According to the list of trigger voltages on http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html, the Sunpak auto 124 has a trigger voltage of approx 200V, which may be too much for the electronic circuits in modern cameras.

I was about to suggest that you could look for another, perhaps like the one I use (a Centon FG-30). Then I looked at the trigger voltage for that, and saw that apparently that's 200V too.

So I've been using this merrily away on my old *istD and now my K10D with no apparent problems. However, I haven't measured the voltage on my flash, so it might be a later model which perhaps has a lower voltage.

So on the basis of that, I don't know what to advise!

Dan

Just installed and had a quick play. Looks good so far, but need to get my head around a few things...

Images do appear more detailed than with v3.7, but at the expense of a little more noise I think, will have to play with the settings.

Levels is a bit odd, with control sliders along the bottom and the top, which work independently. Not sure what's going on there, but it's probably just because it's something I haven't seen before.

Processing time, and start-up/shut-down times much improved (especially shut-down!).

Haven't tried out all the features yet, but so far impressed.

Just need a bigger screen, as menu and thumbnail areas take up more room than before. Keep looking at 22" widescreens but not sure of quality from the approx £250 brigade and can't afford anything else at the mo.

Dan

Just downloaded it, but think the yawns from the wife indicate it's a bit late to be trying it out now...

Dan

For those (like me) still using Capture One, they have released a Beta version of the new version 4. You can look at some of the features and download it here:

http://phaseone.alphaconsult.dk/

Looks promising, with some potentially nice bits like the High Dynamic Range and Variants. Image quality is promised to be even better too.

Will have to download it and take a look...

Dan

Er, no!

Dan

Been trying to find this thread so that I can say thanks to Matt for this little nugget. Used this when doing a small catalogue and the images came out so crisp and detailed - looked stunning. Also worked a treat on my calendar pics too.

Dan

Quite frankly, I think you should get out more! Really don't see it as crude myself, perhaps some fine jaggies, but I would say you've got three options.

1) Accept this level of detail. Print it out to A4 size and take a look, it will look great.

2) Apply some slight Gaussian Blur. This is what, in effect, a stronger filter would give you. It will look smoother, but the resolution would be less.

3) Buy a different brand of camera, which should give you results similar to option 2.

I say go for option 1, see what an actual print looks like. This is really a non-issue unless all you're going to be doing is looking at your images, on screen, at 100% or more. And even then I don't see it as an issue, but whatever floats your boat!

Dan

Going back to the Photozone review, the Image Quality is summed up as:

"If you're into pixel peeping you may be able to find some horizontal jaggies, "false" colored lines and phantom pixels. Now this sounds really worse than it is. It is certainly a non-issue with nature photography for instance but you may spot a few artifacts in scenes with artificial structures (e.g. architecture). For most users this is probably a non-issue."

I thought I'd post a sample of a picture that I was very pleased with (detail-wise). When I had a close look at it, I think there may be an example of the sort of artifact you're refering to. Here it is, the highlight at the toe of the shoe.




Now, this is shown at 100%, so a print showing this area this size would be around 24" x 16". If it had been shot on film, you wouldn't see this very slightly jagged edge - it would be obscured by grain.

This is the full image:




I think anyone would be hard pushed to say that this is a problem in the real world. I've never seen any evidence of it in any of my prints. I'm very, very happy with the performance of my K10D, like Matt I was more than pleased with my *istD and thought that was way better than the results I'd got from film - the K10D is another step up. Whatever you do, don't delay getting a K10D because of this 'defect', make sure you have a very good reason not to.

Dan

Just remember to get the biggest sheet of paper/card you can, I got this thin card from an artist supply shop, it's A1 size and it's still too small sometimes for the bigger things.

This shot needed some cloning to fill in the far corners.




Dan

Thanks Ken, have to say I was surprised how well they came out.

Dan