The Official Fuji X10/X20/X30/XF1/XQ1 Thread

[souldeep]

http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html

Yep this is the link I posted a page back or so to offer a solution to Duncan’s RAW issue he was noticing in the images he posted for us. As he never responded I'm guessing he looked and it wasn't going to solve the problem. It looked like the best RAW image processing app to me. Haven’t tried it though.

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Yep this is the link I posted a page back or so to offer a solution to Duncan’s RAW issue he was noticing in the images he posted for us. As he never responded I'm guessing he looked and it wasn't going to solve the problem. It looked like the best RAW image processing app to me. Haven’t tried it though.

Haven't had a chance to check it out!
I'm astonished how active this thread is at the moment - it's taken me ages to catch back up!!!!
Proper answers later as I'm just about off out again!

 

[souldeep]

Lol - nothing like a new camera to whip up a bit of a debate

 

[Lindsay D]

Thanks for the explanation and your patience

I totally understand the RAW file points you've made and the associated issues.

I also understand that the Bayer Sensor JPG's on the X10 are good SOTC and require little, if any, adjustment.

I also understand that JPG's are not really the right file format to run PP against as they are already processed out of the cam. To effectively process them twice (once in cam then again in a PP application) creates degradation in the quality of the image. In 99% of cases it’s the RAW files we want to process in PP to create a professional end product.

What I'm still not understanding are the JPG sensor differences you described. You compared the X10 Bayer JPG's as;



So in response does this mean that if I took an X10 JPG and an XTrans JPG and ran them through an identical PP workflow the X10 JPG is likely to react to, and look better at, the end of the process?

My reply was a general one aimed at less experienced readers and the many silent visitors to this thread. I do realise you understand the rationale behind the points.

All files need post-processing, even JPEGs. Generally JPEGs are processed more lightly and with more care than a RAW file. The thing is that some JPEGs need much more processing than others and some stand up to that processing better than others. This is where the JPEG output of the current X10 is so useful - it's great to begin with but you can also work it fairly heavily without too many consequences. Of course, we don't know how good the current X10 RAW files could be, because the conversion algorithms we currently have are so poor. However my X Trans JPEGs are quite flat and lacklustre (in contrast to say, the X100's output) and require a fair amount of work to get them looking decent - and even then they are almost never to my taste, but they are fairly malleable if you have the patience. Of course some of that is simply down to my own preferences and benchmarks and may not be reflected in what you see and read across the Internet given that the vast majority of Fuji purchasers are amateurs, and that situation will remain until Fuji starts to produce credible tools for the increasing numbers of advanced and professional photographers who want to turn to compact systems.

We don't know what the new X Trans sensors are going to be like or how they might differ (if they differ at all) to the current X Trans architecture. Perhaps the changes have been made with software support in mind - and feedback from the leading software houses as to what they can and cannot achieve. We're not going to know that immediately unfortunately. Until there's some announcement or further information about the degree of software support available then I think it would be risky to invest in the new stock too soon.

In other words, if you run exactly the same post processing action against an X10 JPEG and an ex-trans-JPEG the result would be very different. The X Trans JPEG does in my experience require a slightly different workflow to get the best out of it. The highlight and shadow characteristics are very different to begin with and hence require slightly different processing.

 

[robenroute]

http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Raw Photo Processor 64
http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper.html - this is a standalone application

Yep this is the link I posted a page back or so to offer a solution to Duncan’s RAW issue he was noticing in the images he posted for us. As he never responded I'm guessing he looked and it wasn't going to solve the problem. It looked like the best RAW image processing app to me. Haven’t tried it though.

Haven't had a chance to check it out!
I'm astonished how active this thread is at the moment - it's taken me ages to catch back up!!!!
Proper answers later as I'm just about off out again!

The above-mentioned software, as well as RawTherapee, which I referred to a few pages back (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=5239265&postcount=5276) all rely, to a certain extent, on dcraw, a (great) software tool that does the decoding of the RAW data. The problem with dcraw is that it only partially supports the X10 RAWs; detail is lost and grainy pictures are a result. Please do check the two photos I developed with RawTherapee. When compared to SilkyPix, they look much grainier. Dcraw is not capable of using the extra info stored in (some of) the RAWs to create pictures with more detail. For the love of our well-known Pete, I can't remember where I read it, but I believe other RAW developers (can) only use about half of the data present in the RAW file.

