Oh yeah, forgot about that one. Not sure if the button cell helps anything more than the internal clock. I am not certain, but I believe that I remember when I first got the istD the settings would remain, but the clock would need to be reset every time I replaced the CRVs. (I got it with a dead backup battery).

Anyway, it certainly couldn't hurt to do both. Its a long shot to begin with, but I have read of more than a few cases where odd behavior was resolved by removing batteries and resetting defaults or both. (had a few personal experiences myself such as when the Av/Tv dials stop working for no reason)

Good luck, hopefully it is a simple user-solvable problem.

The flash stopped working on my istD earlier this year.
Although non-PTTL flashes and pc-sync'd flash did work, the PTTL AF360FGZ and AF540FGZ would not fire at all.

I guess firstly, make sure some internal memory isn't causing problems... Remove the battery, wait a few minutes and replace. Then find the reset to factory defaults within the menus and do that.

Dunno about the other issues, but off hand, it sounds like it needs repair.

Have to agree with ya. Also irritating is that wireless flash is disabled when the IR remote is used. No idea why. Pentax's response was perhaps it will be enabled in a future upgrade. Now, how likely is a new firmware for the K10D to be?

It is too bad that wire less flash doesn't work with older lenses.
Anyway,if you want total manual control of the flashes, you're going to have to set them to slave2 mode. Otherwise I would assume that the camera still has to report to the flashes how brightly they need to fire. They are going to wait for that information if in slave1 mode.
With slave2 mode, you can simply slave them off any dumb (non-pttl) flash attached to the camera or via pc-sync or IR/Radio remote trigger.

The more I look at it, I just can't tell. Must be the odd patterns of the brick. Could just be soft focus.

Also, f2.8 is not going to give you the sharpest image, but this still seems a little soft. I'd say try again, but also more around f5.6-f8 and see how that looks and compare against the same shot at f2.8.

Just FYI, this is what I found to be the locations of focus points on my K10D.
This was before the repair, and although the focus is more centered now, I believe the basic layout/shape is still the same.
I was rather surprised at the long shape of all but the center focus spot.
I also thought all focus points were supposed to be cross points, but I did not seem to find that to be the case.
I suppose the internal processing is cross shaped (handle both vertical and horizontal contrast edges), but the focus area itself is a rather large rectangle.

Anyway, you have some leeway from perfect center and still be "in focus".

The brick wall appears to suffer from camera shake. If the camera was on a tripod, be sure to use the 2 second timer to lock the mirror up. If not, thee's your answer.

The focus test sheet looks fine to me.
The center focus spot in camera is an + shape that extends roughly the size of the center circle in the viewfinder. It is possible you could be at either end and be in focus, therefore you won't have a perfect 1/3 v.s. 2/3 DOF from the center line on the test sheet. That ratio is also just a rough guesstimate that changes with on focal length, etc...

First and foremost: consistent environment.
Not just consistent, but totally static and immutable in all regards other than the lens you are comparing with.
It sounds like you will have all of that covered with the mounting and studio environment your have at the shop.

RAW v.s. JPEG should not matter as long as your consistent. JPEG might give some artifacts, but that should not be easily confused with focusing, unless you have low quality and low resolution.

One note, I've noticed the focus point on my camera is off slightly from center. Rather it was... I had a repair done and they replaced all the innards. It now focuses pretty darn near to center.
Not much of an issue when on a tripod, except that different lenses may not have an exactly identical field of view at the same focal length. (My DA* 16-50 v.s. 50mm v.s. 18-200 all have significantly different views at 50mm.)
Thus the focus point may be off slightly. If your aiming at anything not totally and perfectly parallel to the sensor, your may have focusing discrepancies.

Again, it sounds like you'll have that all covered. But these little things caused me some mild headaches with getting consistent results.

Other than those mentioned in the related threads, not much difference.
The cable remote obviously limits you to being within about half a meter from the camera (or buy/make an extension cable). The IR remote may not work well in bright sunlight or with certain indoor lighting situations.

Both help keep your hand from pushing the shutter release which of course helps eliminate vibration. So either will likely help a lot.
I generally find the wired remote more reliable and fires when I want every time, plus it has the ability for half-button press. The IR remote is full or nothing.

But putting the camera into 2 or 3 second timer also helps as it locks up the mirror before counting down. That will probably actually do more for you than either of the remotes, assuming the camera is on a solid mount to begin with.

Should have looked back two months ago.
I think a few of us pointed out that functionality.

Although, honestly with the strange behavior I see at times, I'm glad to see other's confirm that they have the same results. Dunno know for sure if that is a good or bad thing, but at least I'm not alone.

Are you matting and/or framing the photos?
Are you comfortable cutting your own mats and making your own frames? (or ordering special sizes at a premium price?)

If that doesn't bother you, or if you actually find that part of the fun, then there are no "standard" sizes. In fact many of the best looking framed prints Ive seen do not fit the standard mold. (maybe that is part of why??)

Here they are generally something like 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, etc...
I look of framing stores to see what popular sizes are, if I need to print something larger.
e.g. I can get a cheap, yet decent looking, standard 18x24 frame for $15.
Custom built may run three- four times that or more for the parts... and maybe more for labor.


If you're putting on a web page, well, then whatever fits. A 1000-1200 pixel wide screen is still pretty standard. So, I would keep those margins in mind. Nobody wants to scroll around super large images... in general.