I have a dilemma here, print or lens?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Nando

Nando

Member
Member's gallery
Hi all,

I'd love your input here on a dilemma I'm facing at the moment.
I have put aside $3000 to purchase the 100-400mm Z lens when Nikon decides to launch it... maybe this year, maybe next year... who knows :unsure:. Anyway...
The problem is that I am more and more interested in printing my images because I'm starting to get tired of only being able to see them on a screen. On some screens the images look to dark, others to bright, others colors seems to be off... in some ways it's a bit disappointing when you spend hours/days sitting on an image, looking at it in Lightroom/Photoshop till you finally feel conformable with the editing and then, depending the screen you use to look at that photo, you wonder if that is indeed the best color, the best brightness, contrast you could have.

Been looking at the Canon Pro 1000 printer, which as far as I could read, is considered the best printer out there for the hobbyist and even professional photographer.
The "printing" investment that I would need to do would be a little higher than $2000 because I would not only need to buy the printer but also a new monitor since the ones I currently have none is 100% RGB.

So my question to you all is, what would you do? I know this is a personal choice, but from different point of views, we can better make a decision.
a) You grab the $3k you have put aside for the Z lens and invest in the printer because that lens can be months away to be released and in the mean time you can learn the art of printing, learn the art of editing for print?
b) You wait for the lens, keep photographing with the lens you have, keep learn the art of photography, keep getting out of the house, so when you get the 100-400, your photography knowledge will be higher, your images will be better, and more worthwhile to be printed?

Have you ever had some money set aside for something and all of the sudden you have an itch that will only stop when you spend that money? :whistle:

Thanks
 
Member's gallery
No decision for me. Go with the lens. Years ago I got into doing my own printing. Spent money on a reasonably good printer etc. It was great for a while as I wrestled with the challenges of color profiles etc to get things dialed in. But then it turned into a PITA. Only wanted to print occasionally and invariably plugged printer jets etc. so it took an hour or so to get the printer running before able to print. There are plenty of options for getting images printed. No substitute for good glass in the bag.
 
Member's gallery
I would first buy a really good photo editing monitor that can be calibrated (not hard to do). I have the BenQ and am really happy with it. The few times I print an image I do it at a professional lab and they come back looking just like they did on my monitor. I have my own website to post the images that I want to keep and that works for me.

I don't print my own because my previous experience (many years ago) was that printing images was another hobby all in itself! I'm sure today's modern printers are a lot easier to use, but I don't have any experience with them.

And I am a very itchy person! I just ordered the Nikon Z6 II and ordered the new 105mm Macro lens that just came out. That is after buying the 500 PF a month ago.

I need therapy!
 
Member's gallery
I have and love the same printer. As you count your pennies, add at least $1,000 for ink and good paper. It probably costs $400 to just fill the lines and at least for me, 1/2 the prints end in the garbage. This printer especially for larger, higher quality prints eats ink. For my line of work it is indispensable, that's typically what I send clients even if the final image is used for digital media. It's still my (and clients') preferred way to comment and ask for edits.

If you decide on printer, Santa Fe has a great course on digital printing.
 
Member's gallery
Andrew Lamberson said:
I would first buy a really good photo editing monitor that can be calibrated (not hard to do). I have the BenQ and am really happy with it. The few times I print an image I do it at a professional lab and they come back looking just like they did on my monitor. I have my own website to post the images that I want to keep and that works for me.

I don't print my own because my previous experience (many years ago) was that printing images was another hobby all in itself! I'm sure today's modern printers are a lot easier to use, but I don't have any experience with them.

And I am a very itchy person! I just ordered the Nikon Z6 II and ordered the new 105mm Macro lens that just came out. That is after buying the 500 PF a month ago.

I need therapy!
Click to expand...
Keep the money for a lens and I would use a printing service. Photo quality printers always have issues with clogged jets etc. no matter how hard you try to avoid that. I would follow Andrews advice and get a good quality monitor first and then send out your files for printing. There are a number of high quality printing services available.
 
