Adding my bit about the 24-90... This is an expensive lens SRP was around £450.

Echoing George's thoughts, as a single lens solution, it's wonderful - giving about 35-135mm angle of view. Lovely bokeh and very sharp. In fact, I used it recently for some head and shoulder portraiture I was doing. Zero lens changes (I prefer that range, finding that the long end of the 16-45 isn't quite long enough... and even 16-50 won't be enough)

Mine suffered a bash which damaged the filter ring. Had it repaired on insurance and it came back calibrated and as far as I can tell, is sharper than it was. Now it's lovely on the K10D.

It's a real problem working out what to take now:
1) 12-24 + 24-90
2) 16-45 + 50-200

For around the city, option (1) is great. I took the two to Paris and used both equally

Matt

FWIW, I had a Tokina 24-200 that performed excellently on Fuji Provia with the Z1.

However, on the *ist-D the images were always a bit "nyer" (for want of a better adjective!) compared to the 16-45. In the end I never used it, prefering to carry around the 16-45 or 24-90 & 80-320. The 24-200 got ebayed (and the buyer, frankly, got a bargain).

Whenever I've used a lens that has compromises I kick myself for not taking a better one

My smallest carry-around-kit comprises the 16-45 & 50-200. And I reckon the two of them are lighter and possibly smaller than the Tokina anyway

Just my thoughts

Matt

And it's only some types of fisheyes too

Angle of view - 1.5x (roughly) always.

From the current set there's all the pancakes. And, not trying to be cheeky, but the modern zooms are remarkably good in terms of image quality. You've really got to try them on the K10D, rather than just assuming that a prime is better.

And yes, some of them are mighty expensive. Such as the SMC-DA 12-24. But it's astonishingly sharp and clear on the K10D.... yet I still absolutely love the SMC-DA 16-45 for versatility and IQ. And reasonably priced too.

BTW, there are some full sized shots on my pbase site (with watermarks) of the K10D and a few lenses. That might give you some idea. Though to be honest, I haven't had too much time for serious images lately

Matt

Thomas,
Yes. Don't forget that a CCD is monochrome. So a photosite is the single pixel - either Red, Green or Blue. (i.e. there are not 30 million pixels in a K10D, but rather 5 million Green, 2.5 million Blue and 2.5 million Red)

This article is useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device

This one mentions that 80000 photons is the "full" limit: http://astro.neutral.org/articles/tea/tea.html

If it's only 80000 in the K10D sensor, then 16-bits, or maybe 17-bits will be the maximum usable RAW limit.

Will see if I can find anything more concrete...
Matt

Thomas - exactly
We're talking the same stuff here

More bits does not necessarily equal more information... primarily because of the noise issues. I thought I read somewhere that it only takes about 50,000 photons to saturate a photosite... I haven't the time to find it again, or the experience to work it out

And yet, the K10D does have a rather lovely output quality! (Slightly digressing, I read they had worked hard to remove any intermediate circuitry, which is why the 22-bit ADC turned up. They attribute the natural output quality down to this design.)

We shall see - I expect Pentax have a trick or two up their firmware sleeves...
Matt

Thomas,
I understand perfectly And in fact, I'm trying to persuade Pentax to include an optional 22-bit RAW format for that very purpose

However, it's not just down to the number of bits - you end up hitting the noise floor if you rely just on the ADC without adjusting the exposure. Assuming you have 12-bit RAW, the bracketing should be done by varying just the shutter speed! (Adjusting the aperture is a no-no!). This will give the cleanest result for all the captures.

A 5-frame bracket at 2Ev intervals represents an 8-bit range. Since you cannot afford to blow out the highlights, trying to capture a single image for HDR means you'll need to expose for the highlights. You'll get a reasonable amount of data from the first 12-bits of RAW - but exposing for the sun (in Pete's example) will mean you haven't got much in the highlights or midtones.
That'll leave the shadows, and you'll be trying to rake out the next 8-bits... and I reckon you'll hit the usable noise limit before you can do that properly - the noise of electrons rustling around gets in the way

So, yes, a 22-bit RAW would be better, but I still don't think it will obviate the need for at least two exposures to capture the full dynamic range in shots that include very bright highlights and very deep shadows.

