thanks guys, I have the pentax smc f 100ml macro, but haven't tried it yet on *ist D, mostly because I hadn't liked the results from most of my original slr lenses. Have found the newer digital lenses produce a much better result on the *ist D. Noticed the Sigma, but did not see the Pentax options. I will pursue these and wait I think. Much appreciated. One question, how does the traditional pentax macro go on Ist D. Must try myself I guess.
Anne

Have noticed that Sigma have recently released two digital macro lenses, 50ml and 100ml, which would translate to 75ml and 178ml on the old slr scale. They are suitable for Pentax digital. Would anyone with *ist D happen to have purchased either model and if so what are they like. Am considering purchasing one, but not sure which, if any. Thanks
Anne

Hi John/s,
I have a *ist D and find with landscape, especially with long exposures, the images can be very grainy/noisy if they are increased too much beyond A4. Even with professional labs, they cannot get a large size such as 16x20 or 18x22 out of the image without it breaking up. The interpolation is too much To increase beyond th 10x6 at 300 dpi, you are doubling the pixels and stretching the originals to create 20x12. So even bigger creates a bigger stretch. This has caused some problems when an image of mine had to be enlarged to this type of size and ended up not being able to. The professional lab ended up leaving it smaller with a larger white area around within the mount. They expressed the fact that a transparency is better for quality if it is intended to be large.

However, I still like the *ist D and will continue to use it as well as my transparencies. I find that an 8x12 image is really good with good detail and clarity. Some images can go beyond this and some can't.

I have found that if taken with higher shutter speed and good lighting, for close up type subjects. Such as architure, people, etc. when greater dof is not needed, the image can be expanded a lot more. for landscape type images, you can also use noise reduction software, which is relatively good, but the fine details and sharpness is often lost. Other photographers I know, would take sections of the landscapes and join images together, to give more pixels which works as well.

Originally, I guess I was looking and hoping to be able to have very sharp, detailed images which could be increased to A3 plus, but have been slightly disappointed. This also could be my expectations as well. I have come to the conclusion that if I want a professional image with clarity and sharpness without losses of quality when printing very large images, that the transparency wins hands down. I also have decided that big also does not necessarily mean good. A lot of images can be smaller and still have impact.

thanks again Prieni,
I have managed to find neat image. Not heard of it before and have purchased a licence, guess will hear shortly. Have also downloaded profiles, there were a few different versions. Not sure what is meant by profiles & which version I would need, so downloaded all of them. Assume they are used in conjunction with neatimage so will wait until I get the download instructions etc to acquire the neat image program.

Sure is a different learning curve but it is fun as well.

One question, shooting in raw or tiff, with the 3008x2008 pixels, is the dpi still 72 in the original camera image or is it larger? Will have to take some on these settings just to look I guess. Bit dark here now and raining so maybe tomorrow. Have been a bit worried about the raw factor cause I thought it might be too complicated for me. Also can't fit as many on the card. 256mg.

Have CS ps and like u haven't looked at pentax software since arrived.

Guess these are silly questions, but appreciate the assistance.

Cheers - Anne

Thanks Prieni, I was not aware of photoshop download. Guess this is available from adobe site?

With grain and slow shutter speed, I have been using tripod and still noticeable. Like u I have used 800asa and like this for images and the grain or noise isn't noticeable on the images I used it on.

Regarding the noticeable grain at 400 dpi, it seems to be very visible on seascape 1/20th sec at f22 which was set and slowed on purpose to create slow waves appearance, etc. This could not be enlarged beyond 8x12 as it began to break up too much. Perhaps there was something I did not have right with the settings? I am pretty new with the use of this camera.

Realised that I did not have the setting right for the white balance. Not sure what it was on, but think perhaps sun, which may have been a factor? Am still figuring out its use.

I am having trouble with getting too much noise when taking images with slow shutter speed using 400 asa, high jpg with noise reduction on. Even with images at 3008x2008 pixels converted from original 72dpi to 300dpi without adding extra. Can anyone give me any suggestions please about how to stop this or perhaps it is expected?

Also finding image size 3008x2008 pixels converted to 300dpi from 72 dpi does not enlarge to above A4 without loss of clarity and added noise with all shutter speeds. The 3008 and 2008 pixels seem to be the largest available and, if using print size of 300 dpi, it only enlarges to less than A4. How do u get A3 images with no problems. I have only been using jpg full size so far and haven't tried raw but pixel size seems to be the same.