I may have stumped google? There is no particular reason to want to know this, but I just thought of a question, googled it, and couldn't get an answer. If you have an FX camera, and...

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

There is no particular reason to want to know this, but I just thought of a question, googled it, and couldn't get an answer.

If you have an FX camera, and an APS-C camera, both with the exact same MP, both shooting raw. How much, if any difference in file size "MB" is there? I do realize that the detail in the photo also makes a difference in the final file size, so assume that they were both shooting the same scene, and the crop sensor was figured in to focal range.

I'm not interested in starting a FF vs Crop argument, just wanted to know if anyone knows if it is sensor size, or MP that makes the bigger difference in the final file size?

Anyone know for sure? (no guesses) And......if you would be so kind, let me know the search terms you used to get the answer?
If we don't figure it out here, not the end of the world, it was just a passing thought......like gas... I figured I would share.

Thanks
bk

BebuLamar

Sensor size makes no difference in file size. Only number of pixels (MP) and other things would affect file size. Other things include compression, RAW or JPEG, Bit depth etc... but the MP has the most affect on file size.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

BebuLamar wrote:

Sensor size makes no difference in file size. Only number of pixels (MP) and other things would affect file size. Other things include compression, RAW or JPEG, Bit depth etc... but the MP has the most affect on file size.

That was my assumption, and why I suggested both cameras shooting raw (forgot to mention uncompressed)

I guess the main part of the question is.......why couldn't I find the answer on google. After all, I thought everything was on google?

BebuLamar

bkyser wrote:

That was my assumption, and why I suggested both cameras shooting raw (forgot to mention uncompressed)

I guess the main part of the question is.......why couldn't I find the answer on google. After all, I thought everything was on google?

May be because Mr. Google assumes that everybody knows that.

blackest Loc: Ireland

bkyser wrote:

There is no particular reason to want to know this... (show quote)

https://snapgreatphotos.com/2015/02/18/why-does-a-22-3-mp-camera-produce-a-7-mb-file-size/
basically a raw file contains values for each photosite each photosite value is recorded so it is the number of photosites which is the basis of most of the file size, if you took a shot with the lens cap on most pixels would record similar values which would be able to be compressed without loss to a small file size so all things being equal the file size is dependant mostly on the number of pixel sites. in practise things are never equal. Even the lens cap on photograph will record some values not because of light but because of sensor noise. That is liable to be different in 2 cameras so the recorded image is never identical.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

blackest wrote:

https://snapgreatphotos.com/2015/02/18/why-does-a-... (show quote)

Now you're talking! An article with explanations and everything. That's what I was originally wanting to find.

What search terms did you use to find that?

blackest Loc: Ireland

bkyser wrote:

Now you're talking! An article with explanations and everything. That's what I was originally wanting to find.

What search terms did you use to find that?

sensor size or megapixels which produces the largest file size

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

bkyser wrote:

There is no particular reason to want to know this... (show quote)

There are too many other variables to get an exact answer, but there are at least two ways to get a close enough answer.

Nikon makes several bodies that produce 24 MP images and use the same compression. Download the manuals or check reviews for D5600, D7200, D610 and D750 cameras. Two are APS-C cropped sensors and two are full frame sensors.

Another way is just as easy. Each of those cameras will have data for 24 million photosites in the RAW file. The data is 14 bits per photosite, but the file, to make it fast and easy, uses 16 bits per photosite. So with no compression the sensor data is 48 MP per image. There is also a full sized JPEG image and a couple smaller JPEG's. And there is metadata too. So probably something from 55 MP to as much as 60 MP for the uncompressed file. How much it can be compressed may vary from roughly down to 50% to not at all. So expect maybe 27 MP to 40 MP files.

That will probably be about right, plus or minus say 5 MP, any of the current Nikon 24 MP cameras.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

bkyser wrote:

There is no particular reason to want to know this... (show quote)

Sensor size change the number of pixel (pixel having the same size) so, yes, this influence the size in MB.
Sensor density (for the same sensor size) pixel size being smaller or larger will influence the size in MB.
Sensor Dynamic Range (DR) capabilities influences the the size in MB. The higher the DR the more information stored.
The compression (lossless) of a raw file will influence downward the size of the file in MB.
The compression (lossy) will reduce even further the size of a file in MB.

Take this information and mix it up.

In order of size influence..
Compression is the first and foremost factor, especially when using lossy compression.
The second is the DR information, all things being equal.
The sensor density comes third again, all things being equal.
Last but not least, the sensor size comes into play.

Add sensor size like the D850 with a higher pixel density and a greater DR additionally to an lossless uncompressed raw file selection and you have a winner when it comes to size in MB.

All this to say... It depends!!!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

bkyser wrote:

There is no particular reason to want to know this... (show quote)

As people have pointed out there are many factors that go into it. In the end, you did not stump Google. You just didn't give your search criteria the right parameters to get the results you were looking for.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

OK, appreciate the answers, but the point of the first post was that I wasn't able to get an answer from Google. It just surprised me.
Blackest found something, and I'm shocked, because his search terms were fairly close to mine. I don't remember them all, but they included things like "Full Frame and Crop sensor file size," and variations on that, including asking it as a question.

I'm not doing anything with the info, but just wondered. My assumption was the same as what you knowledgeable people all came up with. I know things will never be equal, even 2 identical cameras won't give you identical results. It was just a "Hmmm, I wonder..." kind of day.

Thanks all
this was fun, and educational.
bk

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

bkyser wrote:

There is no particular reason to want to know this... (show quote)

Don't go getting the big head syndrome because you stumped THE dummy! Google is nothing but a cyber version of the YellowPages. Ask a question and look at the responses that will sell you something. Google has become a time-waster for research and now it's phone numbers are too easy to obtain elsewhere. There used to a a joke about saying "HI" to a blonde and causing her to have no response. Google in now that blonde. "Ask Jeeves" was the research engine Google bought and tried to emulate, a situational failure if ever there was one. Google google and get a blonde.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

davidrb wrote:

Don't go getting the big head syndrome because you... (show quote)

Learn to use Google.

You are the blonde here, sorry.

blackest Loc: Ireland

davidrb wrote:

Don't go getting the big head syndrome because you... (show quote)

not true

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/nov/09/ask-com-search-engine-gives-up

Barry Diller bought ask for 1.85 billion in 2005 and gave up on search in 2010 , i think switching to googles search engine (not 100% on that)
funny enough google wanted to sell out to excite

https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/29/google-excite/ for $1 million but excite declined to buy. Excite, meanwhile, was acquired by Ask Jeeves in 2004 by 2010 Ask Jeeves left the search engine market (having just a 2% share) being totally eclipsed by Google.

It could have been so different.

Google tailors its answers for who is asking, if you like to shop you get more shopping results, me i'm in to odd technical papers i get very little shopping ads.

PeterBergh

bkyser wrote:

There is no particular reason to want to know this... (show quote)

The way I understand it, a good rule of thumb is that 1 megapixel gives you roughly 1 MB RAW file size. The file size is independent of the sensor's physical size. Of course, if you shoot JPG, you get considerably smaller files.