I have a Pixma Pro 100 which I have had since around 2015.

In the overall scheme of things it has low mileage and does not see frequent use. My prints are primarily for our home, along with family and friends. Our walls have no more available space, so if a print is going up, one must come down. Our daughter, who is really into decorating her home, prefers prints on other media, most commonly canvas. So all she needs from me is the file. For other family members as well as friends who are distant, it is easier to just send them the file and they can have it printed. All this adds up to ink I am not using.

When I do fire it up though, regardless of time lapse, I want it to be completely reliable. For this reason I stick with Canon inks. Never once have I experienced a problem. Now perhaps I would have the same performance using third party inks, but I have no way of knowing, and will not take a chance.

Sometimes peace of mind just costs more.

It's a hobby; I deal with it.

I don't pixel peep. I don't see the need.

With my long film background and the types of photography I do, I very seldom crop. When I do crop it is very slight. That means I have most or all of an image to work with.

What I will do in the field, given the opportunity, is chimp by magnifying a portion of an image on the LCD screen to confirm proper focus. My only photographic product is the print. Before printing I will magnify the image on my computer screen to verify sharpness.

This system works well for me so I see no reason to change.

Agree.

I have never had a battery swell or otherwise malfunction. This includes OEM as well as third party batts.

Nevertheless I am in the remove for storage camp.

I have a number of old(er) cameras that have been given to me. On two of them the memory battery is gone. So each time I change batteries I have to input my settings. An inconvenience but not a big deal. Any camera I take out for a photoshoot I start with a fresh battery. So I reset before I even leave the house.

I keep the batts and chargers in two locations, one each for cameras in frequent use and one for stored cameras. I then rotate these locations as I rotate cameras.

I have enough cameras that I would find it an inconvenience to remember to check that batts on any kind of a regular basis. With the batts out I know the camera is safe without looking at it.

I don't see any issue here beyond an anti-gun bias.

Full Disclosure Dept: I am a retired LEO and have always had an interest in firearms and shooting. (Arguably that could be my bias).

There are many aspects of photography in which I have no interest. I have no problem not looking at that which does not interest me. In the same vein, I have no interest in criticizing photographic subjects which do not interest me.

Dennis' photographs are (in my opinion) professionally done. From their inception firearms have been looked upon by many as objects of industrial art. As part of that viewpoint, over the centuries, up to the present, firearms have been embellished, collected, and displayed.

The Buffalo Bill Center of the West in Cody, WY, and the book 'Steel Canvas' by R. L. Wilson are just two of countless examples that illustrate the concept of firearms as functional art.

I submit a 'live and let live' attitude would be of benefit in some quarters here.

Despite my preference for digital photography, I still respect the old ways and have no disagreement for those who pursue them.

Despite living in Calif, we live in an isolated, sparsely populated mountain region. It was part of the Calif gold rush and there is a lot of history here, which I greatly enjoy.

Just over a pass to the north of us is a mountain valley which has cattle ranches dating back to the 1860s. These ranchers are still raising cattle. If technology has brought any changes, they are not visible. Going there is a step back into the old west. Those ranchers, who are always good for a friendly wave, are more than just ranchers; they are stewards of the land. They know they have to protect and respect the land if it is to sustain them and their families for future generations. At the county fair there I have watched their children competing in the various livestock events, with their parents fully involved.
These ranches are full family commitments.

I come away from that valley, which is unknown to most people, and that county fair, with the warm feeling that something of immense value emerges from what these people are doing in ways they have been doing so for the last 160 years.

So while I prefer digital photography, I have great respect for those who choose to do things in old ways.

luvmypets and TerryVS,

Thank you both for your kind words. I am greatly enjoying retirement. But not a day goes by when I don't miss what I was doing, especially the law enforcement.

On the internet, the only way to assess another person's character is what they write, good, bad, indifferent. I understand this. But I question if everybody does, or if they even care given the level of anonymity.

Going on that standard there are some extremely fine people on this forum.

The trolls are not going to interfere with that. In their own way they do provide an element of entertainment.

Ilford's (via Blenheim Orange) points duly noted. But that is as far as it goes for me.

Going way back, I was omniscient enough to see that this digital fad would soon die out, and film, as it should, would survive this temporary technical infatuation. I really stuck to my guns on this, secure in the knowledge, by ignoring reality, that I was right. Ultimately reality caught up and I learned my omniscience was not. This happened in 2009-10. By that time I came into a mature technology.

I quickly learned that I could make far superior 35mm prints (in color no less!) than I could order from the custom lab. I also learned I could rely on that because I had the ability to see my images before I even left the scene. I could shoot in color, then convert to black and white in post. so no changing films or carrying multiple bodies. I could experiment and practice as much as I want, and it cost nothing until such time as I booted up my printer. Those elements of experimentation and practice have done more to improve my photography than anything else I have ever done. I have had the unlimited ability to learn as much as I wanted. I am still leaning.

My printer sits on my desk next to my computer. That is now my darkroom.