Member's gallery
I ran a good home printing setup for years and really enjoyed the process but I’d second the others and go with the lens. You can master getting good prints from commercial labs via a color managed work flow but it starts with a good calibrated photo monitor. Using the soft proofing and gamut check tools along with some hard proofs to set monitor brightness you can get reliable and repeatable results from commercial labs that adhere to color managed processes. It all takes time and effort but going to a home printing lab will require the same steps and more unless you just trial and error the print process.

I’d go with the lens, a good monitor and time invested in mastering a color managed work flow.
 
Member's gallery
Keep the money for the glass. If you want to print that’s great however there are lots of great printers you can use which would be significantly cheaper. Glass holds value, a printer won’t. Glass is by far the better investment.
 
Member's gallery
Be aware that most inkjet printers need to run almost every day to secure that the nozzles don't get clogged with dry ink. So if you are planning to do a print or two a month you are in risk of wasting a lot of expensive ink to cleansing of nozzles, and the as mentioned above a lot of print end in the bins for some other reasons.
Personally - as a non-pro - I would get lens, get a color calibrator and get my screens right. Prints I would by from a pro service provider.
 
Member's gallery
Seems that calibrating your monitor would go a long way to solving your problem. I use the Spyder color calibrator.

After you calibrate the first time you will know what fraction of color space your present monitor displays. If it's less than 100%, buy a new monitor like the BenQ mentioned above. Problem solved for a lot less than $2k (unless you go crazy on the new monitor).

Use an online printing service to print. Just email them the file as per their instructions and wait for the print, on the medium of your choice, to be delivered .
 
I print a lot, but always with Bay Photo. To me it's not worth the hassle to print my own, especially when you can send out for a fine art print on a large format printer on archival paper. But either way your monitor has to display 99% Adobe RGB and be calibrated.

If you print at home you want to be able to create a printer profile for each paper. This involves following the instructions on the device: printing the provided test print and letting it dry, using the device to scan the actual test print, running the software to create the profile. Softproofing using the profile. It's doable.

Printing to a service involves downloading a profile for softproofing if the service provides one, getting one set of test prints to check color and monitor brightness settings. After that you can softproof to estimate how the print will look.

So I'd buy the monitor and the calibration device. If you spend a little more you can get one capable of profiling printers. The cheaper ones are good but only profile monitors not printers.
 
Member's gallery
I’m an enthusiast photographer. I enjoy home printing and consider it an extension of the creative process, much as darkroom work in the past. I print something at least every 3-4 weeks, but weekly nozzle checks keep my Epsons clog-free (YMMV). I have my workflow down pretty tight and don’t throw away many prints… and my friends would certainly refer to me, using more descriptive terms, as picky.

With that said, I think you’ll always get more use from the lens.
Wait for the lens.
If nothing else, a calibrator for your monitor will help standardize your images.
 
Member's gallery
Nando said:
Hi all,

I'd love your input here on a dilemma I'm facing at the moment.
I have put aside $3000 to purchase the 100-400mm Z lens when Nikon decides to launch it... maybe this year, maybe next year... who knows :unsure:. Anyway...
The problem is that I am more and more interested in printing my images because I'm starting to get tired of only being able to see them on a screen. On some screens the images look to dark, others to bright, others colors seems to be off... in some ways it's a bit disappointing when you spend hours/days sitting on an image, looking at it in Lightroom/Photoshop till you finally feel conformable with the editing and then, depending the screen you use to look at that photo, you wonder if that is indeed the best color, the best brightness, contrast you could have.

Been looking at the Canon Pro 1000 printer, which as far as I could read, is considered the best printer out there for the hobbyist and even professional photographer.
The "printing" investment that I would need to do would be a little higher than $2000 because I would not only need to buy the printer but also a new monitor since the ones I currently have none is 100% RGB.

