You probably have it set to 16:9 format, this trims off the top and bottom of the picture. Set it to 4:3 format and you should get all 20 megapixels.
Mine is shooting up to 32mb per raw image
Glad you got it figured out RPP. But file size is affected by the diff in aspect ratio captured too btw. So if your in 16:9 your file size should be slightly smaller than file size if you shot it in 4:3 or 3:2 ratio. Not a big deal but just pointing out. In fact, I just checked and a 3:2 aspect ratio yields a 34.1mb file. And the 16:9 ratio is a 32.3mb file. So not much diff at all tbo. I kind of like leaving my aspect ratio set to 16:9 because I like the skinny format tbo. It's also what most TV's and monitor's are shaped too! Your not losing any quality of image at all. Only losing pixels at top and bottom of image. The resolution should be same across your image even at 16:9.The question was about MP (megapixels recorded for the image) not file size. ryantrax in the response above has pointed out why I wasn't getting the full 20 MP.
Most photographers would stick with 3:2 to get the most image and keep their options for choosing where to crop themselves.I kind of like leaving my aspect ratio set to 16:9 because I like the skinny format tbo.
It's also what most TV's and monitor's are shaped too! Your not losing any quality of image at all. Only losing pixels at top and bottom of image. The resolution should be same across your image even at 16:9.
Don't you mean 4:3?Most photographers would stick with 3:2 to get the most image and keep their options for choosing where to crop themselves.
Here are the options you get:Don't you mean 4:3?
I agree with you Meta4. And thx for the reply too. But as long as you are not cropping in much at all closer it makes no diff at all if I go in and make a 3:2 or a 4:3 aspect crop on my image from a 16:9 aspect capture. But I agree with you that it's just as good to start out with a crop that most people are used to seeeing as far as prints go. But, if you want a skinny 16:9 crop for your shot and your composition is a wide skinny one then you'll have to back up and fly farther away to get the same shot. Not a big deal just saying. These lenses are so wide angle it doesn't make a lot of diff to IQ anyway.Here are the options you get:
3:2 Aspect Ratio: 5472 × 3648
4:3 Aspect Ratio: 4864 × 3648
16:9 Aspect Ratio: 5472 × 3078
I meant 3:2
Shoot the biggest and crop what you want to later.
There's no point giving pixels away before you start.
I gotcha man. Which is basically doing a little cropping right? Thx man.The advantage of shooting 3:2 even if you want a 16:9 end format, is that youre allowed adjust horizon, and move top and bottom without loosing anything, if youre going to do that from a 16:9 you will loose res.
Question: With wide screen being the norm nowadays, why shoot at anything other than 16:9? Is the difference in megapixels noticeable enough to consider 4:3?
So if I'm not making prints, just using stills for real estate listings, it's not really going to matter?If the goal is to make large prints of still images, you want every additional pixel you can get. You can crop it out later (if so desired).
So if I'm not making prints, just using stills for real estate listings, it's not really going to matter?