• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

omd em5 pic size (1 Viewer)

666taz

Phill Wain
England
Hi I have just got one of these and don;t understand why when i have everything set to highest res when i change save my raw at highest setting the jpegs come out at just over 5 meg when the raw is 16meg .With the 7D i have they file are usually about the same siz e am i missing something .cheers Phill
 
Firstly, the jpeg size will be smaller anyway if there are large areas of plain colour in the photo. I've just had a quick glance at some of my EM5 wildflower shots which have varying levels of detail in them and the jpegs vary between about 6 and 11.5 megs.

I have the superfine jpeg set together with raw. Olympus customising can be a bit daunting to start with and having chosen the largest jpeg you then have to go into the custom menu to get the superfine setting instead of just 'fine.' Go to custom (cog) 'G' which is the 'set' symbol/color/WB - then scroll down to the last but one option 'Set' and from there go into set 1, where you can alter the settings similar to changing the time/date - the 1st box should be 'L' for large pixel count then the second box is the one you need to move the arrows up or down to select 'SF' then press OK and it should be what you need!

Confirm it be checking the viewfinder/rear screen which should show L SF+RAW in the appropriate position.
 
I am shooting in raw then using the raw developer then saving .and the jpegs are set to highest but still only about 5meg.I know they vary with detail but i would expect a jpeg file of at least 10 meg.In camera settings I have set the raw to super fine .If my raw files are all 16 meg then I would expect jpegs to be between 8 and 16 meg depending on detail but they all come out a 5meg.Maybe i will shoot in raw +sf L jpeg and see what happens then lol.But I just use raw at the mo.
 
Last edited:
I think that if you are used to seeing RAW and jpg of the same size, then one of two:
1 There is something wrong with your jpg settings, or
2 Your RAW images have been through something like a ZIP algorithm to save space.
Remember that jpg is a lossy way to save images, raw is not. On my Pana GH2 (which has about the same pixel formatting as the oly, I believe) my Raws are about 18.4MB, the ooc jpgs about 4. That is the relationship I would expect, 1:1 definitely not.

Niels
 
Last edited:
I have a 7D and a !Ds the raw are 18meg and 16 meg when i process them through the canon software they usually come out about 11to 14 meg so just dont understand why the jpegs are so small when i do just the same with the olympus.Maybe its the way the canon software saves them i have looked and at my pics ,it could be because like Adey says they could be small because i've been doing landscapes and there is lots of blue skys and lots of similar colour as the other ones off my canon pics are mostly wildlife with lots more detail thanks for the answers i will have to do more wildlife to see if it makes a difference.Cheers for the responses Adey and Niels.
 
If you save a jpg in photoshop, you can choose compression levels from 1-10 with 10 being essentially uncompressed. I wonder if the software has chosen different compression levels for the two cameras.

Niels
 
I use canons own DPP and Olympuses own so that could be the diffrence iI just downloaded olympus viewer 3 still the same but no worries ive only ahd it a week as im downsizing Iwas having trouble carrying all my canon gear dso plumbbed for the olympus as its the best i could afford for what i needed .Got to day though at first its been the hardest camera ive ever had to learn .But im getting there thanks for the input cheers Phill.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top