Anyone know why when I download my pictures from the camera to the PC their size is smaller than it's supposed to be?

I explain better: I have a Minolta 7D (6MP) and a Nikon D40 (6MP), according to the manuals the pictures size, when quality and image size are set at max, should be more than 5MP. But i only get about 3.5MP images from the Minolta and 1.5MP (!) from Nikon.

I checked and double checked the settings (Minolta large and Xfine, Nikon large and fine). I download using the camera USB cables, copying the images from the camera folder to an hard drive folder.

I did some research on internet but I can't find the solution to my problem. Any idea??

Well i have seen myself in that kind of trouble but i think that the size of the picture is smaller when you use another kind of size directly in the camera for example you can see on the camera menu that you can choose the picture size so when you upload to your computer it appears very small even the size can be the same as a mail icon so check out the configuration of the size and try to put it the bigger you can so maybe you can have better results, but if this dont solve you problem just save the pictures as an image because if you use some kind of camera uploading software you will see the pictures very small, so save them as an image in any of your files, preferently on my pictures at my files so when you click on the picture maybe you will see it almost fiting all the screen so try it.
I hope that this can solve your problem.

Thanks eaglesight. But I have checked the settings and they are at the max resolution in both cameras. I download using the method you suggest: no downloading program, I just move the file from the camera folder to my hard drive folder...
Actually I am using the Minolta since more than 2 years and never notice the problem (!) 'cause I never printed and images always looked fine, but looking now at the proprieties of older pictures they are all a bit small.

JPG files are processed and compressed in-camera before you copy them to your hard disk. Also, the resolution and file size are maximum values, not automatic ones. Your images will vary in size depending on the subject. Also, remember that jpg files are "lossy"; they lose data if you save as... from other files previously saved as... This may account for size (and quality) reduction in your older files.

Check the EXIF data to see how many pixels are actually captured (the multiple will tell you what the maximum size is). Check your older pictures and see if there is any deterioration.

Check the jpg histogram in imaging editing software for clipping. If you see excessive clipping (gaps or extended lines), there is excessive compression.

You can also try copying the contents of your memory card onto another computer. It's possible that your machine automatically compresses files (unlikely, I admit, but possible).

I am unfamiliar with your camera models. If they can shoot in RAW, try a jpg and RAW capture of the same subject and compare the difference in terms of pixel rows multiplied by pixel columns.

Hope this helps. If I wasn't clear, send me a message.

Thanks, very helpful.

Another question: if i shot RAW once I convert the image in JPEG through my PC will it be about the same size it would have been shooting in JPEG? [with no edit for the JPEG of course]

Is there a way going through the RAW to have a bigger final JPEG file [not TIFF]?

I'm trying to figure this out because most of the micro-stock sites [fotolia, istock, etc...] require a minimun size, usually 5Mb.

I think you're asking me if you can shoot in RAW and then save as JPG and make bigger JPG files than if you shoot in jpg. RAW files should be at the largest resolution your camera can handle. If you have a 6 MP Nikon then your NEF files should be around 6 MB in the Windows file manager. The answer, of course, depends on your image editing software and the file save as options. Obviously, you should save as the highest quality (largest file size).
In Photoshop CS3 (and probably earlier versions) you can enlarge files, but this is rarely a good idea because the program has to "invent" pixels. Your image becomes soft and loses vibrancy or pixelates. There are some third-party plug-ins, some of which can be trial downloaded, and they do a slightly better job than PS.

The minimum RESOLUTION requirement of 6MP is not the same as FILE SIZE. You can post your images.

Thanks again sjasj!

You are absolutely right. In fact, after reading your reply, I searched and found many forum threads on the resolution / size topic for micro-stock uploading and it turned out you were right and I wasn't the only one to be confused...

To conclude, I have now understood that a 6MP camera is enough to contribute to micro-stocks [provided editing in RAW], while upscaling is strictly not allowed.

But most of all I learned not to confuse MP and MB...