TaoTeJared said:
Just ignore bjrichus I think he woke up on the wrong side of the bed today unless you want to spend that much. ;) (just kidding Bjrichus)

Talking of getting up on the wrong side of bed... I had to spend all afternoon in a training course on this new "corporate culture" rubbish that the MBA people want us all to adopt. Nothing whatsoever to do with anything we do and I was certainly not alone in expressing how much we thought of all this. Oh the joy of not being a freelance. Guess I'll be unemployed by the end of the week!!

I suppose the anticipation of wasting an afternoon being told we should "build an atmosphere of trust" and "encourage criticism" means I have my bosses approval to be a bit of a Grinch now?

(as if I needed anyone's approval...) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Nikleodeon said:
Hey folks thanks for the replies!

@bjrichus I'm from Sheffield, the northern 'city of steel' on the edges of the Peak District National Park, although these days work requires that I spend my time in London. Thanks for your advice, I do appreciate that there must be compromises along the way.

You are welcome. Been to Sheffield once. Was going to the university there for a conference. A long way from the south for a one day trip! You got some nice places in the Peaks if you are into landscape photography.

Nikleodeon said:
@TaoTeJared others have also mentioned Epson as the 'goto' for this sort of thing. Interesting comments on Kodak too, I'll bear that in mind and continue to browse the options. I enjoy knowing about the tech I use - especially the cameras!- but as far as printers go I just want a good one that works. I dont really care about the bells and whistles, and whether it's the latest product available. So thanks for your advice, I'll have a look at the Epson options.

I too prefer Epson as the results have just been so much better and easier to get too than with any other brand of printers.

Our tech does the large format printing for us (I am a 'staffer' at a university) and even if TTJ thinks I got up on the wrong side of bed today, I still think that these days home printing in any quantity or at any size is a bit of a luxury. :)

Hey folks thanks for the replies!

@bjrichus I'm from Sheffield, the northern 'city of steel' on the edges of the Peak District National Park, although these days work requires that I spend my time in London. Thanks for your advice, I do appreciate that there must be compromises along the way. What I want at the minute is a product that will do a pretty good job, and allow me and my family to have photos up around the house. I've taken thousands of photos over the years and on my travels, and it's a shame that they just sit on my hard drives.

In the past I have dabbled with the occasional competition, and had big prints framed. Of course, such times I'll always give the pros a call. It sounds like you have access to a whole arsenal of options at home and at work - lucky you!

@TaoTeJared others have also mentioned Epson as the 'goto' for this sort of thing. Interesting comments on Kodak too, I'll bear that in mind and continue to browse the options. I enjoy knowing about the tech I use - especially the cameras!- but as far as printers go I just want a good one that works. I dont really care about the bells and whistles, and whether it's the latest product available. So thanks for your advice, I'll have a look at the Epson options.

Just ignore bjrichus I think he woke up on the wrong side of the bed today unless you want to spend that much. ;) (just kidding Bjrichus)

I go with Epson printers, but you don't need to spend a house/rent payment to get a good one. Canon has some good ones, but for some reason I like the Epson printers better. Printers come out so fast and change so much all I keep track of is getting one with pigment-based ink which any of Epson's photo based printers have. Hell you can even get one for $90 (£65ish). I have one that is 5 years old and has the higher end Claria inks and it does just great. I got it free when I got my camera but I think is sold for $50. For 4x6s or the occasional 8x10 it does really well. Heavy printing (50+) or large sizes I just send them out to a lab. They have one's that do the A3 for just a few hundred bucks.

Kodak printers are probably good, but most of their stuff has been so cheap in the last few years I no longer consider them an option. Maybe wrong of me, but generally go with a company that isn't on the verge going bankrupt every 6 months as they have been for the last two years.

Printers - you get what you pay for, but almost any over $150 (£90) and are designated for photos, will be very good. If you are not doing pro stuff, and you really don't need to print many A3 photos, then you really don't need to break the bank on a printer. Like you said, you can always send them out.

Suppose I had better come clean and say that at work, I have access to an HP large format printer (costs upwards of $6,500 to buy and don't even ask about ink prices), as well as three Epson Rxxx series printers. We have a few Dell laser printers for documents and I use my own Epson scanner for film scanning.

At home I use an Epson multi-function printer for document printing, the odd 5x7 photo and the occasional scan.

Nikleodeon said:
I'm a new sign up, so go easy. I have searhced the forum for printer info, and most of it dates back a couple of years, so I thought a new thread was justified.

I'm looking for a printer for home use. I'm an amateur who is peeved at never getting to look at the photos I take, and want to feel able to print when I want, without having to take out a new mortgage. Important factors are initial price - £350 max - and ink costs. As I said, I want to feel able to print when I want to.

Welcome to the [NR] forum. This is where you get to rub shoulders with pro's who think we know it all and enthusiasts who really DO know it all (only joking), but all of us have an opinion (don't get put off by that). Where in the UK are you from?

Anyway... To business. Experience says that photo printing on anything less than decent semi/pro level printers will involve some kind of compromise that will be visible to you, if not today, then in a couple of years time.

I personally found that the danger with printing at home, is that I always ended up wishing I really did spend on that Epson R3000... even if I got worried at the damage it would do to my bank account every time it did a head cleaning cycle. ;-)

Guess what I am saying is; DON'T bother printing at home unless you want to spend decent (as in non-trivial) amounts of money or just love to experiment and don't care about the cost.

