Image File Transfer Size

No computer wiz, but I use jpeg format to save/xfer my photos. Most xfer programs can be adapted I think to most formats, but a 20 meg is fairly large. Can you change the size of pix taken? Most of mine(cheap cameras), are in 3-5 meg range w 1270x768 on 5 meg scope. I have to resize these to 800x600 when uploading to CCF posts, guessing that's 3 meg or less. I use Adobe Photoshop for all sizing, enhancing or manipulations of coin pix. Just what works for me.

I look at the Canon 70D camera specs and it indicates to me that I would be able to produce and download/transfer a 5472 x 3648 pixel image to my computer screen. Am I interpreting this information correctly?
I want an image on my screen that has not been compressed.

It might not be compressed, but (at least with the T6s at 6000 by 4000 pixels) raw files are not all the same size. For example, in one directory, I see .CR2 files ranging from 24868KB to 30688KB. The TIFF files are all 140757KB in size. I would expect files from a 20MP camera to be a little smaller than these.

OK ....
Thanks everyone for your comments!
I hate to give up the resolution of my film photographic equipment, but the cost of film is too much to start photographing the hundreds of MS grade coins that I have collected over the years.
I'll look at the file output formats of several different brands before I purchase any digital equipment.

I always had trouble getting sharp coin pics with film. I was using a good macro lens, the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8. Without LiveView, there was often no good way to get critical focus, since the split prism rangefinder in the viewfinder would black out above f/5.6 or so (you're often using an effective f-ratio above 8 for macro). Also, there was no immediate feedback so you couldn't redo the shot if something was not right. With film, there's also no auto white-balance.

With film, you have to jump through hoops to do focus stacking, which I never tried. My closeup shots of overdates and mintmarks were terrible compared to current shots with software-based focus stacking, microscope objectives, etc.

Besides this, you have the per-shot expense of film and developing and the whole inconvenience of taking the exposed rolls of film to be developed.

All of these problems together meant the quality of my coin film photos was erratic. Current digital photos are way sharper, despite the theoretical lack of resolution of the 24MP sensor in the Canon T6s DSLR.

Due to the overall film workflow, I swore off 35mm SLRs and film forever back in 1998.

One big advantage of the "$400 setup" recommended hare at CCF is that you can mix and match stuff from different makers, without committing to one brand.

Compare the two following approaches:

1) Get a High-end Canon 50MP DSLR and 100mm or 180mm L Macro lens along with that 1X-5X MPE-65 lens, and maybe a short 50mm macro lens. (You'd need a copy stand and lighting stuff, too).

2) Get the "$400++ setup", with a cheap Canon APS-C DSLR, a bellows, and a few old enlarging/copying lenses and microscope objectives, manual macro lenses, etc. (a copy stand and lighting stuff too)

Now, Nikon comes along with the "dream camera" -- Full-frame, no mirror, all-electronic shutter, good tethering, 80MP BSI RGBW, non-AA, micro-shifting sensor (simulates 200 MP sensor resolution) with ultra-low reasout noise, that leaves Canon in the dust. If you went down path (1) above, you'd have to start over with Nikon lenses, etc. With approach (2), just get some different adapters, and maybe a different bellows, but keep all the rest.

Of course, what really matters in coin photography is the lighting, and much less the camera.