I don't think I have lost a thing by not having to do the work film photography requires. I have never felt the need to have something that forces me to slow down. I have gotten countless digital images that I would not have gotten with film because I could react so much more quickly to unanticipated opportunities. I don't need to slow down to enjoy the photographic experience. The photographic experience is enhanced for me because I know if there is something of photographic value to capture, I am going to get it.

I am getting far superior image quality in far larger prints that I ever did with 35mm film. My printer goes to 13X19". My beautiful old Leitz Focomat 1C enlarger with an El Nikkor lens would not even enlarge that far on the easel. If I wanted that size I would have to reverse the head and project to the floor. That is because 35mm film was not expected to allow quality prints to be made at that degree of enlargement. Now I get outstanding digital prints to 11X14" and sometimes larger, from small sensor cameras, if the light is good enough and I do my job. APS-C and full frame are capable far beyond this size, because they are digital.

I no longer believe the earth is flat. I no longer listen to vinyl discs on tube amps. I no longer shoot with film.

I am a retired first responder, 30+ years law enforcement, 16+ years fire/EMS. Both fields also included much SAR.

Over that period one deals with a lot of tragedy, so much so that too many emerge at the other end of such careers with PTSD.

Given that environment, the media are going to be there. That is their job. With very few exceptions I found the many photojournalists I dealt with to be able to balance professional responsibilities with compassion. In my LE career I worked a violent area with a great incidence of gang violence, sometimes against innocent young children related to opposing gang members, so as to affect the entire family. Most of my career was in command ranks in field operations, so I was, whenever I was on duty, the ranking member and thus the incident commander. One of my responsibilities, unless I had a PIO with me, was to liaison with the media. The regional media and I got accustomed to working together. In return for them not being intrusive, and letting my troops do their jobs, I made sure they were able to get their stills and video and would release what information I could on-camera. This mutual professional respect worked extremely well. I never considered the media to be the enemy. They knew it and responded in kind.

The responses of the several photojournalists on here are examples of the majority of photojournalists with whom I worked. Their information is excellent, and responsive to OP's inquiry. That is class and professionalism.

I cannot fathom the numerous other flippant non-responses. But in my short time as a member here, I see this same nature of posts in countless other threads.

It is unfortunate that once one learns their way around here, just seeing certain user names at the top of a post reliably indicates their credibility.

I pretty much parallel Nortfish on this one.

I learned early on that I did not like carrying my FF system when travelling. Along with that I don't like to carry multiple lenses and do not like to change lenses in the field.

I started looking for what would give me the most bang sensor size wise in the least package. Sony had just introduced their Nex/Alpha APS-C system at that point. I bought a Nex 5, which came with the 18-55mm lens, which I just set aside. I paired the Nex 5 with the chrome Sony (not Tamron) 18-200mm lens. This combination was/is much less to carry than my full frame system. Besides less weight and bulk, I got almost the same focal length range with the single Sony lens compared to the two much larger lenses I needed in full frame. From the outset I was amazed at the quality of results I got.

I did several 4 - 8 week trips with this rig, a lot in summer heat, and I never found this camera/lens combination a burden to carry.

My printer goes to 13X19" (prints are all I do) and I cannot discern any image quality difference from my FF system.

Things have evolved a bit since those first few years. I have since purchased an @6300, and now the 18-200mm lens is mounted on that body. It was only after I had done this addition that I started using the 18-55mm lens on the Nex 5. I found, for the first time, what an amazingly compact and efficient little kit this is.

Now I keep them as two separate kits, Nex5/18-55mm and @6300/18-200mm. Either one fits my minimalist preference. Which I take with me depends on what I intend to photograph. For a lengthy trip, where I would not be able to return home until it was over with, I think I would choose the A6300/18-200mm system for the additional reach. Relative to a FF system it is still far less to carry.

I am also a great believer in 'tough' cameras. I will not endanger a camera to get a photograph. I know they are not as efficient in poor light as larger formats, but I have found that when I have used mine within (pretty much) their design limitations, I can get 11X14" prints indiscernible from my APS-C system. I've even done one print to 13X19" and it came out spectacular, but I consider it a specialized example. One thing I do know about my 'tough' cameras is that if I can survive an environment, they can too. Peace of mind makes for enjoyable photography.

I have not paid attention to what is available currently. I have no interest since I have my Sony system and am completely satisfied. So don't take this as an admonition that only Sony APS-C is the best for what you want. This is just my experience.

The full frame system is still parked.

We are very fortunate (but fortunate by design) to live in a very scenic region (NorCal mountains), so opportunities are limitless.

When we leave our mountains we go to scenic areas elsewhere.

So I am never out of inspiration. Time and opportunity sometimes, but never inspiration. My main interest is scenic. I also like to do railroads and cars, but I consider those related to scenic since they are outdoors (excepting museums, of which I will never pass up an opportunity).

I do go out with the intent to take photographs, with the assumption that I will find probably find suitable opportunities.

There are also times when I have a camera with me, in the event a photograph just falls in front of me. That was the situation with the attached image. I was fly fishing in my float tube and had my waterproof camera on board to take photos of my monster fish, as I had many times in the past. On this outing the monsters were not having any of it, but this sunset just lit up right in front of me.

