Not a faulty card

This is a behaviour of the camera firmware - they expect to see the directory information in a very fixed format.

The binary information stored on the SD card for the directory has many different forms - the PC will use perhaps the most "complex" version, and the camera will write a simplistic version (that is compatible with the PC). The problem comes when the PC writes the files to the card and writes this "complex" directory structure that isn't recognised by the camera.

...at least that's as I understand it...


However, I did (somewhere) see a utility that would successfully write images back to the SD card for viewing in the camera. I'll see if I can find the URL again

Matt

Ah yes! The Proxel one is very nice - thanks for the reminder on that!!
Matt

I have both the Pentax 12-24 and 16-45. The 16-45 is probably sharper, and certainly a more useful range. You can easily use Cokin P filters on the 16-45, which is a bit more difficult on the 12-24 (I bought Lee & Cokin Z-Pro series filters... could have bought another lens )

Although I use the 12-16 range a reasonable amount, on checking EXIF information it's surprising how many shots were in the 16-24 range (ie covered by the 16-45). I've found it's quite an art getting a good composition at 12mm

These days it is much, much easier to create a multi-shot panorama - so even with the 16-45 it's probably the case that two or four good shots at 16mm could exceed the angle of view of the 12mm alone.

The 10-17 is a completely different beast - it's a fisheye with 180 degree angle of view at 10mm (wider than the Sigma rectilinear at 10mm).

It's a tough call, but I hope that helps a bit!
Matt

Richard,
Panorama Tools is a nice free tool that can defish:
http://panotools.sourceforge.net/

The UI is rather mathematical - but because of that, very reproducible!
This Wiki may be helpful as well - http://wiki.panotools.org/Special_issues_with_fisheye_lenses

Enjoy!
Matt

Ohawa,
When evaluating prints against the monitor, it's worth remembering that monitors are transmissive (ie they emit light), whereas prints are reflective. You should compare the monitor in correct subdued lighting to a print in daylight (preferably a daylight simulation booth).
Many print companies will supply a colour proof print - you can then compare that reference print to the online/digital version to check your monitor calibration and software setup
(Photobox in the UK will supply a reference print - you just ask for one!)
Matt

Silkypix is colour managed... Picasa and XnView are not (AFAIK).

The colour profile includes information about getting the correct luminance as well as colour. If you load the resultant output from Silkypix into Photoshop (which is also colour managed) the image should look the same.

Yes, a Huey will definitely help to assure you which is correct.
Matt

Well on the K20D I have very usable shots at ISO2500
I have been very pleased with its noise levels (there is noise, but it's perfectly manageable!)
Matt

I'd answer yes
Lower noise (largely due to the CMOS sensor, compared to the CCD of the K10D), slightly larger dynamic range, ISO up to 6400 (albeit noisy), micro adjustment for focus, PC connector for studio flash, minor control improvements (for ISO selection etc), and more pixels.

Only reason not to is that you'll probably need 4Gb cards with it! (I bought 3 Sandisk Extreme III cards from Picstop!)

Matt

Did I mention the SMC-FA 24-90
I've seen it around second hand for around £150 - which is a bargain. Mine cost nearer £350 when new
Matt

Personally I love the SMC-FA 24-90
It's a lovely range, sharp, with superb colour rendition and bokeh - and incredibly compact and light!
It's a tough one to give up

Matt