robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Explaination - the photo you posted as the "original" is not in sensor format so either cropped already or you have your camera set to something other than standard.
And the sensor of the 80D is 6000 X 4000 pixels and this image is not near that. So either it is already cropped or your camera is set to a reduced image size and resolution.

Because you mentioned the 100-400L I made the assumption it was the lens you used, was I wrong? The exif data shows the lens at 200 mm. To quote a reviewer who was answering a question on why almost all his testing was at the longest zoom on a lens "Who buys a long zoom lens to use it at less than maximum?"

I do of course use my zooms at less than max when I can get close to a subject but otherwise, esp with birds, I have it at max and wish it was longer. A few times I have had subjects too close for even the 100 end of my 100-400 - like the small butterfly that decided to land on: my lens hood, my camera, my knee. Just a bit hard to get a shot with a 7dII and 100-400L where the angle of view ranges from 160 mm to 640 mm and the butterfly is on my knee. Even with my arms stretched it was hard to get the camera far enough away that the lens would focus and of course I could not see through the viewfinder to aim at the butterfly but being stubborn and not limited in # of shots like film I tried a few and the best I did was a shot of the weave in my jeans and a bit of a wing tip.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

NO - the 80D is a 24MP camera, it shoots 6000 X 4000 pixels.

ndiguy

Don't want to start a new thread, but can you tell me how to view the EXIF data in the posted files.?

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

If you had the camera set for jpg only, and anything less than the better L, you won't get the best resolution file. When intending to crop, the best resolution to start with is called for.

The EXIF data says you used Lightroom. I don't know if the original file straight out of the camera had more pixels or if LR reduced it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You can download the attachment to your local computer and read the file properties in your OS, or import download file into your digital editor, or search and install an EXIF viewer to your browser.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

You need an EXIF viewer app. I have one installed in my Chome browser...That said, if the OP deletes the EXIF, there is no way to view it, even with any of the methods Paul noted...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Whether you shoot raw or jpeg, the resolution doesn't change. What does change is detail capture. Some jpeg camera settings will soften/remove ultra-fine detail and texture. As you noted, the lens has a lot to do with this as well.

Siemienczuk

Could the image have been reduced in the Export process from LR?

sv3noKin51E

Genocolo, well doggies, it looks like the bird had a right tasty snack and you captured the moment. Can't rightly say as I'd fault anything in the shots, much less 'low resolution'. Good timing to catch a break grabbing such moments. Do keep trying and happy shooting.

Rational1

This is the file increased to a size that would print at 8x10... up to you if the clarity/noise levels are acceptable. (3000x2199

(Download)

genocolo Loc: Vail and Gasparilla Island

Thank you all for taking so much time to share your expertise and knowledge. It is a lot for me to absorb and I need to get my card from my camera next week and try to determine what I did to come up with an original less than 24MP.

Yes I did not use the full zoom because I was taking the whole bird and only later realized the possibilities of cropping to emphasize the fish. Next time!

Thank you specially to those of you who took the time to work on resizing and improving the crop. I have learned a lot which will help in the future.

I will let you now how the canvas turns out.

genocolo Loc: Vail and Gasparilla Island

I went back and looked at the download onto my computer and the original is indeed 4000x6000. So I wonder if, when I uploaded it to UHH, it got compressed?

Nevertheless, when I crop the original to focus on the bird's head and fish, the size is then reduced dramatically.

What you were able to do with resizing is amazing! Thank you.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

I downloaded your 2nd shot, cropped it to 8.5 X 11, and printed a fairly decent looking image. Not HDR, but acceptable for hanging on a wall. Send me a private message with a mailing address, and I'll send it to you.

blackest Loc: Ireland

ok look at it this way full frame is 24 x 36 and crop is 16 x 24 16 is 2/3rds of 24 and 24 is 2/3rds of 36. So if you divide a full frame image into 9 and put the apc frame in the bottom left corner you would lose 3 of the boxes along the top and 2 along the right side. so what is left is 4/9ths 1/9th of 36 is 4 so 4/9ths is 16Mpix. I could draw a picture but this should be easy enough to visualise. Its not quite 100% accurate a digital full frame is usually a little bit smaller than 24x36 but its close enough.

When you are cropping on a crop with the 200mm lets say you can do it separate or combined (1.5x 1.5 = 2.25)

so a 200mm lens on aps C has a field of view of a 300mm if you crop again it's 300x 1.5 or 450mm
combining both crops is 2.25 2x 200 = 400 and .25 is a 1/4 of 200 or 50 = 450mm again.

Think i got the 2x teleconverter wrong though

jefflane

I have had award winning prints at 150 ppi. I can see no difference on my Epson 4880 between that and 300 ppi.

It sounds like the image was taken at a lower resolution than max for the camera, as has been mentioned.