What I do find regrettable but unavoidable is when we are going somewhere to be at an appointment and can't stop for photographs. Knowing this, I don't even take a camera, knowing that I will have to drive by any opportunities. I look at it from the standpoint that there will always be another opportunity.

One last source of inspiration and education for me, which I have not yet seen mentioned here, is movies. I very often see images that to me are perfect compositions, sometimes via lighting, sometimes due to nature. Those cinematographers were and are artists.

I find so much grandeur and majesty in the outdoors that I will never not be inspired.

Some years ago I ran my own comparison test, one as amateur as it can get.

Around 1990 I spent some time on company business (training) in DC. On the weekend I went to Mt. Vernon. The camera I was using was my Nikonos 5. Despite its marine emphasis it made for a great camera for scenic photography, and it was tough long before that term was applied to cameras. It had become my hiking, backpacking and travel camera. I still have it as it is just too nice to let go.

One of my photographs was taken at the white entrance gates with President Washington's home in the distant background, framed by the two gates. It was taken during the summer late in the afternoon with the sun coming across from the side and behind me. The lighting was ideal. I was using Kodak color print film, so I had to have it lab processed. I had the lab make an enlargement for me (8X12") and entered it in our local county fair. It won a blue ribbon. To me it looked very good, and apparently the judges also thought so.

Fast forward some 20 years, and we were back in the DC area, staying with our daughter and her family. One day the girls had something they wanted to do and told me I was on my own.

I returned to Mt. Vernon, because I had an idea. By this time my travel camera was a Sony Nex @ 5, the first of the two introductory models. I had on my Nex 5 the Sony (not Tamron based) chrome 18-200mm lens, as that allowed me to just carry one lens.

My plan was to replicate as closely as possible the same conditions I had when I made my film image, and then make the same image using my digital camera.

This was about the same time of day and year as my film photograph. The lighting appeared identical. I shot in JPEG, as I still do, since a number of my cameras are JPEG only and I prefer to keep my post processing methods consistent regardless of which camera I happen to be using.

This was not intended to be a SOOC test. I wanted the image to be as good as I could make it, so I did my usual post processing using PSE.

When I was finished editing, I made an 11X14" print (which is now on our wall at home) to compare it with what I (and the lab) had gotten from my Nikonos.

The results were so obvious as to be unquestionable. The digital print was far superior to the film print in all respects. So much so that I have used the two photos to demonstrate to friends the superiority of digital photography over 35mm film photography, at least in my hands.

This was about as unscientific and subjective as it can get. But for me it was further and more definitive proof of the superiority of digital photography over 35mm film photography. Maybe not for everyone, or even for anyone else, but for me.

I did not need this comparison to convince my photographer friends. They had been into digital long before me as I did not switch until 2009-2010, so I was preaching to the choir.

For me though it was an enjoyable and informative test since I could compare the results side by side. It was further confirmation that I was never going back.

I still have the Nex @ 5, and it still works perfectly. I also still have that 18-200mm lens, but now it lives on my @6300. The Nex @ 5 has the 18-55mm kit lens on it, which makes for a great compact rig. Whichever I take with me on any given safari depends on what I intend to photograph.

I have no intent to update either rig. They took great photographs when I bought them, and they take the same photographs now. The rest is up to me. I am where the buck stops.

Thank you very much.

FWIW, one note on timing. We too are on the west coast, and our DISH timer indicates they come on at 5 and 6 PM, PDT.

I have, among others, a Nikon S9100 and a Nikon S9300. This one was taken with the S9100. I would say it works far more than "well".

This photograph is an 11X14" on the wall. I did not go to the size limit of my printer (13X19") due to lack of available wall space.

My interest, and thus my preference, is landscape/scenic. But that genre can take in a wide scope of territory. For example, both my bride and I love trains, riding them and (for me) photographing them. Since rolling trains are outside, that becomes a part of scenic. But, historic trains are often found in museums. Two of my favorites are the Calif State Railroad Museum in Sacramento, and the Nevada State Railroad Museum in Carson City. Successful indoor photography requires the ability to use the available light.

Train museums, aircraft museums, and car museums are addictive to me. So I need to have the skill set to achieve the same quality from inside that I get from outside.

Before large cities became too enlightened for safe night photography I used to enjoy that, especially when I could achieve a film noir effect (that being one our our favorite film genres). Urban is not wilderness (and wilderness is where we choose to live) but it is still part of scenic.

I shoot for realism, but with some flexibility. I actively use the +/- control to control/protect highlights, especially on sunsets. When I reduce EV that increases the level of saturation. If that results in a more dramatic ('artistic') print, I am fine with that.

Anything I print I first edit in PSE. But that is minor. The camera, and how I have set it, is the determining factor on the final appearance of my prints (my sole photographic product).

I have no interest in other areas of photography. I prefer to devote my photography time to the pursuit
of the closest I can come to mastery of my chosen genre.