Anything bigger than A4, send to a lab. They will be cheaper than just about anything you can do at home - especially if you start experimenting or get a few "duds" along the way and who hasn't at times thrown away prints that are "not up to the vision" we started out with?

Kodak printers are OK as office all-in-ones, which means they are compromises that do several things OK, but none of them really well. They will not produce something you want to have your name on and displayed in an art museum for several hundred years, but at that price point and design, this should come as no surprise.

If all you want are scrap book prints, or something to give to family members as keepsakes, then the Kodak 'hero' range (what a terrible name), are no better (or really that much worse) than any other printer of this type. Ink costs are lower than average, but perhaps not by as much as you think, especially if the thing fades after a few years... just saying that this can happen with some brands is all...

Hi everyone,

I'm a new sign up, so go easy. I have searhced the forum for printer info, and most of it dates back a couple of years, so I thought a new thread was justified.

I'm looking for a printer for home use. I'm an amateur who is peeved at never getting to look at the photos I take, and want to feel able to print when I want, without having to take out a new mortgage. Important factors are initial price - £350 max - and ink costs. As I said, I want to feel able to print when I want to.

Kodak seem to be good on that front, and the Hero 9.1 has got good reviews. I'd love to hear from anyone with a view on this stuff, and some advice for a home printing novice.

A3 would be good, but it's not essential as anything I want that big I'd probably send to the lab anyway.

Thanks a lot!

Not a bad guess regarding having it go into a Leica maybe the 9.2 I doubt a M10 would be released so soon at least I hope so anyways! The way things are going the D4 specs could be anything there are so many rumors flying around.

NikoDoby said:
Technically LBCAST is a CMOS sensor. So Nikon might have just changed the LBCAST "name" and just called it a CMOS in the D700/D3/S. Although the LBCAST sensor kind of got a band reputation, calling it a CMOS wouldn't be totally wrong.

The D1 and D1H were only 2 megapixels and the D1X was only 5 mp but yeah the next sensors are going to be "big".

Unfortunately Kodak is a dying company so I doubt this sensor will find it's way into any camera.

In 2000 I looked at one of these and the price was $3900.00, and a D3100 is so much better for $6xx.00 ?

how far have we come.

Technically LBCAST is a CMOS sensor. So Nikon might have just changed the LBCAST "name" and just called it a CMOS in the D700/D3/S. Although the LBCAST sensor kind of got a band reputation, calling it a CMOS wouldn't be totally wrong.

The D1 and D1H were only 2 megapixels and the D1X was only 5 mp but yeah the next sensors are going to be "big".

Unfortunately Kodak is a dying company so I doubt this sensor will find it's way into any camera.

Nikon hasn't really went with Kodak since the f5 mutant in the 90's

Leica R10 maybe? (although they stated that they ended the r series)

Maybe if Nikon got LBCAST to work...

I wouldn't be surprised if the D4 had a 24+ mpx camera as their mpx almost doubles in any iteration.

D1h 3mpx D1x 6mpx
D2h 6mpx D2x 12mpx
D3 12mpx D3x 24mpx

So what comes next?

D4(H) 24mpx D4x 48mpx (WOW!)

(edit the d2h was 4mpx)

I'm pretty sure it's for Kodak's new "RED" digital motion picture camera. Using a CCD sensor will eliminate roliing shutter artifacts. I hear they're going to call it "YELLOW."

The key here is "CCD". You won't find any CCDs going into any new Nikon DSLR. With the demise of the D3000, Nikon's DSLR range is now 100% CMOS.

I agree with NSXType-R that the likely destinations could include the successor to the Leica M9. I would also place a small bet on a Pentax "K-1" DSLR using this sensor, as Kodak and Pentax have been in negotiations for some months now. The Pentax 645D uses a Kodak 40 MP sensor so a 29 MP Pentax K series DSLR would not be too surprising.

Probably for the new Leica M9 replacement maybe.

Nikon apparently develops their own sensors now.

Doubt it, I dont think nikon would jump from a 12mp D3s to a 29MP sensor in the D4. Maybe in D4x but doubt that as well since a 24mp D3x is already out i doubt the D4x will be a 5 mp upgrade.

Kodak have announced a new 29MP full frame CCD sensor, I woder if it'll be in the D4 ?...

http://photorumors.com/2010/11/06/new-29mp-full-frame-ccd-sensor-from-kodak/#more-6821

Egads! Another T-grain!

film ftw. ;-)

Not that anyone here cares, except for me and AnalogChris, but Kodak announced a new film today :-)
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/400main.jhtml

No(maybe), any 3D camera has always had one limitation that it is always difficult to view the images in 3D. Take that new Fuji 3D, here you need a 3D viewer to see the pictures in 3D. Now if the 3D DSLR could use this technology to do different thing like giving different focal points in one shot or/and different exposures in one shot for a larger DR then maybe they have something. But maybe Kodak is only showing us how desperate they are getting to survive

BTW, Niko were and how do you find these things, but don't stop keep it rolling

Pete

Apparently a "serious" source is saying Kodak will be unwrapping a new 3D (it takes 3 dimensional images not uses 3D as the model number) DSLR at the Consumer Electronics Show in 2010. Kodak's last DSLR was the DCS Pro SLR/n which was based on the Nikon N80 body and used an Fmount, obviously.

So what do you think the chances of this new 3D DSLR is going to be based on a Nikon body again? Would anyone here consider a 3D DSLR camera with a Nikon Fmount? Or maybe we will see a totally new Kodak body that mounts with those adobe honeycomb lenses we saw a while ago?
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=740