Taking the audio comparison - 24-bit audio capture gives you more headroom, 32-bit processing allows more operations on the signal without introducing artifacts, but even with 24-bit you couldn't capture the full range of sub-whisper to supersonic boom! Even with digital capture in audio, you still have a limited range - and generally you can choose which range you are interested in capturing.

Hope that clarifies it some more
Matt

Just my penny's worth...

* For true HDR you must take multiple exposures - you can't take a single RAW and process three times. However, that technique has its place - but it won't work for HDR because there simply isn't enough dynamic range even in a single RAW file

* The HDR process is split into two phases:
1) The composition of multiple images
2) The "tone mapping" from HDR back into regular 8 or 16 bit.


Step (1) is poorly handled by Adobe, IMHO. If there's any movement it really goofs up. Maybe CS3 is better than CS2, but either way it's not brilliant. Photomatix and Artizen are better. (In fact, Artizen will composite the multiple images where you can save as an HDR file and allow CS2 to tone map)

Step (2) is also poorly handled in CS2. Artizen has the most flexibility. And additionally, the tone mapping is something of an art. For example, in Pete's image, there's a horrible halo around the trunk of the tree, plus a nasty posterization (stepped colour) around the sun, and the foreground flowers have far too little contrast and look very "eurgh". These issues can be addressed with different "tone mapping operators". Only Artizen allows the choice of mapping.

Best route to HDR:
* Take 5 or 7 RAW shots
* Process them in your RAW converter of choice, but DO NOT adjust the exposure in any of them - adjust curves/white balance/contrast the same in all.
* Save as 16-bit TIFFs
* Composite in Artizen
* Either: Tone map in Artizen, or save as HDR and tone map in CS2

BTW, you will need a ton of RAM to do this, and a lot of patience


There's plenty of info in the ePhotozine forums on HDR if you care for a long, long, long read

EDIT: Thomas - if there was a full 22-bit RAW mode that may cut down the number of exposures for HDR, but the full HDR dynamic range is unbelievably massive. So massive you cannot possibly represent it properly on any display, print or otherwise (hence the tone mapping). Also, the software is Artizen HDR. Definitely worth checking out - although admittedly clunky in areas, but it does have the maths to do the job properly

Matt

Don,
Absolutely - that's true of ALL digital cameras. It's because they have a linear response, while our response to light is logarithmic.
If you shoot 12-bit RAW, then that's a range of 4096 levels.
The top 1-stop will contain 2048 of those levels.
The next 1-stop will contain 1024 of those levels
The next 1 -stop will contain 512 etc...

So, it's the top stop that's important as it can hold the most amount of data. It's what some call "ETTR" - Expose To The Right (of the Histogram).

Just in case you were curious

Matt

Welcome to the board

The sequence was something like this: *ist-D, *ist-DS, *ist-DL (and the "2" versions followed though I'm not sure in what order - some of this was down to market areas).

The DL has only three AF points. I believe you can choose to select the centre only through one of the custom menus. Personally, I use only the centre focus point because I find it better to know exactly what the camera is doing - I hold the focus point and recompose. (To make this easier, there's another custom option that stops the AF working when you half-press the shutter. You then focus with the "OK" button on the rear. This is my preferred method, especially when doing low-light work and taking shots of the kids!)

Additionally, the DL has a penta-mirror (rather than a pentaprism).



All the *ist-D range have the same sensor and so are all capable of superb results

HTH!
Matt

Thanks for the info Peter

I took a needle file to the metal clip. Looks like I need to do a bit of drilling
That'll be a mighty useful grip then
Matt