It's Chromatic Aberration (CA). I should've tweaked it out in SPDS3, but didn't have time
(Do a search - I've already commented a lot on CA, regarding one of spirit_of_will's shots).
Matt

I've just processed the files in Silkypix DS3 (nothing else). Less than a minute each shot.

The foliage shot is super sharp.

The landscape is blurred - you needed a tripod, and a lower f-number. An aperture smaller than f16 starts to get odd with digital (diffraction effects). As there is no real near-field, even f8 would have been adequate. The movement in the trees has also affected perceived sharpness at this slow shutter speed. It is also a good 1-stop underexposed.

But, I think you'll see that there's plenty of detail in there!
Foliage (8.2Mb JPG in sRGB)

Landscape (3Mb JPG in sRGB)

Landscape (3.4Mb JPG in sRGB) - more aggressive Silkypix sharpening

(Click on the "original" link at the bottom for the full sized!)

It's not the camera
Matt

Serious DSLRs, and Pentax ones in particular, aim for a file that can be post-processed effectively. If the camera applied sharpening and other algorithms then it's a real pain to "undo" that, and if you do edit the file, then the artifacts of sharpening get amplified by the post processing and you end up with a mess.

The K10D gives wonderfully clean output that is a cinch to resolve.

But then, if you shoot RAW, then the camera is doing nothing except saving the CCD data - it's all down to your RAW convertor on the Mac and the settings you use

...and yes, it's a learning curve, but once you've got it sorted it's extremely quick

EDIT: Pentax Photolab uses the Silkypix engine, and version 2 at that. The full version (or even the free version) of Silkypix Developer Studio 3 is a completely different beast

Matt

I'm positive that wasn't John's view... it's merely that Photoshop is the defacto standard for anyone in the industry. If you're a hobbyist, then Elements is a fine tool too - at least if you move into the industry and use full Photoshop you don't have to relearn it all. But, yes, Gimp, IrfanView, etc, etc, etc all will do the job very well - assuming you have time to learn, or someone who can teach you

BTW, for processing DNG & RAW, do try Silkypix - it'll give you very sharp results out of the box without Photoshop (I'll try and process your examples to show you what I mean...)

Matt

Just had a quick look at the images.

The second one at ISO100 has plenty of detail in it, although it's so slow that the foliage has blurred because there was some wind

Don't forget there is a difference between the inherent level of detail and perceived sharpness. Perceived sharpness does depend on contrast, and both the images are fairly low contrast.

As John says, they expect you to do minor adjustments after (which are not difficult). I would suggest you get a copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements 2 or greater - should cost no more than £20 as it's quite old. If you want an immediate start, then Irfanview or Google's Picasa can both do levels, contrast, and sharpness adjustments (and they are both free )

http://www.irfanview.com/
http://picasa.google.com/

Additionally, don't forget that the S7000 and the K10D at 100% view is not the same! The K10D has more pixels.

Matt

I doubt it And anyway, at these prices, why bother with a cheap cheap card??!
1Gb Sandisk Extreme III card for £17.90
2Gb Sandisk Extreme III card for £37.90
(Both from Picstop.co.uk where I bought my Lexar 133x 2Gb card)
Matt

Paul,
If you buy them from www.srbfilm.co.uk then I'd get two
If you buy the Lee ones, get one
Matt

Paul,
With the standard Cokin P holder you will have problems at 14mm. There is a wide angle adaptor now that will hold a single filter which may well be ok.

Having got the 12-24, I found it better to go for the Z-Pro grads with a Lee WA ring (at great cost ). They have been significantly better in optical terms, and are generally no problem at 12mm (unless you tilt the holder).

I have two rings - 67mm and 77mm WA.

The only wonder I have is... since the Z-Pro are much larger, the graduated region is a lot larger than a P size. Consequently when using on smaller filter sizes, I am sure it's better to use P otherwise you'd just get the "grad" bit and not the whole stretch. I would say that 58mm would require P or A...

HTH!
Matt

I've used Kood and Hitech - both pretty good P-sized filters.

At the moment I use the Lee foundation with Cokin Z-Pro ND grad filters. (Speedgraphic have a killer deal on a set of ND grads )

You can just about get the Cokin P to work on the SMC-DA 12-24 with a small amount of vignette at 12mm with a hacked P holder.

Other thing to bear in mind is that the P-size stuff isn't the same quality as the Z-Pro and Lee. There's a lot of red/magenta cast in the P filters I've used (both original Cokin and Hitech), especially if you need to stack two filters together. The Z-Pro is much better, but the filter is quite soft (already scratched two. ) From what I've heard the Lee's are tougher - but you pay the price

Matt

Oh yes it does (In true panto chant!)
It just doesn't have a "Digital" setting when choosing the format. When you use the AF360 on the hotshoe it correctly indicates the focal length on the zoom.

For example, a 16-45mm lens will show "16" to "48" on the AF360 (which corresponds to an angle of view of 24 - 70 in old money). Note that the AF360 has a maximum wide angle view of 24mm in film, which corresponds to 16mm on digital. The maximum zoom setting of the AF360 in film terms is 85mm, which is somewhere around 55-58mm in digital. Putting a longer lens will correctly show that as the maximum zoom extension on the flashgun.

What confuses most people is they expect to see some "converted" value on the AF360 - it's just reporting the actual focal length (which doesn't change) and is correctly adjusting its angle of view to match the digital format.

When using the AF360 in wireless mode, you have to work to the 35mm film zoom angles of view - which isn't normally a problem anyway as you're usually not pointing in exactly the same direction as the lens, so you just guess and work it out.

Hope that clears it up!
(TBH, it took me a couple of years to get to grips with what was going on, but trust me, it's 100% correct )
Matt