Just to clarify a terminology misunderstanding:

The official designation on a lens is
1:1.2
1:1.4
1:1.7
1:2
1:2.8

Which correspond to maximum apertures of f1.2, f1.4, f1.7, f2 and f2.8 respectively. Many a time I've seen 1:2 lenses listed as f1.2, when they should be f2! A new f1.2 SMC-A series manual focus lens costs about £430 , second hand ranges from £150 to £350. An f2 lens second hand is about £10

The f1.2 (1:1.2) lenses are absolute monsters with beautiful, huge front glass elements

As Don says, the f1.7 Pentax lenses are superb - they have minimal distortion and are absolutely ideal for extension tube work

Matt

Just looked on their website and it's the *ist-DL2 that's at £349.
If you're getting the *ist-DS, that must be an error - and an absolute bargain
Matt

Quick answer: 12-24mm
That'll give approx 18mm-36mm rectilinear. It's a great lens

The 10-17 is a fisheye. At the 10mm end it has 180 degree angle of view on the *ist-D series

However, I have also found the 16-45mm to be extremely usable on the *ist-D. In fact, it focuses closer than the 12-24mm and has a different "feel" to it altogether.

Best bet is to try them

Matt

JPGs are funny old things

You have to remember that the size of a JPG file is more related to visual frequency than pixel count. The more high frequency information, the larger the JPG. Added to that is the "quality" of the JPG save - a higher quality will retain more of that high frequency information.

My guess is this:
1. The CCD on the *ist-DS is much cleaner. All compact digicams produce a ton of noise in comparison. Image noise = high frequency which bloats the size of the JPG

2. It is likely that the S50 will tend to oversharpen in comparison to the *ist-DS, and again this increases the high frequency components

3. The image count is only a guide. Actual number of shots depends on the nature of the image

4. Not sure if there's a way to work out what quality setting was used for the JPG creation. The S50 and *ist-DS have completely different operating firmware, and you can't quite tell what setting they're using. The choices available in the camera settings are usually quite "coarse", but the JPG algorithms allow a very fine degree of tuning (like when you save under Photoshop).

There are lots of articles on the web about JPG that I could dig up to explain it all. Let me know if you need any
Matt

Bingo!

(And "ProPhoto" colour space for seriously wide colour manipulation in 16-bit TIFF)

Matt

PygmyT,

The source profile is selected under the menu "Workflow" / "Show Color Management Settings". You should see the "Camera Product" as "Pentax istD" (or whatever).
That's where the "camera profile" is. And no, it's not sRGB - it's much wider than that

And it's those source, camera profiles that are the paid-for addons. The Pro version of Capture One allows you to generate your own source profiles and allow very fine, selective colour manipulations. As I've said in other thread you can try other camera profiles (even the wrong ones) - and they'll give completely different responses.


In the second section of that window you'll see the "Output Destination (working space)" - which for your purposes will be "Adobe RGB".

Note that the camera profile is typically a very large colour space, and there'll be a transformation "down" into the output space - whether that's AdobeRGB or (worse) sRGB.

Be aware that your editing application will need to be colour managed as well, and preferably your monitor calibrated and profiled

Matt

PygmyT,

I have the Lee Foundation kit (beautiful) and the Cokin Z-Pro ND grad set. ( www.speedgraphic.co.uk have a great deal on the Z-Pro sets!) and the white caps are not bad at setting a WB.

Just watch out for scratching - the Z-Pros, though superb, are delicate, and the Lee filters even more so! I also heard that the Cokins handle blue skies better, but the Lees produce a more "moody" image. I plumped for the Cokins mostly because they were about half the price

However, the Expodisc is calibrated and has produced consistently superb results since I bought it last year. I'm almost tempted by the 100mm Expodisc to fit the Lee filter holder

The *ist-DS manual WB setting isn't too bad to use. My wife has the *ist-DS, and I have the *ist-D (which is much easier and faster to use custom WB settings).

For complex lighting conditions, you can just expose a grey card and use the dropper in C1LE. I have the QPcards which are really portable and very good for difficult lighting (sometimes easier than an Expodisc).

Also, with that method you can just forget WB altogether - just use AWB on the camera. If you can guarantee a rock solid black/grey/white in the frame then C1 makes it really easy to apply the WB setting to a batch of images taken on the same shoot. If you're a pro, then you'll probably use the Gretag Macbeth colour chart - which will do the same thing.