So my question to you all is, what would you do? I know this is a personal choice, but from different point of views, we can better make a decision.
a) You grab the $3k you have put aside for the Z lens and invest in the printer because that lens can be months away to be released and in the mean time you can learn the art of printing, learn the art of editing for print?
b) You wait for the lens, keep photographing with the lens you have, keep learn the art of photography, keep getting out of the house, so when you get the 100-400, your photography knowledge will be higher, your images will be better, and more worthwhile to be printed?

Have you ever had some money set aside for something and all of the sudden you have an itch that will only stop when you spend that money? :whistle:

Thanks
Click to expand...
The monitor is first priority over the printer. As far as printer vs lens, what lens do you currently have?
 
Member's gallery
I print at home. Not a lot, mind you, but some, and I enjoy doing so. I've had my printer, an Epson Artisan 1430 for over four years, and it was purchased on sale for well less than $300 US. I've easily spent over twice that amount in ink for printing, most likely three times as much. Even so, I enjoy the printing and it's really not that difficult, and my only disapointment in this printer is that it won't print large panoramas. However, I can also get the same prints, and more, from retailers or print services online and in some cases locally. The online services take more time to get the product to me, but typically provide a better product. The local retailers are often able to rapidly provide a print for pickup, but sometimes of unknown quality. (Color and print life may be issues.) The few professional photographers that I know who still offer prints all use an online/mail print service offering high end print options.

I'm processing my images on an iMac 27 Retina 5k that I calibrate periodically using a tool no longer available, but similar to tools now available at retail for less than $200 US. Properly calibrating your monitor is, IMO, essential to digital photography. Get a monitor calibration tool, after researching them online and otherwise if you can, and use it to determine if you really need a new monitor. If you do need a new monitor, get one that can be calibrated, but you won't need to go overboard with it. If you can, go to a retail location and observe monitors side by side with the same image on each, and factor in size and resolution when you do so.

So, to get to your question, were I you, I'd save my money for the lens that you've saved it for. (Do we know if $3000 will get you the 100-400mm Z?) If you can, get or borrow a monitor calibration tool and calibrate your current monitor. If you have to, get a monitor that you can calibrate. When you have those items taken care of, and if you still have a desire to do your own printing, think about what you want to print (print size and format) and use those requirements to choose a printer. Doing so may lead you to the realization that you don't need the printer that you now think you do. And be aware that most of the cost of printing, unless you really go all out on a printer, is going to be in ink and paper.
 
Member's gallery
Nando said:
Hi all,

I'd love your input here on a dilemma I'm facing at the moment.
I have put aside $3000 to purchase the 100-400mm Z lens when Nikon decides to launch it... maybe this year, maybe next year... who knows :unsure:. Anyway...
The problem is that I am more and more interested in printing my images because I'm starting to get tired of only being able to see them on a screen. On some screens the images look to dark, others to bright, others colors seems to be off... in some ways it's a bit disappointing when you spend hours/days sitting on an image, looking at it in Lightroom/Photoshop till you finally feel conformable with the editing and then, depending the screen you use to look at that photo, you wonder if that is indeed the best color, the best brightness, contrast you could have.

Been looking at the Canon Pro 1000 printer, which as far as I could read, is considered the best printer out there for the hobbyist and even professional photographer.
The "printing" investment that I would need to do would be a little higher than $2000 because I would not only need to buy the printer but also a new monitor since the ones I currently have none is 100% RGB.

So my question to you all is, what would you do? I know this is a personal choice, but from different point of views, we can better make a decision.
a) You grab the $3k you have put aside for the Z lens and invest in the printer because that lens can be months away to be released and in the mean time you can learn the art of printing, learn the art of editing for print?
b) You wait for the lens, keep photographing with the lens you have, keep learn the art of photography, keep getting out of the house, so when you get the 100-400, your photography knowledge will be higher, your images will be better, and more worthwhile to be printed?

