Huh? Sorry, don't agree. A format in a CF card or SD card doesn't physically format every sector of the card (this wears it out!), but just rebuilds the file system information.

This is a good thing because then the camera can make a clean start (just in case Windows, heaven forbid, should do something wrong to the card ) i.e. Do the format from the camera (Pentax makes it easy on the *ist-D), not from the PC while the camera is connected.

It's actually worse to do an "erase all" because the system has to update the file system directory as each file is erased. This actually means you are writing to the card more!

Typically these devices have 100,000 erase/write operations (per block, which is usually in the region of 128k) before flash pages start to fail. Even then, most systems will include ECC (Error Correction Codes) to the pages so they can function well beyond the 100,000 cycles.

(I hope I should know - I'm writing firmware for NAND flash devices as I speak. Have many years of flash memory experience too )

Matt

:edited: 2005-11-10 14:33

Not true

The upgrade includes support for 4gig cards (as well as numerous undocumented exposure and flash exposure fixes).

It fits on a 8Mb card, so any card will do
(The firmware is just a little over 4Mb)

Matt

Kimbo,
Yes, that's right.
I don't think a "sender" is practical... they don't use IR to communicate, but some kind of pulse on the flash itself. It's probably quite likely that the DS and DL could do it - I reckon it'll be just a firmware issue (and the firmware is completely different between the D and DS/DL as you may know).
Sigma are the only other company I know of to manage full wireless flash with the *istD/MZS/AF360. But their flash is more expensive (higher guide number).
Matt

Simplest answer is to use two AF360FGZs in wireless mode. Then you can put them anywhere you like. (But, I know it's not the cheapest )

Have had great results from seriously close macro with just one AF360 in wireless off the *ist-D.

Only trouble is that the *ist-D and MZ-S are the only bodies with wireless flash built in (the *ist-Ds an *ist-DL don't).

Matt

I've heard good things about Genuine Fractals.
However, IMO you generally don't need it
I will share my sharpening techniques when I've got half a chance to write it up.
In the meantime, check out this awesome free site:

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com

Look for their sharpening actions & scripts (CS&CS2 only). Also, look out for: saturation masks & Velvia effect in the tutorials.

Matt

Ok, so I couldn't wait...

Forgot to mention: all tests were done without sharpening. I have a very good Photoshop workflow for sharpening that's better than all the RAW convertors, IMHO. I wanted to check the basic image conversion on a common ground

Here's a link:
http://www.pbase.com/mattmatic/image/51393611/original

Excuse the slight differences in colour and exposure. I tried to match them as best I could.

* Copy or save the image
* Open in Photoshop
* Zoom to 200% or 300%

You'll see what I mean about the "jaggies". RSP with full noise reduction is just too smooth, and with none it still looks over cooked to me.

However, I'm not saying that RSP is no good. It is a good program, you just have to try it out yourself to see if it works for you and the images you shoot. Feature-wise it's very good, and colour and exposure settings look very simple to use.

BTW, the colour "vibrance" I can achieve easily in Photoshop.

ACR's auto settings often give surprisingly good results. I tend to produce very muted colour outputs from C1LE, and ACR/PSCS2 gives a quick way to "popping" images. Image quality appears better from ACR than RSP to me, but then I don't much like the workflow in ACR - it's way too slow for me.

But as for me, it's C1... now if only I could justify the Pro price

Matt

George - seriously. I've looked at it...

Abbreviations: RSP = Raw Shooter Premium; C1LE = Capture One LE; ACR = Adobe Camera Raw (in PS-CS2)

One of my main tests is the high ISO capability. So I did this first, an image shot at ISO1600 on the *ist-D with the SMC-FA 24-90. And I have to say that Rawshooter was disappointing to say the least...

I processed to 16-bit TIFF in the ProPhoto colourspace and examined the image at 200% in PS-CS2. RSP produced ugly "jaggies" that I couldn't live with. C1LE produced a much more film-like, smooth image with perhaps a little more noise, but definitely a more pleasing result.

However, I have to say that RSP has a nice user interface - I like the ability to tag images with a rating (rather than C1's simple tag/notag facility under Windows... why only the Mac version can do rating I don't know). The workflow is pretty good too, definitely quicker than ACR in the overall workflow. It does produce some very pleasing results for general use, and being able to upsize to 300% linear (that's 9x pixels, so 54mega pixel out of the *ist-D ) is pretty good indeed.

The other nice thing about RSP is saving the output directly in a "Converted" subdirectory. Unfortunately only C1 Pro does this, and C1LE you have to move the images manually.

I was thinking I'd spend the $59 (+VAT) just to have the use of RSP, but having seen the low light capability I'll think about it.... but I'm sure that C1LE is still going to be the backbone of my workflow


I'll try and get some sample shots put on my site today

Matt

Yes, I've received the email... I'm onto it and will compare against C1LE, PS-CS2, and PS-CS
Matt

Don't forget there is always Photoshop Elements 3. A fine package with much of the functionality of full Photoshop. PSE3 includes RAW conversion, although I would have to agree with George that C1LE is a fine package

If you start with PSE3 then there's a whole heap of information out there (places like www.hiddenelements.com )

Hope that helps,
Matt

John is right. The 70-200/f2.8 is an EX Sigma, while the 170-500 is just APO. Additionally the 70-200 has internal focussing, which is important for action shots.
All the EX models are solidly built, and designed for pro use.

For real telephoto, the 100-300 EX is well reputed. There's also a 1.4x and 2x convertor. In fact www.ephotozineshop.com have the 100-300 f4 EX IF with free 2x convertor for £669 (again Internal Focus).

I've had a go of the 70-200 f2.8 on a friend's Canon 20D along with a 1.4x convertor. Extremely nice lens, but then it's not particularly telephoto. It is very bright, but then I have had superb results from my Pentax 80-320mm which cost me £90 (but then I've never tried motor sports)

Matt