I've only ever printed one black and white on it, as I've only had it a couple of months and haven't had the need. It wasn't too bad, but would need some playing to get it neutral - was a bit magentary. Don't know that you can get grey inks for it, I've only ever seen these advertised for Epsons. The tanks on the Canon are chipped, but I don't know what difference that would make.

Dan

Hi Graham,

I've got the Canon iP4200, which as far as I can tell is practically identical to the 4300. Looking back through your question, I'm guessing you want to do borderless prints on any size paper. I've just had a look in the print dialogue box for my printer, and there are several more sizes than you mentioned - I did a 'print screen', here it is:





If you just want to use different sized papers, and weren't worried about borderless, then you can set anything up to 210mm x 584mm, which accomodates panoramic paper. I've found it a brilliant printer, does CD's, has a paper tray (with which you can do duplex printing) and a seperate feeder with a fairly straight run through the printer, good for doing greetings cards, business cards and the like.

Just about the only bit of Canon kit I would own. Especially as you can get it for £59 from Amazon, P&P free. Light years ahead of my original Epson (a 640!), streets ahead of the Canon i850 I had before this one (and nearly a third of the price).

Dan

There's an interesting article in this months 'Outdoor Photography' (UK Magazine) about the 100 expedition across the Arctic icecap by Adventure Ecology to highlight the changes there due to global warming. The expedition photographer was Martin Hartley, pics are here: http://www.adventureecology.com/mission1/dispatch_photos.php.

He used a Nikon D2X, with certain modifications - the in-camera battery was replaced by a heater, and he had a Lithium Ion battery pack in his jacket, under his arm, with a lead leading down his sleeve to the camera. When he wanted to take a shot, he would plug the camera in, which would power it and the heater up.

They had to stop before they reached their destination as there was much less ice than expected.

Dan

Hi Liam,

I guess their argument would be that if a file is properly processed (perhaps using 16bit to start with), resized to 48Mb (same as going from 300ppi to 500ppi) with a good resizer (just downloaded trial of Genuine Fractals, definite quality improvement over PSE Bicubic), then saved as a high quality jpeg (to save uploading time), the results will be better than a 16bit tif, sent to a customer who might just lower the ppi to get a larger printed image.

I think what they mean when they say that the ppi/dpi doesn't matter, just the file size, is that someone could have an image at 4000ppi, which sounds great, but if the file size is 18Mb, it's no different to an 18Mb file with a resolution of 50ppi. 'dpi' or 'ppi' are not the same as pixel count - two images can have the same number of pixels but very different 'pixels per inch'.

Incidentally, I get a 36.4Mb file when processing a RAW to 16bit TIF.

Ultimately, the more pixels, and the higher the bit depth, the greater the image quality should be, but Alamy have obviously decided on a level of quality that gives their customers what they need, and then told their contributers how to achive that. Andy Rouse says he was convinced about the merits of digital when one of his images from a D30 (I think, 3Mp - and not 'full frame', to get the thread slightly back on topic ) was used on a billboard ad.

Does that make sense?

Dan

Alamy.com, quite a major image library, are happy to accept images from 6Mp cameras:

"Note for images from digital cameras - We strongly recommend that images are captured on a digital camera capable of producing files of 17MB and upwards (6 megapixels). Please then interpolate the images to a minimum of 48MB using professional upsizing software. We recommend Genuine Fractals™, although other professional upsizing software is equally acceptable, including Abobe Photoshop versions 7 and CS/CS2 (if the bicubic option is used)."

Don't let perceived limitations in resolution stop you!

Dan

I'd have to disagree with that statement, as technology is sure to progress at the same astounding rate as it has done in recent years. Consider the Pentax A20 compact - it's got 10Mp crammed into a 1/1.8" sensor (which according to DPReview is 7.176mm x 5.319mm). Now I'm not saying that currently that's ideal, and there are sure to be quality issues with such small pixels, but I'm also sure that the camera produces acceptable images, and probably better ones than would have been produced by a compact 3 years ago.

At this pixel density (approx 260,000/mm2) an APS CCD would have just short of 100Mp. It's not asking too much to believe that APS sensors are going to reach 20Mp within the next couple of years, and who knows what beyond that.

Whether the average user needs that resolution is another matter.

Dan

...and that's exactly why I would hope Pentax don't do that, and certainly don't expect them to in any near future. Nikon have already made the statement that they're not going the full frame route, and with star lenses being released by Pentax in the DA range, it would indicate that they have a certain commitment to the format.

John mentioned on a previous post that he was more than happy with the image quality from his 7(?)Mp compact, and bearing in mind the relatively small size of these sensors, there's a long way to go yet, as far as pixel count is concerned, with APS size. Pixel densities have already quadrupled on this format (D30 was, I think 3Mp, D2X is, I think, 12) and I don't think the noise from that Nikon is worse than the Canon that really kicked things off. Technology progesses at an alarming rate - I don't see a need for a larger sensor when we have the lenses available to us to work beautifully with the smaller ones.

Canon read the market beautifully - they did indeed give the users what they wanted, when they wanted it, and made sure they got a huge market share at the start - just like us, the thought of re-equipping with a whole load of new lenses does not bear thinking about for most people, so they're 'stuck' with Canon now. Poor things.

Dan

P.S. And would you really want to see the Pentax disappear? Surely, they keep it as Pentax, not Penton?

I've yet to find a camera that fits my hand as well as my Chinon CE-5 plus power winder, but I can't see that happening!

I was talking to a Canon user yesterday (I don't normally converse with heathens, but I had to in the course of my work ), and he was bemoaning the fact that his lovely Canon Macro lens, which I'm guessing he'd paid a fair few pennies for, and which worked beautifully with his 350D, was useless with his 1Ds, or whatever it was, because that's full-frame.

It's a good way to give a hefty kick in the teeth to the 'early adopters', let them get their lenses and accessories, then say "Oh, by the way, half the lenses you've bought won't work with these nice new cameras". How long before the 5D's sensor is used in the bottom of the range Canon, meaning that anybody who wants to upgrade from their 10D, 20D, 300D, 350D or 400D would have to buy all new lenses?

Some manufacturers have no qualms in doing that, others are a little more aware of the implications (hopefully). Perhaps that's why Canon's market share has dropped.

Dan

Where does the '100' come from? Dunno! But I reckon the next Pentax DSLR will be the K200D, which will have a 10Mp sensor, cut down features from the K10D, no weather sealing etc. Announce it when they release the star lenses, see it in the Summer. When they release that, they'll announce the K1D, with all the features of the K10D, but better flash capabilities, faster processing and buffer, and the same sensor, but giving even better results through better noise reduction. Which will also allow a 3200 speed.

That's what I reckon, anybody want to place some bets?

Dan

This rang a bell with me, as I'd not long read a comparison on Luminous Landscape: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml. Makes for interesting reading, and as something I can't compare (other than with my D and my Lubitel ), I have to take it at face value and assume it's a fair test. Makes for interesting reading though, I think.

They're as complex as you make them, I use mine on manual 90% of the time (aperture priority the rest), and frankly it's no different than using a film camera. Just as I very rarely used the panoramic function on my MZ-5n, I very rarely use the more esoteric functions on my D.

Dan