To quote from the RPP website: "It doesn't work with any Foveon based cameras and currently it doesn't support non-RGBG-Bayer cameras." And that means proper developing of X10 RAWs is out of the question.

Iridient Digital (RAW Developer) state that they support the X10 (see http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper_cameras.html), but I'd be very surprised if their support would go beyond what RawTherapee is already offering.

 

[souldeep]

My reply was a general one aimed at less experienced readers and the many silent visitors to this thread. I do realise you understand the rationale behind the points.

All files need post-processing, even JPEGs. Generally JPEGs are processed more lightly and with more care than a RAW file. The thing is that some JPEGs need much more processing than others and some stand up to that processing better than others. This is where the JPEG output of the current X10 is so useful - it's great to begin with but you can also work it fairly heavily without too many consequences. Of course, we don't know how good the current X10 RAW files could be, because the conversion algorithms we currently have are so poor. However my X Trans JPEGs are quite flat and lacklustre (in contrast to say, the X100's output) and require a fair amount of work to get them looking decent - and even then they are almost never to my taste, but they are fairly malleable if you have the patience. Of course some of that is simply down to my own preferences and benchmarks and may not be reflected in what you see and read across the Internet given that the vast majority of Fuji purchasers are amateurs, and that situation will remain until Fuji starts to produce credible tools for the increasing numbers of advanced and professional photographers who want to turn to compact systems.

We don't know what the new X Trans sensors are going to be like or how they might differ (if they differ at all) to the current X Trans architecture. Perhaps the changes have been made with software support in mind - and feedback from the leading software houses as to what they can and cannot achieve. We're not going to know that immediately unfortunately. Until there's some announcement or further information about the degree of software support available then I think it would be risky to invest in the new stock too soon.

In other words, if you run exactly the same post processing action against an X10 JPEG and an ex-trans-JPEG the result would be very different. The X Trans JPEG does in my experience require a slightly different workflow to get the best out of it. The highlight and shadow characteristics are very different to begin with and hence require slightly different processing.

Thanks Lindsay and that's very clear to me now. Sorry for spelling stuff out but I'm not always the most concise of writers so when I fail to explain myself first time I try again with short point related paragraphs

 

[Nod]

I loathe PP! Both as a viewer when it's overdone (thank any gods that overblown HDR and colour popping are falling out of fashion [until they come back again in 20 years or so!]) and as a chore. I use JPEG all the time with all my cameras and print direct from the files (up to A3+) and get great results. There are times when a tweak or 2 is necessary but those times are easily spotted on the rear screen so a quick reshoot can be done (or bracketing). I don't shoot weddings or in mixed lighting.

IMO, the JPEGs from both my X cameras (10 and F) are fabulous and simply don't need any PP - and that's with the majority of the in camera options set to 0, I was planning to tweak the settings after the weekend and printing but I can't see much that needs tweaking. The acid test could come in June when they'll be used with much more light available but I've used the XF in bright Autumn/Winter sunshine with no problems.

 

[souldeep]

- you must hate everything about my photo's then Nod!

This year I was introduced to PP and have been going through that journey. I hear you about obvious PP though and am trying to refine my PP work as I become more competent in using the digital darkroom. In my personal opinion I think it has a place in subject – colour popping (just read up what that means, and unbeknown to me have been using that type of style out of experimentation with my photo’s) is a great alternative to black and white when you want to isolate a subject in an image. Anyway for me currently it’s about the journey, the learning experience, and by experimentation I hope to get to a place that makes my work unique. I am hoping to create a consistent PP style that will allow me to signature my photos so they are easily recognisable. Historically the greats have done this by using a certain film type, or unique camera, and combined with their eye have created images that are instantly recognisable uniquely to that artist. As we are now in the digital age – I think PP can be used just like the old film types were.

Out of interest - you sound like you print often. For what reason do you print? e.g. For mounting at home, to sell, to exhibit?

 

[Nod]

Why do I print? Because prints are a far better way to look at a photograph than any other (well, a good slide on a wall may beat a print!) IMO. Even a humble enprint (6x4) contains more information than can be seen on a normal monitor (in one screen) and a 1/2 decent A4 (or even better, A3+) can be stunning! I've just done some prints from the weekend and would rather have one of them than 100 screen res images.

I tend not to look at many photos on here - an 800px image can tell you very little about anything other than composition! Best of luck with developing a unique style, I doubt there's anything that hasn't already been done!