C1LE is worth persisting with - it takes some practise. One thing I forgot to mention is its ability to manage highlights very well. I rescued many RAW shots that I just couldn't process with Adobe Camera Raw, that were a complete breeze in C1.

Have fun!!
Matt

PygmyTwittle,
The preview window is fast - it doesn't show a pixel perfect display
Use the main window to get colour and exposure, not to evaluate detail etc.

If you want to scrutinize how the image is, use the "Zoom" tool in the "Focus" tab - that's accurate.

The actual value for the WB is a pain, as far as I know. What I do know is this - if I use an Expodisc, or something like the QPcard, then C1 will get me superb colour every time. However, in C1 you have a few options available:

1. You can hit the magic want in the "White Balance" tab - often very good indeed!

2. With the "White Balance" tab select, click in the main window on something grey. As you move the cursor over the area, the top left window in the tool tab will show whether it's a good sample (Either: "If Selected (poor)" or "If Selected (good)". When you find a good spot, just click and you'll get a white balance.

3. You can pick the WB from another frame, or even another session, and save it - use the disk icon at the top of the tool area for the "White Balance".

4. You can click the little down arrow (to the left of the magic wand) and select one of the other camera defaults.

Generally, I take a WB reading using the *ist-D's custom WB memories and an Expodisc. This just pulls straight into C1, and I don't even have to worry about it at all

Changing the camera input profile
Click the menu "Workflow" and "Color Management Settings".
If you are currently viewing a Pentax RAW file, you should see your camera in the "Camera Product" area.

Now the Camera profile will be set to "Pentax istD generic" (for instance). You can experiment by selecting different profiles.
Big hint: select "Nikon D100 Portrait" or another D100 profile. You might like them better than the *ist-D generic profile

Once you have selected the profile you should see all thumbnails, and the main window, update with the new profile.

I'll post another thread about alternative profiles for the *ist-D series and Capture One... when I've checked with the author (but PM me if you are interested in them!)

Have fun!
Matt

Liam,
Input profiles are to the RAW file what the Spyder/WiziWYG are to the monitor Capture One comes with a set of half decent profiles that are 90% there (generic ones). I've found some ones that work better on my *ist-D and *ist-DS (I'm still trying to get them released for public consumption).

As I mentioned, the dcRAW driven stuff just assumes that the CCD is perfectly linear and uses direct conversions. Capture One allows the assignment of a profile for the particular camera. For example, try the "Nikon D100 Portrait" profile in Capture One and you'll get lovely soft colours from the *ist-D (Hint: the *ist-D and the Nikon D100 share the same CCD from Sony).

The output profile is for the colour space you want to output the JPG or TIFF. Check out the thread on basic colour management!

I agree with you about the GPL/GNU stuff - I'm a coder and make fairly full use of what's out there...

Matt

Thanks for the links Liam.
I had a very quick go of UFRaw and have these observations and experiences:
* I managed to crash it after a few minutes use
* There's no preview of the RAW file, so you have to open each one
* The *ist-D white balances are not supported
* It's interesting that it supports input and output profiles
* I couldn't display at 100%

To be honest, I know that GPL/GNU stuff can be really good, and these free tools look promising, but they just don't hit the mark (yet) for pro-type use. In my book there are a few things that are important in the RAW conversion:

* Repeatable and consistent. When dealing with 400 shots from an event I want them to all have good colour balance. Large batches of shots will require at least the same WB settings to be applied

* Fast workflow. This isn't the same as fast conversion. I like to be able to rip through a shoot, geting the RAW conversion settings correct for an image while the others are being processed. The "open a RAW, edit it, and save it, now do the next" workflow just doesn't work for me.

* Quality output. In evaluating this you should test at ISO200 and ISO1600, both with no sharpening applied in the RAW convertor. If the RAW convertor creates artifacts of its own - I ditch it. As I mentioned, the only two products that stand up to this test for me are C1LE and SilkyPix (BibblePro and Adobe Camera RAW coming close behind). RSE, RSP and most of the ones based on dcRAW just don't cut it.

* Support. If you're using your camera for serious stuff, you need to have some confidence that the RAW software will be supported. Pixmantec have just illustrated the point, I think - gets bought out by Adobe and RSE/RSP are dumped immediately.

And a final word - I don't think any RAW app is perfect (yet), C1 included. But I'm seriously considering paying for the Pro version, especially when version 4 hits the streets. Should I pay £xxxx for my gear and expect to pay nothing for good conversion just because it's software?

Matt