I want one
Looks fabulous - that flare test is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind, and the minimal distortion is superb. Having had a go on the Sigma 10-20 on a Canon 20D, I think I'd much rather save up the extra and get the Pentax.

Thanks for those tests Arthur Dent

I think Don is getting confused, as I initially was, by the bed. It's the bed in the foreground, not the carpet.

Matt

I mostly agree with George's comments... but have some other things to throw in

When I started RAW, I took a mix of JPG and RAW, saving the RAW for the "special" images. However, after several "aaarghh" shots taken in JPG I am now fully RAW. Even for eBay images - it's easier to have one controllable workflow

As to converting from RAW to JPG with Capture One - this is what I've been doing 99% of the time. For some of my best images I tried 16-bit TIFF, and actually it didn't make much difference for my workflow - probably because C1 gave an output that was 90% correct anyway, so there was little chance of problems in the image histogram because of much messing around.

However, I've had a few images where I've had some level of colour artifacts, even at the high quality output JPG. Since I generally save the PSD file (because I always edit non-destructively in PS, using layers), I'm moving towards 8-bit TIFF, into PSD and deleting the TIFF. Capture One allows me (like most others) to save the RAW setting, so I can easily reconstruct the TIFF again.

And yes, each RAW convertor has its own characteristics, almost like film - both in terms of image quality (detail vs smooth areas), and dynamic range interpretation. I try every RAW convertor I can, but I still come back to Capture One - because I can't beat the image quality. For some images, there's little difference between the three contenders, sometimes PS-CS2 is just more convenient, but generally I find the whole process of preparing and outputting much, much quicker in C1. As a consequence, I've found that I do very, very little post-processing in Photoshop now.

To answer your question about where to do the white balance correction - I would say definitely in the RAW convertor You could set up a test and compare histograms, and I reckon the straight RAW output will be better (and therefore suffer less problems in colour posterization).

JPG is great for general work. Very quick, very convenient. But personally, I won't be giving up RAW.

As long as you get results that you're happy with!!

Matt

Quite agree with George

The in-camera JPG comes from the RAW file anyway - the camera just throws away the RAW data.

As I've mentioned many times before, it takes time to get to grips with RAW conversion.

To be honest, it's a bit like comparing high-street film processors to hand-developed. We all know that hand-developing takes skill and experience. Likewise with RAW

You won't get any more resolution from the RAW file - that's limited by the sensor size. You do get (1) more control over exposure (both global and localised), (2) ability to upsize more cleanly, (3) freedom from JPG artifacts.

Perhaps the best thing is to make the DNG/PEF available for those who've had some RAW experience

Matt

John - interesting observation.
You probably know my thoughts on which RAW convertor to use ( ), but one thing I've found with them all (and I have most of the main contenders: CS1, CS2, Pixmantec Premium, C1LE, Pentax, dcRAW) - it takes quite a time to get serious results

With all of them you should be able to adjust the noise reduction and sharpening amounts. (Personally, I choose not to sharpen in the convertor.)

If you want me to test any images, feel free to contact me with the PEF file.

Mannesty - glad you found the SoM useful.

Matt

Arthur,
I've just checked the DPReview of the 815, and they say the RAW files are large and slow. One thing that should be emphasised is to use DNG with Huffman encoding - that's what the Adobe DNG convertor uses

If you don't use the Huffman encoding option then the DNG files are as large as Pentax's PEF files. As always, it's a tradeoff between processing speed and card-write speed. That is to say, that doing Huffman encoding takes significant processing time, but means you're doing less card writing - so one trades off the other somewhat.


Matt

Their Pro 815 camera uses DNG
Hopefully they'll carry that on

On that note Arthur Dent, check out www.openraw.org

Matt

(Excuse my typo in the title: should have been GX-1S)

There, thta's bteter

Just in case you missed this:
http://www.ephotozine.com/news/fullnews.cfm?NewsID=2569

Full specs here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06011602samsunggx1s.asp
Is this just a rebadged *ist-DS2? Does it have Samsung firmware and/or other technologies?

Also has listed an optional flash: "SEF-36PZF (optional)". Is this a rebadged AF360FGZ?


And what's to come? Will there be a Pentax, or has it migrated to Samsung bodies with Pentax lens compatibility??!


Watch this space

Ajay,
You can use all genuine Pentax lenses on the digital bodies without any problems

The "F" and "FA" just work.
The "A" series are manual focus

In all cases, you should leave the lens aperture ring set to "A" for best compatibility with the DSLR. (You can use the "M" and "K" series manual lenses, but metering is a bit trickier, requiring you to do "stop down metering".)

That's one of the wonderful things about Pentax gear

Matt

Here's something I did a long while ago that explains what's going on

http://www.photon.me.uk/matt/cameras/pentax/istd_focal.htm

Hope that helps,
Matt