 

[souldeep]

I hear your point about printing and I really want to get round to trying some prints at a larger size. If you print most of your photos, just to look at, do you have any use for them afterwards or is that the end of the lifecycle. Do they have to be stored anywhere, placed into an album, put up on a wall or do you just pop them in a growing pile in a spare room? There's also the added costs to consider but then they may well be worth it. I just struggle with what I would do with them after I've seen it in print. A3 prints need storage space.

The 800px image is only a forum restriction. For the majority of the forum photo's I’ve noticed you can click on any you like and then view it at source in its original glory if pixel peeping does it for you. Anyway your post count certainly suggests you’ve been around the block a few times and have a wealth of experience to share. Anything I’m saying will without doubt already be obvious to you.

Hehe - you could say that about anything in life if you wanted. You may well be right about the style thing but I'm the type of personality cursed with the desire to try anyway. The journey’s fun and who says it requires a final destination

 

[ChrisR]

Just noted that @fujiguys have tweeted:

I need your help to push #adobe and #apple to support X-Trans Raw file. They have the required docs to properly support it.

Any ideas? (I've askedf how they think we, the public/users, can help!)

 

[souldeep]

Emails - en masse - I guess

 

[Lindsay D]

Emails - en masse - I guess

Yes, they need to be chased constantly. The problem is that Fuji in the past have introduced technology which they then abandoned. I would guess the software houses have that in the back of their minds and have no invested in supporting Fuji for that reason. With the arrival of the new X Trans cameras Fuji are, I think, trying to demonstrate their commitment to X Trans so that alone is a major case for Adobe/Apple etc to get on the wagon. If they don't then Fuji's risks will blow up in their faces - in fact they're on the precipice right now. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot .....

 

[Ed Sutton]

Why do I print? Because prints are a far better way to look at a photograph than any other (well, a good slide on a wall may beat a print!) IMO. Even a humble enprint (6x4) contains more information than can be seen on a normal monitor (in one screen) and a 1/2 decent A4 (or even better, A3+) can be stunning! I've just done some prints from the weekend and would rather have one of them than 100 screen res images.

Prints are a better way of judging if pictures are any good than looking at them on a screen. I print quite a few of my shots off (at A4 or smaller using my cheap printer/scanner/copier), stick them in (cheap - notice a theme? ) frames and 'live with them' for a while. Some grow on me, some become painful to look at after a while, a few stay up for quite a whiile.

Even if you don't frame prints they are still worth pinning up to mull over.

 

[ChrisR]

Emails - en masse - I guess

I guess so. I was also thinking of writing to Fuji, having noticed a comment in a review of the Sony RX1 that Sony put a team into Adobe to help... that's the kind of commitment needed!

 

[souldeep]

Yes, they need to be chased constantly. The problem is that Fuji in the past have introduced technology which they then abandoned. I would guess the software houses have that in the back of their minds and have no invested in supporting Fuji for that reason. With the arrival of the new X Trans cameras Fuji are, I think, trying to demonstrate their commitment to X Trans so that alone is a major case for Adobe/Apple etc to get on the wagon. If they don't then Fuji's risks will blow up in their faces - in fact they're on the precipice right now. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot .....

It makes total sense why they are stopping the bespoke sensor per camera then.

How did your meeting with the Fuji director go today?

 

[souldeep]

Prints are a better way of judging if pictures are any good than looking at them on a screen. I print quite a few of my shots off (at A4 or smaller using my cheap printer/scanner/copier), stick them in (cheap - notice a theme? ) frames and 'live with them' for a while. Some grow on me, some become painful to look at after a while, a few stay up for quite a whiile.

Even if you don't frame prints they are still worth pinning up to mull over.

Aha I see - buy a printer. I haven't really considered that because I haven't heard about, or seen, good end results. Certainly a cheapish option (as long as you can get cheaper generic ink refills for the printer you own) - then the prints that stand out - send 'em off to a pro printers. Another area I'm going to need to research

Nod - I'm guessing when you referred to printing you mean on the home printer then? I would want to buy one that allowed A3 size. It sounds like you are very happy with your results. Can I ask what printer you use or recommend?

