John,
Funny thing is, the AdobeRGB is stronger in Blues and Greens, so why sRGB was giving clipping on the red I'm not sure!!
Additionally, I hadn't rechecked the situation in the latest *ist-D firmware - there may have been issues relating to colour space conversion within the firmware. I'll try and setup a test sometime
I'll look forward to your other questions
If you really want to fry your brain, check out www.aim-dtp.net - a very, very good resource for colour space information and a load more
Matt

John,
Yes, it's a difficult subject And that was my point - the colour space has little effect on the output because the ACE (Adobe Color Engine) will resolve most of the problems. So, if you view an AdobeRGB image and print it, and take an sRGB image and print it, they should look exactly the same. (The printer normally has a smaller colour gamut than either, so it's down to colour approximation - and this is where the "intent" comes in - perceptual, etc etc).

The main point about AdobeRGB vs sRGB is for capture and editing. AdobeRGB will allow you to represent more accurately a wider range of colours than sRGB can cope with. So you are preserving captured colour.

Normally you'd be used to dynamic range in terms of exposure. So, negative film would have a wider dynamic range than slide film - you can push negative further. The gamut is to colour what dynamic range is to exposure. sRGB will hit the limits sooner than AdobeRGB for a wide range of colours.

(And neither of them match the human perception, and both are wider than most output devices.)

In practise, I was getting problems with loss of detail in the red channel when using sRGB (ie view just the "R" channel by pressing Ctrl-1 in Photoshop and it was smooth with no detail). Switching to AdobeRGB and shooting JPG resolved nearly all those problems. Now, shooting in RAW I never have an issue with out-of-gamut colours.

Matt

Andy,
sRGB is the general abbreviated term
The more headroom is regarding colour-space. What happens is this:

Internal colour space
The camera has its own internal colour space, as represented by the CCD three channels. The actual "dimensions" of the space can only be found by accurate profiling. You never normally need to even think about this

JPG shooting
When taking JPG images the camera will convert from its internal colour-space to the chosen space (sRGB or AdobeRGB). Now if the CCD sees a really bright, vibrant colour next to a not-so bright colour, of the same hue, these two colours may not have an appropriate representation in sRGB. If the not-so bright colour is at the limit (the "gamut limit") of sRGB then the really bright colour will be "clipped" and will be represented the same as the not-so bright one. This results in a colour overexposure or out-of-gamut colour.
AdobeRGB (as you can see from the black outline on the previous link) can represent all the colours within the sRGB gamut, and more - it's this that gives you the headroom.

Now, regarding "punchier colours" of sRGB vs AdobeRGB. In a colour managed workflow this is absolutely not true! A common misunderstanding is this - when you take an AdobeRGB image and display it within a non-colour managed application or product (like the little hard disk units with LCD displays) they usually assume sRGB without even checking the colour profile of the JPG. This results in a compression of the colour space, thus representing a dull, lifeless, somewhat dark image.
In actual fact, since AdobeRGB has a wider gamut it can correctly represent much brighter, "punchier" colours than can sRGB. A package like Photoshop (even Elements) can correctly colour manage and display AdobeRGB images perfectly. In fact, on my calibrated system there is no overall difference in displaying the same image in sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhoto etc etc (except for the "clipping"/out-of-gamut issues).

Saving for Web
When you save for web, Photoshop will normally rip out the colour profile from the JPG (to save space). If the source image is in a non-sRGB profile (including AdobeRGB) then the web browser will assume sRGB and you'll get the gamut compression and a flat image. So, having done all your editing and resized and sharpened for web, convert the image to sRGB and then save for web. This will ensure a correct representation of colour.

RAW mode
Of course, RAW mode stores the original, RAW, values from the CCD - in the camera's internal colour space. That's why RAW convertor packages ship with a colour profile (an ICC file) for the particular camera. Within the RAW package you can usually choose your output colour space. In fact, C1 allows for an "Output for Web" which always uses sRGB, and a normal output which can be anything you want.
If you use RAW and output to JPG within the RAW package, use AdobeRGB. If you output to 16-bit TIFF, use ProPhoto colour space. ProPhoto has an even wider gamut than AdobeRGB, but really needs 16-bits per pixel, otherwise you risk posterisation (as there's not enough digital space to represent fine changes in colour).

Phew! I hope that's cleared a few things up! I'm desperately trying to find some time to write this all up as an article for the PUM. Colour space and colour management is a large topic and a bit of a brain ache for the first timers!!
Matt

If you run a colour managed workflow (which you are), then definitely use AdobeRGB

With sRGB you run the risk of saturating the reds (in particular) so they have no detail left. Particularly a problem are flowers and skin tones. You can end up with out of gamut images that look like over exposure. With AdobeRGB you have more headroom, especially in the reds.

The Photoshop colour engine will resolve differences between the colour spaces when printing, allowing you to get what you want.

(In fact, if you use RAW, it is better to process into 16-bit ProPhoto colour space.)

However, (big however), before you output for web, ensure you switch to sRGB before saving This approach gives you more room for editing, and you'll soon get into the hang of switching colour spaces (Image / Convert to Profile).

Hope that helps,
Matt

There's no harm in putting a 133x card in the camera.

However, the speed the camera writes will almost certainly be slower - it depends on the internal processor speed of the camera, plus the firmware revision etc, etc. You'll just have to try it

Matt

I agree with John - get an autofocus lock and hold your finger half way. Then the time lag from half-press-to-shutter is much shorter.

All compact digitals have this lag - they are using the information from the CCD sensor itself to work out the focus. This takes quite a while. Digital SLRs, on the other hand, have more traditional (and expensive) separate autofocus mechanisms and are consequently more responsive.

Matt

Regarding manual flash - no problem at all.
I have an *ist-D and an eFlash unit. That triggers just fine, and you use it (as you would expect) with the camera in manual mode. Set the Tv to 1/125 or slower, and the Av according to the distance of the subject.

You can test your flash gun by shorting the single pin that sticks out on the bottom of the flash-shoe to the side contacts of the shoe. (A paper clip will do the job.) If you have an electronic multimeter you can measure the trigger voltage too. If it doesn't fire - your flash is dead In fact, a very old Sunpak flash I had even had a little metal stub that allowed you to short out the cable to test it (very lo-tech )

Matt

Photoshop CS, no (And I've tried to load the new camera RAW and it doesn't work)
Photoshop CS2, yes.
Elements 3, yes

Capture One LE version 3.7 - yes www.phaseone.com
Pixmantec RAWShooter - yes www.pixmantec.com

Matt

Most compact digital cameras use the MJPG video compression. The decoder for this is not normally part of a PC installation and so must be installed. It should be included on the installation CD that came with the camera.

Additionally, what media player are you trying to view them in?

Matt

Note that CR-V3 are Lithium and non-rechargeable
For normal use, go for NiMH. For better performance in very cold conditions, CR-V3 are better, but much more expensive.
It's a good idea to get a CR-V3 for emergency use - they have a massive shelf life (ten years I think). They are helpful when you are stuck somewhere without a charger and the NiMHs fail (it's happened to me, and the CR-V3 got me out of trouble!)
Matt