide variation before, I have no idea why. I trust you have one or two good photos of planes flying around (what else would they be doing?). Cheers. BTW, I'll swap some of our lovely Scottish water for some of your lovely English sunshine :¬)
Nic Davies wrote:
Thanks Ian. It's odd but I've never noticed this wide variation before, I have no idea why. I trust you have one or two good photos of planes flying around (what else would they be doing?). Cheers. BTW, I'll swap some of our lovely Scottish water for some of your lovely English sunshine :¬)
Nic with amount of loverly 'sunshine' we've had lately i think I'd take that deal , but on
Y as long as the Scottish water comes in a bottle and is called single malt
Oh my lord, the Vulcan, one of my favourites. I remember being knocked off a small cliff once in North Wales by the sheer shock when one of these crept up from behind (difficult to imagine I know, but it was windy) and flew over my head at what felt like zero feet. Amazing! Terrifying!! Love the combo of big clouds and that magnificent beast of a plane.
You can have all the single malt you like, I can't stand the stuff. Something else I'm deeply ashamed about (the list just goes on and on). Cheers.
Hi Robert, thanks for the reassurance. This is a great site. I've made several decisions off the back of the information I've found here over the last couple of years.
Now, about that butt wiping thing, I don't seem to be able to.........