 

[souldeep]

Hi,

Lots of X20 talk (in which I know I'm heavily to blame) but for the last two or three pages (90 odd posts), bar Nick's stunning shots , we've not seen any other X10 photos posted so here goes something a bit different from me to create a mix in subject matter. I rarely post B&W shots from the X10. They are all basically SOTC with a bit of crop here or there. I have seen some forum members posting some amazing B&W shots and I'd love to hear what the workflow process is for you. This is not to fish for compliments - But I honestly think my B&W's lack something and I reckon I could do with some PP on them. If anyone fancies sharing the workflow (or you'd rather PM) then please do

Some Portrait Orientated shots from Korea

 

[souldeep]

And some Landscape orientated shots...

 

[souldeep]

First X10 Vs X20 comparison I've found. Simulated images! Make of it what you will

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x20/features/page_02.html

 

[Lindsay D]

It makes total sense why they are stopping the bespoke sensor per camera then.

How did your meeting with the Fuji director go today?

One thing I don't get though is why Fuji took so long to release the documentation to Adobe. Their statement implies they've only just sent it. Weird.

I won't be seeing the Fuji director until Saturday evening, I'll just politely ask one or two questions and read between the lines from there. I might try and bump into him on Friday during the day. I'll report back middle of next week after I get home. He's a nice guy actually, a real gentleman. He was the first to come to my table and congratulate me last year, and I'd only met him on one previous occasion.

 

[Lindsay D]

OK, just found out they sent the specs to Adobe several weeks ago. Thus far Fuji have held off sending the docs to Apple. So my suspicion was correct - the commitment to X Trans had to be demonstrated with the new cameras and a confirmed release date, hence the technical documents finally being submitted fairly recently.

 

[petercastleton]

I've been round the block a few times. I'm the late adopter sort, only just getting used to my X10 then I hear the X20 is around the corner, I console myself by thinking the X10 was only £300 and there will always be a new model on the horizon. I've read most of this thread and considered debates over IQ. The bottom lines for me is does the camera feel comfortable to use, can I work with its limitations and can I make a decent print for club competitions. The X10 is reasonably priced, fit for my purposes and produces files of sufficient quality to get a decent print. Get out there and enjoy using what you have today I say!

Here's a shot from Brighton Pier where I enjoyed the inconspicuity of the camera:


strolling couples by petercastleton, on Flickr

 

[souldeep]

Hey Peter - welcome to the X10 thread and congratulations on bagging yourself an X10

Firstly feel consoled - you're in receipt of a great camera and amongst friends here. At the moment the X20 doesn't appear like it will make much difference to the quality of the photography you'll be able to produce using the X10. In my personal opinion the X10 is a camera that will hold it's own for years so it's not nearing the end of it's life any time soon. For the moment Fuji is continuing to sell the X10 and support it so no worries there either.

I like your picture - nice perspective and use of DOF. Great to see another B&W. Is that straight out the camera? Look forward to seeing more from you.

 

[petercastleton]

Souldeep, RAW conversion in LR4 with a bit of a tone curve. I'm not a pixel peeper but the RAWs and jpegs process ok for my mediocre standards. Love your images, you certainly get around a bit! Seems nice and friendly here.

 

[souldeep]

It is and thanks for the quick response and kind comment. I use LR4 as part of my workflow as well. Will try playing with tone curve and see if I can get better B&W results.

 

[Nod]

The prints get put in albums (or in the case of A3s, usually framed and stuck on the wall until a better one comes along, although I do have a couple of portfolio cases where the retired ones live for future perusal!) Even A3 prints take up very little space. Yes, they're 32.9cm x 48.3cm but less than 1mm thick, so can be slipped almost anywhere.

I know 800mm is only the forum limit but much above that and you need to scroll around to look at the picture which kinda spoils the effect!

As you point out, I've been round the block (seen the block built, demolished and rebuilt!!!) and am happy to share most of the experience (that is fit for public consumption and passes site rules!!!). As you say, it's the journey that's as much fun as the destination - try anything once (except ***gery!) as a much wiser man once said.

 

[souldeep]

The prints get put in albums (or in the case of A3s, usually framed and stuck on the wall until a better one comes along, although I do have a couple of portfolio cases where the retired ones live for future perusal!) Even A3 prints take up very little space. Yes, they're 32.9cm x 48.3cm but less than 1mm thick, so can be slipped almost anywhere.

From your own printer or sent off to be printed?

I know 800mm is only the forum limit but much above that and you need to scroll around to look at the picture which kinda spoils the effect!

