Actually, it's this:

Images captured in sRGB colour space are named as before.
Images captured in AdobeRGB have the "_" prefix. (This is largely for compatibility with other standards.)

Of course, the EXIF information still contains the colour space anyway for Photoshop's benefit.

Matt

Actually I've seen the Sigma at £200, while the AF360 is around £160.
And, contrary to your comment, the only extras it has is more power and a swivel head for bounce

I speak from experience. I've had a Vivitar flash, a Cobra AF flash, and things just got a lot better when I bought the AF360 I also had the hunking great Metz 50MZ5 which is great, but the AF360 still wins hands down for portability and flexibility.

If you want a cheaper external flash, then any of the older automatic Pentax flashes will work. The features you get vary with the model, but they will all work fine on the digital bodies

Matt

The AF360FGZ is probably your best choice.

(Do a search for AF360 on the forum)

Matt

Completely in agreement there John When you are talking about comparing equivalent angles of view then yes you are right the smaller the sensor the larger the DoF.

But we were discussing a 100mm lens taken from 35mm and placed on digital. The angle of view is different, and because the APS sized CCD requires more enlargement (because it's effectively a crop of the full 35mm frame), the circle of confusion is different (check out the CoC defn). Net result is shallower depth of field, for the same focal length (but the angle of view is completely different).

So, for the 100mm f2.8 the DoF will actually be shallower on digital and you need very careful focussing

Just hope WJ Bons can follow these posts! LOL!

Matt

That's an important point for the Online Depth of Field calculator linked above. Enter the actual focal length, and not the effective focal length. i.e. Enter 100mm for the macro lens under discussion, irrespective of body type.

Hmmm. Can't agree... sorry

Take for example, 100mm, f2.8, subject at 30cm, the DOF is:
35mm = 1mm
*ist-D = 0.7mm

at 1m subject:
35mm = 1.5cm
*ist-D = 1.0cm

So, actually the DOF is shallower with the digital. Why?
Because the "circle of confusion" is different. (We've been here before )

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
and
http://tangentsoft.net/fcalc/help/CoC.htm


Actually, in practise, it doesn't matter
And with digital you can just check the LCD for the actual DOF after shooting, or rattle off a few at different apertures and delete later. The joys of digital

The 100mm macro f2.8 performs wonderfully on the *ist-D. It was me who experienced some CA - but only on a very extreme example where I had bright summer sun.
As a macro lens it is superb. As a portrait lens it's excellent (although renders all the subject's imperfections too!) Very, very sharp, and beautiful colour.
Definitely recommended
Matt

Make sure the battery contacts (on both the camera and the batteries themselves) are clean and dry.
If you've got any corrosion in the contacts it could do this.
Worth a check first...
Matt

Now you're making me blush

Ken,
Hmmm. Pentax never documented the exposure issues, but everyone who has upgraded to 1.12 has noticed significant improvements in flash exposure (as well as exposure niggles with some older Pentax lenses).

EDIT: There are Macintosh instructions at the bottom of the page. There's an HQX file format

However, if you can't deal with HQX format, if you drop me an email I can forward you a zip file with the files. I agree entirely about not using Windows EXE files. You basically need just a txt file and the .bin file. It's only about 560k zipped.


Matt

Ken,
I wouldn't run anything else in the *ist-D

Flash exposure problems in particular were a complete pain in the rear end until 1.12 arrived

Matt

Still listed here:
http://www.pentaximaging.com/customer_care/show_firmware?firmId=1