Have you ever had some money set aside for something and all of the sudden you have an itch that will only stop when you spend that money? :whistle:

Thanks
Click to expand...
You can have a professional lab make a ton of prints for $3000 plus your high quality photo paper and ink. A hobbyist like us just ca't buy ink in the quantities a printing house can.

Guess I'm saying I'd go for the lens. I have an Epson XP-15000 Photo HD. It does a reasonably good job of making prints at a fraction of the cost of the Canon Pro 1000.

"Have you ever had some money set aside for something and all of the sudden you have an itch that will only stop when you spend that money?"

My grandmother used to call this "you have money burning a hole in your pocket."
Jeff
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I guess if you're processing only for personal "consumption" and/or are selling prints and are particular about your images then buying and calibrating a high-end monitor AND getting a good printer would be the logical choice. But if you're mainly processing to share on line such expenditures are probably a waste of money because you can't control how your media is being served up, in which case the lens might be the better choice. Personally I used to fret over tiny details in my imagery but came to realize that since I was never going to print anything I was largely wasting my time and learned to relax and not sweat the small stuff. Fortunately we each get to choose what's best for us. :)
 
Member's gallery
A counter point, if I may. To one, people I gift prints and cards to derive far more pleasure than seeing my photography in an email, Insta or worse, Facebook. And while there is a lot of seemingly complicated things to consider, for most hobby purposes they are minor. A good screen, ideally-self calibrating, paper from a reputable seller, rudimentary LR or PS knowledge and some experimentation. Much easier than the Sony menu system.
 
Member's gallery
I agree with what's been posted. One recommendation I haven't seen is this: Canon will occasionally run promotions which lead to a free Pixma Pro 100 printer. The person will take the UPC code and then sell the printer for $150-$200 on Craigslist. I'd recommend purchasing one of these to play with. Figure it out and see how much you like it. If you do, you haven't little invested in the printer when you go for the big one. If you don't like it you have a small format printer (13" x 19") and enough money to buy your lens also.
 
Member's gallery
How can anyone make a suggestion without first knowing the current lenses? If you have, say, a 300 and 500 pf then forget about a 100-400 and go for a printer and monitor. Printing is a TON of fun and really gives you a final product that's tangible. The proof and printing process is a natural extension to the art. If you have a 200-500 or other comparable lenses, obviously the upgrade will be a much welcome addition.
 
Member's gallery
Thank you for all your comments, much appreciated.
I'm targeting the 100-400 Z lens price to be between $2500 and $3000 since Canon and Sony have theirs also between that price range. They tend to price things similarly.

The only lens I have at the moment is the kit lens, the 24-70mm that came with the Z6II. I looked at the 14-30mm the other day but when I'm taking photos I'm always looking for a longer focal length so the 14-30 would not be used that much. The 24-200 is an interesting lens, but I would end up having 2 lens covering the same focal length, between 24-70, which does not make much sense to me.

The 24-70 and the 100-400 is my dream team, with the possibility of adding to it the 14-30 later on.
The 200-500... it is something that I do think about, what would be preferable, the 100-400 or the 200-500?
My main goal is landscape and some wildlife since the 400mm will give me that option. The 200-500 it seems overkill for landscape but perfect for wildlife.
I can always add later on a 1.4x teleconverter, if the image degradation will be acceptable.

Getting back to the printer, I confess that I was not taking in consideration the cost of maintenance, ink, paper... and yes, I agree that before invest on a printer, I would need to invest first on calibrating my current monitors and if the result is not good, then buy a new one for editing.

I also see your point when you say that prints we can get them from any printing service whereas good glass, well, you need to buy good glass.

So good to have a place where we have real people, real photographers, with experience that can help us, the new guys.
Thank you so much.
 