I agree - 800px seems to be just right for the forum.

As you say, it's the journey that's as much fun as the destination - try anything once (except ***gery!) as a much wiser man once said.

I'd add munching on a kangaroo b*llock as well, but we certainly share the general philosophy

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is and thanks for the quick response and kind comment. I use LR4 as part of my workflow as well. Will try playing with tone curve and see if I can get better B&W results.

I think your own b/w conversions lack a little tone separation in the mid greys. (they are a little flat there) If you increase the angle in the middle portion of the curve it will make that region more contrasty. Just takes experimentation.

 

[Lindsay D]

Should have been in London by now but my website is under attack again. Surprise surprise. Some of you will remember the last time this happened, when it was construed I was being too positive about the X10. And I hear it from some sources that I am now apparently being too critical of Fuji, when in fact I'm simply reporting the current issues with XTrans.

The delay may mean that I don't now get a chance to have a word with Fuji when I finally do get up to London, and if I do, it will not be particularly wise for me to report any of it publicly. So it looks like I have no choice but to withdraw (once again) from any discussions on forums. I'm ready to *****ing scream.

 

[PJ S]

Sorry Lindsay, I'm pretty new to TP (but not forums) but I don't get the above comments.
What went on before? What am I missing?

Are you referring to a DoS attack or just some randoms making comments on your blog?
Moreover, why would you empower these idiots by letting them restrict you from speaking about what galls and frustrates you?

Seriously, give them the finger (metaphorically) by continuing to do as you've done, and don't let them pressure you into changing your ways/mind because their tiny minds with relatively few firing synapses can't cope.
That's their problem to deal with, not yours!

 

[AshleyC]

Well a couple of cosmetic changes I hope they apply is to move the viewfinder a couple of mm left so the lens doesn't show in it and a sensible lens ring thread size. And an official lens hood that doesn't have holes in it would be nice if they stick with the thread size.

 

[Lindsay D]

Sorry Lindsay, I'm pretty new to TP (but not forums) but I don't get the above comments.
What went on before? What am I missing?

Are you referring to a DoS attack or just some randoms making comments on your blog?
Moreover, why would you empower these idiots by letting them restrict you from speaking about what galls and frustrates you?

Seriously, give them the finger (metaphorically) by continuing to do as you've done, and don't let them pressure you into changing your ways/mind because their tiny minds with relatively few firing synapses can't cope.
That's their problem to deal with, not yours!

Hi Phil, You are right in many ways and that's the view I would like to take. But unfortunately as a full-time photographer with horrible overheads and horrendously long hours the attacks can have quite an impact, as it has this time in delaying me getting away to London, hence cancelled meetings etc. It's just not worth it, the process of testing and writing articles costs me a small fortune which I really cannot justify any more. I'll continue to mention kit here and there on my blog but there won't be any more dedicated features.

 

[souldeep]

Well a couple of cosmetic changes I hope they apply is to move the viewfinder a couple of mm left so the lens doesn't show in it and a sensible lens ring thread size. And an official lens hood that doesn't have holes in it would be nice if they stick with the thread size.

None of which they have done I'm afraid.

 

[souldeep]

I think your own b/w conversions lack a little tone separation in the mid greys. (they are a little flat there) If you increase the angle in the middle portion of the curve it will make that region more contrasty. Just takes experimentation.

Thanks Terry and good to hear from you. Will take that on board when I'm trying the tone curve

 

[souldeep]

Should have been in London by now but my website is under attack again. Surprise surprise. Some of you will remember the last time this happened, when it was construed I was being too positive about the X10. And I hear it from some sources that I am now apparently being too critical of Fuji, when in fact I'm simply reporting the current issues with XTrans.

The delay may mean that I don't now get a chance to have a word with Fuji when I finally do get up to London, and if I do, it will not be particularly wise for me to report any of it publicly. So it looks like I have no choice but to withdraw (once again) from any discussions on forums. I'm ready to *****ing scream.

Sorry to hear this Lindsay. I hope you’re up here now and relaxing with drinks and good conversation.

On your hacking problem. I think the new factor that it appears related to negative Fuji talk, whereas last time it appeared to be related to only positive Fuji talk, helps us rule out a single clued up fan boy.

I am also certain that if the attacks where specific to your Fuji opinions, whichever way they blow, you would see your different forum accounts being hacked rather than just your website.

I think that it's more likely to be another professional that is jealous of your success.

