This is what I've found:

* I used the Pentax convertor for a couple of times, but ended up using dcRAW from the command line and linear conversion. At the time I had trouble with profiles, so I shelved it.
* When I got my hands on Photoshop CS, I started using that and its RAW conversion. I have had some excellent results from that.
* After evaluating Capture One twice (the first time I couldn't see much difference between it and PS-CS. Afterwards I found it was because I was using an 'easy' shot.). Now I only use C1LE.
* When Pixmantec made theirs available, I tried it for a while. Generally it's very good. However, on very high ISO shots (1600 and 3200) it produces a very "muddy" output. C1LE gets some amazing detail even at 3200

I have found that into-the-sun shots are well reproduced in C1LE, whereas everything else had trouble coping with the dynamic range.

The main thing is - shoot RAW and you can choose the RAW convertor depending on your needs, the subject matter, or as new applications come out
Matt

Cristophe,
The RAW files have much more information. You can correct white balance errors very easily with RAW, and correct exposure comfortably around +/- 2 stops (very useful). The quality is also much higher.

That said, if you shoot the highest quality JPG you can still get excellent images. For me, having started using Capture One I find I can't go back to JPG

Matt

Christophe,

Photoshop Elements Version 2 does not have RAW support and cannot directly load the PEF files Elements 3 does have RAW support and will handle both the *ist-D and *ist-DS PEF files

However, if you are going to use RAW all the time, I would suggest looking at Capture One LE ($99). There is also a free convertor at www.pixmantec.com
They both support the *ist-D, but I am not sure about *ist-DS support.

As John says the CD that came with the camera should have a convertor, but to be honest, you are better using JPG than the convertor they supply
IMHO, Capture One LE version 3.7 is great

Matt

Christophe
Which version of Photoshop and which RAW tool are you using?
And I presume you are using the *ist-D camera in RAW mode?
Matt

Frank,

The LCD screens are all tricky to view in bright daylight, even on the pro SLRs. Personally, I cup my hand over the viewfind to look at it, but you can also purchase "bellows" and other screen shades that make it easier to see in daylight.

Most of the delay in taking a photo is in focussing. Compact digitals use contrast detection by streaming the information off the CCD sensor. Consequently it takes a little time to focus. (Digital SLR cameras have separate focussing mechanisms, the same as for film SLRs.) You can cut this time down in two ways: (a) pre-focus by pointing at something the same distance, and holding the shutter half down. When the "action" happens, press all the way to take the shot, and there'll be almost no delay; (b) switch to manual focus and aperture priority (if available) - you should be able to pick a small aperture (ie large f-number) and then pick a manual focus point that gets everything in focus (say a couple of metres). That way there'll be no significant delay because the camera won't need to be focus.

So, to sum up, all the compact digitals are like that.

Matt

Gordon,
By far the best thing to do is to buy a card reader. These are very inexpensive, and you can get USB2 versions too. For the *ist-DS you need an SD card reader.
I can't remember the last time I actually connected my *ist-D into the PC. In fact it might be never!!
Matt

I'm trying to follow your description... can you describe it more clearly. Something like "Body + 50mm lens + reverse adaptor + 50mm lens"
Need to know the order before commenting!
Matt

Yes indeed John. I think, to get a little back on topic, that some clarification is in order for everyone:

1. If you use a 50mm lens on a 35mm back and the same 50mm lens on an *ist-D then the *ist-D will have less depth of field because the image sensor is smaller, and to produce an 8x10 (which is what the DoF markings on the lens are guaged at), the focus becomes more "critical". However, the view will be different.

2. If you wanted the same angle of view then you have to use a wider lens on the *ist-D compared to the 35mm back. It's then that the *ist-D has a larger depth of field for the same angle of view


In some ways this can use this to your advantage. For the *ist-D you need super wide (e.g. 14mm) and the depth of field increases - which can be handy. On the other hand, the longer lenses (e.g. 320mm) become super telephoto.

I worried about all this DoF business, but in practise it hasn't caused me a problem - especially as I haven't shot film for nearly 2 years, so I don't have anything to compare it to LOL!

Still, that said, I wouldn't mind a full frame DSLR. However, I reckon that a reasonably priced one is a way off yet. I wouldn't mind higher resolution, say 8 or 12 mega pixel, and 14 or 16-bit depth (rather than 12). An extra 2 bits would give more headroom for me, especially when working in low light and raking detail out of the shadows.

Matt

Sounds good John

Here's some more spanners for the works
Check this page: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html
Some very interesting comments and equations.

All fun stuff
Matt

Thanks for that John
Here's an interesting link on the subject: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

And another complete minefield - http://www.colorado.edu/isl/intimages/dof.html

Matt