Thought this article may be of interest too, if you hadn't seen it - http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/viewarticle.cfm?id=109 (Interview with Andy Rouse).
Bottom line - let's just get out and take great photos
Matt

Re redlm: Mr Rockwell's "review" of the 5D vs P&S was misleading at best. You'll notice from his other posts that he's quite happy to shoot JPG (nothing wrong with that), and maintains that you'll get nothing extra from RAW except a time wasting exercise of "fiddling with each and every image". Yeah, right.
What he neglected to mention on his "review" was that although a top notch musician can make very entertaining music from a cheap instrument there are clear reasons why they don't use such an instrument in their day to day work. Give an amateur a cheap instrument and an expensive one and you might not tell them apart. Give an expert the two and even an amateur can hear the difference.
Likewise with camera gear. His argument is correct, up to a point. Yes, first concentrate on your photographic skills (composition, exposure etc). If you haven't mastered it, or aren't prepared to progress, that then there's no point having expensive gear. But, for someone who is experienced in using that gear (not necessarily a pro, or just any pro - because as Mr Rockwell mentions he's had success selling his work and that's not in question) you can pull out far more from the camera than the average amateur would ever imagine - and that usually requires RAW. Not because "you like collecting piles of newspapers" (as I think he put it), but because you have the experience and control to get the mastery over the development process.

You can create an analogy with film. You can take images with film, and get the results printed. You may well be able to sell your images if you get the rolls developed and printed in the high street on an automatic machine. However, most discerning pros would use a pro-lab and possibly even request hand-printing from those labs. Why? Because the lab has an enormous amount of experience at getting the best from the film image and presenting it artistically. Likewise with digital. You may be able to make a fine living from selling images taken with straight out-of-camera images.
On the other hand you may want to get to grips with the whole process, which takes time and dedication, and yield superior results.

Regarding this thread - if you think that a full frame is going to improve your photographic skills then think again. It won't. It will give you a pile of issues you probably weren't expecting! However, if you have a good digital workflow, then maybe, just maybe, you can get extra quality (and that's not just resolution!), out of a hefty piece of kit like the 1Ds/5D.

But - before you switch from APS-C to FF, make sure, absolutely make sure, that you haven't missed something in your digital workflow. This is not my suggestion, but that of the guys on www.northscape.co.uk - if you like their work, then read their suggestions and their comments on www.ephotozine.com . As they'll say - "If you can't tell the difference between JPG and RAW then you're doing it wrong", and as I found out "If you can't tell the difference between the RAW converters then you're doing it wrong" - I didn't believe them at first (And if you aspire to the likes of Mr Rockwell's image output, then don't worry )

That's why the K10D is especially interesting and promising. Not because of the resolution increase but because of the quality jump in terms of dynamic range, shadow detail, noise and colour stability... coupled with its diminutive "go-anywhere" size it's bound to be a winner (and why FF isn't necessarily the best way to go)

(off my soap box now )

Matt

FWIW, "K100D" came from the "K1000" - they thought as the K1000 was such an iconic camera, that K100D would be a close visual match and may itself become iconic
Matt

Quite agree. That was top of my list too I've never had a problem even with 6Mp and printing 18x12", or even 36x24" canvas. But on the *ist-D the shadows can get very murky indeed. More dynamic range and cleaner shadows, especially in RAW (so you can tease out the detail in the RAW processor and PS) is essential.
10Mp is just a bonus, as is the SR

Just want some real samples (I've seen the Candle DNG file at 1600ISO and it's very, very impressive.)

Matt

Tim,
No typo, just specs & manual written before they added compression. Looks like the firmware team has been busy!
(And compression was one key thing for me - so glad it seems they've included it )
Perhaps that also opens the way for higher bit depths on RAW with a sensible file size

Matt

The pro labs I use for printing offer 10x7" and 18x12" which work just great with 3:2 ratio.

For landscapes I'll often add a border and title, so that can get it back to 4:3 if the format requires it.

Matt

All current Pentax PEFs can be converted to DNG using Adobe's Stand Alone converter. No problem
Matt

Quite agree. I've found this especially true when switching RAW convertors. I found that going from Adobe Camera Raw to C1LE meant I could "rediscover" many shots that I'd given up on. I'm finding the same is true having switched to Silkypix DS3.

But yes, it's down to skill level. JPG is definitely easier. But I found I hit a quality and detail "ceiling" and pushed on with RAW. I reckon I've hit the ceiling again, and hence the K10D. I've never regretted shooting RAW when I can go back and readjust (especially when people come back asking for high quality, large format prints )

Incidentally - just found out that the K10D now uses compressed PEF files Beautiful - about 10Mb per shot in PEF, and 16Mb in DNG (uncompressed) from what I've read. That's good news http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/35mm/k10d/spec.html

Matt

Didn't mean to offend Just that you probably need to take Ken Rockwell's comments with a pinch of salt

Probably a lot of the issue is down to JPG. You really can't go shooting landscapes in JPG format - it isn't up to it. RAW is the only way to go, and then the 5D really shines... but how much more than a Pentax DSLR I haven't had the opportunity to find out.

Yes, the digital workflow can be mind numbingly complex, but I reckon it's worth it in the end.

Still, if film gets what you need, then stick with it, especially as Fuji are re-releasing Velvia 50
Matt

Nah. Seen it. Basically rubbish, except if you're taking snapshots - which is not what we're talking about

I worked out a rough guess at a 5D kit, vs a K10D with the new star lenses (and ebaying everything) and it'd still work out at least an extra £1k. Not worth it for me.

My advice - work at perfecting your digital workflow, learn Silkypix, get more comfortable with Photoshop and you won't worry so much If you want to see how important that is, check out this: http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=703015 - it was a RAW challenge, taking a 1Ds image, and trying to turn it into something great. The original RAW file (very, very BIG!) is from here: http://www.ephotozine.com/images/rawchallenge1.CR2 - and looking at it may very well surprise you
Results were here: http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=700884&start=0&am...

To be honest, some of my best landscapes have been taken with the *ist-D and SMC-DA 16-45 with ND grads. I've also had great shots with the SMC-DA 12-24, and I can't imagine that my images would be that much better out of 5D... plus my Pentax gear is cheaper to insure, and easier to carry about

Matt