Member's gallery
Niels.hr.Hansen said:
Be aware that most inkjet printers need to run almost every day to secure that the nozzles don't get clogged with dry ink. So if you are planning to do a print or two a month you are in risk of wasting a lot of expensive ink to cleansing of nozzles, and the as mentioned above a lot of print end in the bins for some other reasons.
Personally - as a non-pro - I would get lens, get a color calibrator and get my screens right. Prints I would by from a pro service provider.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. I had a pretty nice high end printer that didn’t get used enough and would cost me $75 a pop for cartridges when it didn’t get enough use. M

If I want a print now, I send it to a printer.
 
Member's gallery
Nando said:
Thank you for all your comments, much appreciated.
I'm targeting the 100-400 Z lens price to be between $2500 and $3000 since Canon and Sony have theirs also between that price range. They tend to price things similarly.

The only lens I have at the moment is the kit lens, the 24-70mm that came with the Z6II. I looked at the 14-30mm the other day but when I'm taking photos I'm always looking for a longer focal length so the 14-30 would not be used that much. The 24-200 is an interesting lens, but I would end up having 2 lens covering the same focal length, between 24-70, which does not make much sense to me.

The 24-70 and the 100-400 is my dream team, with the possibility of adding to it the 14-30 later on.
The 200-500... it is something that I do think about, what would be preferable, the 100-400 or the 200-500?
My main goal is landscape and some wildlife since the 400mm will give me that option. The 200-500 it seems overkill for landscape but perfect for wildlife.
I can always add later on a 1.4x teleconverter, if the image degradation will be acceptable.

Getting back to the printer, I confess that I was not taking in consideration the cost of maintenance, ink, paper... and yes, I agree that before invest on a printer, I would need to invest first on calibrating my current monitors and if the result is not good, then buy a new one for editing.

I also see your point when you say that prints we can get them from any printing service whereas good glass, well, you need to buy good glass.

So good to have a place where we have real people, real photographers, with experience that can help us, the new guys.
Thank you so much.
Click to expand...
This response shared the key information that I was looking for... what gear do you currently own.
Now, to be clear, the thoughts I share may invoke Murpy's Law, as I am going to suggest that you buy an existing F-Mount lens and the printer.
If your interest is landscapes and some wildlife (not specializing in wildlife), you may want to look at the Nikon 80-400G VR with FTZ adapter. I have seen these on sale in Ex+ to LN condition for $1300-$1500. While not Nikon's best lens, it is very good and is capable of producing very high quality photographs throughout its range. The lens is sharp wide open up to 350mm and improves by stopping down to f/8 at 400mm. While I no longer own the lens, I often think about scooping one up, as Nikon has really dragged its feet with telephoto optics. Instead of the 80-400, I have the much more expensive 70-200S w/ converters. I like my lens with the 1.4x, but its performance is below the 80-400mm lens (@400mm) when using the 2x converter. Note... if you do consider the 80-400G, you will need to buy an aftermarket (RRS or Kirk) tripod collar because the Nikon collar is underengineered and negatively impacts the lens' performance. If you do not want the 80-400G, consider the 300PF (at the same price) and pick up a 1.4x later when the funds are available. The 300PF is a marvelous lens and will still be quite viable into the future.
Going this route would leave you $1500+ for a printer and monitor.

This will get you the best of both worlds.
 
Member's gallery
Nando said:
So my question to you all is, what would you do? I know this is a personal choice, but from different point of views, we can better make a decision.
a) You grab the $3k you have put aside for the Z lens and invest in the printer because that lens can be months away to be released and in the mean time you can learn the art of printing, learn the art of editing for print?
b) You wait for the lens, keep photographing with the lens you have, keep learn the art of photography, keep getting out of the house, so when you get the 100-400, your photography knowledge will be higher, your images will be better, and more worthwhile to be printed?
Click to expand...

c) throw one helluva party for your forum buddies!


Joking aside, I agree with those recommending investing in lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top