As Phil has said - if they find the attacks shut you up they have you forever under their control. I would focus on putting the pressure on your ISP. They have the responsibility to identify incoming attacks and stop them immediately. A part of my work is to analyse such attacks for some of the corporate sites we have delivered. We see quite a lot of corporate espionage especially in the insurance based systems. Trust me when I say this is the responsibility of your ISP to safeguard, monitor and protect your website. With even minimum monitoring in place an ISP should be able to block the majority of hack attacks within 30 seconds (from identification of attack through to the total blocking of the attackers range of IP’s).

 

[Lindsay D]

Unfortunately I'm still stuck here in Sussex.

Not revealing too much, there is no reason for the perpetrator to take interest in my forum accounts - my main voice is my blog, I'm close to the top of Google for many if not most of the things I talk about - that's where I get hit since it temporarily disables my business which costs me. Attacking my forum accounts would have no impact on that. I'm pretty sure it's not another professional. You should see some of the stuff I get over e-mail each day, not always very nice and often hard to trace, not originating from the UK.

The attacks are DOS and I can sort that kind of thing myself pretty instantly once I know about it, which isn't always immediate depending where I am. It's the repeated nature of it which becomes irritating.

 

[souldeep]

The attacks are DOS and I can sort that kind of thing myself pretty instantly once I know about it, which isn't always immediate depending where I am. It's the repeated nature of it which becomes irritating.

OK - ISP can deal with that almost instantly.

DOS usually takes the form of traffic/bandwidth overload on your website so others can’t access it for that period - or by locking out yours or your users accounts by locking accounts with wrong password attempts.

The former, in nearly all cases, originates from only one IP source. Easily identifiable type of attack if your site has a performance monitor set against it and your ISP can block the attack instantly. A quick discussion with them will also identify an amateur hackers geographical location.

The latter is harder to identify but very easy to remove as a vulnerability. Make sure that the password systems you use for your website, and your clientele use to access it, do not lock out accounts after X number of passwords attempts.

 

[Ali]

The camera and I have been a bit busy recently, so haven't had time to post anything for a while. Here are a few from the weekend. Had the sensor changed and am not sure it works as 'well' as it used to but will give it a bit of time to see if I have reset my settings appropriately.

It was generally a day for backlighting!


Up in the Hills 3 by PixAli, on Flickr


Up in the Hills 1 by PixAli, on Flickr


Up in the Hills 4 by PixAli, on Flickr


Up in the Hills 9 by PixAli, on Flickr

 

[Nod]

Aha I see - buy a printer. I haven't really considered that because I haven't heard about, or seen, good end results. Certainly a cheapish option (as long as you can get cheaper generic ink refills for the printer you own) - then the prints that stand out - send 'em off to a pro printers. Another area I'm going to need to research

Nod - I'm guessing when you referred to printing you mean on the home printer then? I would want to buy one that allowed A3 size. It sounds like you are very happy with your results. Can I ask what printer you use or recommend?

Cheap generic inks? :nono::shake: ! Another thing other than bugg*** that shouldn't be tried IMO! I used one once for a few prints and it was a near total disaster. Colours were way out (possibly corrected by proper profiling of the dodgy ink/paper combination) in the out tray and got worse as they dried then faded. Having seen that, I pulled the offending cart out and binned it straight away then installed a genuine one and did a few prints to flush the crap through the head to avoid head clogging. At a quick guess, saving a couple of quid ended up costing me extra once the wasted paper and extra inks were taken into account. Yes, genuine inks aren't cheap but cheap ones can screw things up royally!

My A3+ printer is a now elderly Canon iX4000. It's a 4 ink printer (CMYK) but delivers results that are as good as the A4 6 ink printer it replaced (Canon s820, CMYK,LtC&M). From time to time I consider upgrading to a newer model with more inks and probably better B&W capabilities but I'm happy enough with the prints mine delivers. I try to run at least a couple of A4s of per week to keep the juices flowing and it seems to work. After a fortnight away, it needs at least one A4 to give proper colours but after that, no problem! I've never costed it on a print by print basis but it's (to me at least) affordable and allows me more control than sending files off to labs for printing. If/when I do upgrade, it will be to whatever Canon's current offering is at the time. My wife uses an Epson 6 ink photo printer for up to A4 for her Yoga studio but is never as pleased with the results from that as she is when she gets me to run one off for her!