The drivers/default profiles, and Canon's printer/image editing software
are ... yeah.. well they do suck a bit.
That said, I'd wager that profiling the monitor with Adobe Gamma would
give a 95% improvement.  The remaining 5% is possible, but difficult.
I think it's a safe bet - all I've seen of the 9900/9950 tells me that
skin tones come out blue - not red.

I up the bid to $101 - but if I win I'll still bung them on ebay.

It's probably one of those "Damned if you fix the bug, damned if you
don't". All software comes buggy and at least Canon tries to fix it.

If software vendor A has 25 (security) bug fixes for its products (during
a, say, period of 1 year) and vendor B has none for its line of products,
who is better? It could also be that B doesn't give a damn about its
software line (and bug fixes for it), we don't know. There is no such thing
as bug-free software.

Dragan

On 7/4/05 9:22 AM, in article _mdye.296$6%2.237@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com,

I would strongly disagree with your statement about Canon's software. I have
always been a Nikon fan and user. Had a reasonable amount of money invested
on Nikon equipment including many reasonably expensive lenses that made my
investment on camera bodies pale in comparison. It was only natural for me
to purchase Nikon digital SLR bodies to preserve the investment I had
already made on lenses.

My first digital SLR was a Nikon D100. The results were very disappointing
to say the least. Please keep in mind that my main application involves
close-up and macro photography. After testing the D100 for approximately 3
days I contacted the vendor and arranged an exchange for a Canon EOS 10D
which has served me really well up until recently when I replaced it for
another Canon digital SLR. The photos taken with the Nikon D100 were very
inconsistent as far as color accuracy and reproduction were concerned. Nikon
only offers one (1) macro flash (SB-29s) and it does not sync with the
camera in TTL mode. In case one is trying to obtain consistent lighting and
good color reproduction this is not the flash to use. Since both Fuji and
Kodak use Nikon lenses and flashes, this same problem applies to their
cameras (with the exception of Kodak's new digital SLR that uses Canon
lenses and flashes).

Canon offers not only one but actually two outstanding macro flashes that
sync in full auto TTL with their camera bodies - the MR-14EX ringlite and
the MT-24EX twinlite. Both are outstanding products that allow the user to
either get as creative as he wishes or to set everything to auto TTL and let
the camera to the rest. Simplicity and reliability as I see it with very
consistent and reproducible results. Canon also offers a superb macro lens
(MP-65 1x-5x) which offers up to 5 times magnification if mounted on a body
with a full frame sensor (such as the EOS 1Ds Mark II) and up to 8 times
magnification if mounted on a camera with a reduced sensor size that
requires the 1.6 x lens conversion factor (such as the EOS 20D). This can
only be accomplished with a belows, belows extension and a number of other
not so easy to use accessories in case you are working with Nikon cameras.
Not to mention the issue of light metering. Canon's MP-65 macro lens works
in full sync with their cameras' metering systems. It only requires focusing
as it is not an auto-focus lens. The rest is quite simple. Try this on a
Nikon mounted with a belows, belows extension and all other required
accessories !

Last but not least, as an objective user who also owns a Nikon D70 and a few
other Nikon film cameras, I feel unbiased enough to make this statement.
Canon has been a very good surprise particularly in the digital SLR arena. I
am now using Canon's only for professional (medical and dental) photography
and only use the Nikon D70 to try to take advantage of the lenses I already
owned. The quality of the D70 does not (in my very humble opinion) compare
to that of Canon's cameras (the closest comparison would be the EOS 20D),
from image quality to craftsmanship.

Since one of the replies relates to Canon's inability to write proper
software for their digital products I will also have to say that I don't
agree with this assessment. I initially used Canon's File-Viewer utility
that accompanied the EOS 10D. This software was very simple to use and had a
good interface. It was then updated and somewhat replaced by the newer
version EOS viewer utility. This update represents an improvement over an
already good software. The software that came with my Nikon D70 (Picture
Project) is one of the least user-friendly and most problematic programs I
have used to date.

A recent review on a respected professional photo magazine also praised
Canon's efforts and the image quality from its CMOS sensors. The D70 came
out short and reviewers stated that they expected this camera equipped with
a CCD sensor to produce higher quality images. The D70 produced images that
were in the lower end in terms of image quality in a group that also
included Fuji, Minolta and Olympus SLR digital cameras. After insisting on
CCD sensors Nikon seems to have finally accepted the benefits of CMOS
sensors and adopted them for their D2X.

I have several colleagues that come to me and ask what digital SLR I would
recommend. Based on my experience my suggestion is for them to stay with
Canon. More accessories available, better image quality, better construction
and craftsmanship, better software, better integration. And if you are
serious about close-up or macro photography Canon is the only game in town.

Best regards,

I agree - except that I don't believe that it's due to rapid product
cycles.  In my opinion, the Canon Pixma and 9900/9950 printers produce
great looking prints of landscapes, macro shots of flowers etc.  As a
subject matter, they are the prints that are going to have far more
"wow" factor in the showroom than portraits.  Within reason for those
prints, colour accuracy doesn't matter much, and most people will prefer
nice vibrant colours and that "kodachrome" look over colour accuracy.
I use a different printer and a reasonably calibrated monitor - and get
pretty accurate results printing portraits - often with no colour
adjustments applied to the ex-camera result.  Change the subject matter
to landscape or a macro shot, but use the printer at the same settings,
and the photos still look quite good to me, but almost everyone prefers
the same picture with saturation increased significantly and a lot of
unsharp mask applied before printing.  I don't use the auto scene modes
on my camera, but for someone who either does not want to, or does not
know how to do post processing of images, then I expect that using the
auto modes on the camera is going to give them the best results.  That
probably covers the bulk of the market - and that is who Canon are
trying to reach - "advanced simplicity".
I think that Canon know exactly what they are doing, and they do it
well.  They sell printers, and despite their colour accuracy flaws and
vastly overstated implied claims for dye based ink longevity, I bet they
sell more consumer level photo inkjet printers than HP and Epson combined.

The driver isn't too awful if you RTFM but the profiles included with the
printer are pretty bad.