mike_earussi1

Then you've answered your own question. Under those specific circumstances IS would help. Your only other option would be to shoot at a higher iso, which would work if you're not making large prints.

Being able to handhold at 1/25 sec won't help you if the subject is moving. That's why I am puzzled by your post. With no movement you can do handheld focus stacking (something I've done plenty of times myself). But if there is any movement you can't do that. The only thing that will freeze movement is either a fast shutter speed or a flash--period. The only time IS will help you is if you're trying to photograph something that is completely still in low light.

A 10 bit video card affects only what you see on your monitor, not your print. But it may help you spot a subtle banding problem in a file before it's printed.

Inkjetmall has the best 3rd party ink reputation for Epson in the business so I doubt you'll have any head plugging issues. But you also won't get the longevity of OEM inks. Stylus Photo R1900

If you're printing exclusively on glossy/luster papers then the Canon Pro 100 using dye inks should work fine for you. But if you want to print on matte paper you'll need pigment inks, like the Pro 10 (and up) has. Also don't forget about color calibrating your monitor. BTW, Precision Color inks have a very good reputation for color accuracy, but they do fade much faster than Canon's OEM inks (with inks you get what you pay for).

If your subject is moving you either need a high shutter speed or a flash. IS helps stabilize you, not your subject. If flat lighting is OK with you then buy a ring flash. But if you want any modeling then you need something like this: Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Flash 2357A002 B&H Photo Video

<p>Use a white background and feather the light.</p>

<p>Only very expensive ($700-$1500) monitors can display 100% of Adobe RGB. All cheaper monitors show sRGB only. That's probably what you have.</p>

<p>Sigma cameras can produce the most spectacular images possible, but they are very specialized and do not make good all around cameras.<br> You don't mention whether you're shooting for the web or for print (or what size) but if you do wish to try a Sigma body then the best one would be a used DP3 Merrill. They can focus up to 1/3 lifesize, and by adding a dual element close up lens even closer. When you can find one they usually run around $500, but finding one can be a challenge as they are very popular. <br> But if you're wanting a good all around general purpose camera then I would recommend any of the mirrorless bodies on the market, as any lens ever made can be adapted to them. I own a Sony a6000 which I feel is the best camera for the price on the market and cost about $550. I also have a used Tamron 90mm f2.5 macro which I bought on eBay for $170 and is an excellent macro lens that goes to 1/2 lifesize and 1:1 with extension tubes. You can always buy a more expensive setup, but why do so if you don't have to. </p>

<p>I'm not a fan of OBAs myself and discovered that not every manufacturer is completely truthful about whether their papers contain OBAs. I got tired of guessing and so bought a UV light on Amazon for about $10. It proved to be a worthwhile investment as I caught a few "inaccuracies."</p> <p>I'm not familiar with "inexpensive," but high quality, matte papers, I just look for what I like. I have two favorites, one hot pressed matte and one heavily textured watercolor paper, their use depending on the image. The hot pressed matte is Canson's Rag Photographique, and the watercolor paper is Canon's Infinity Aquarelle. Unfortunately, neither one is particularly inexpensive, but they are very nice. </p>

<p>It's decent without being spectacular. If you get it for good price (i.e cheap) then it's worth it.</p>

<p>I you <em>really</em> want to do it, and the pay will cover it, then you might consider renting a lens.</p>

<p>A better term would probably be clarity, the feeling of dimensionality in a lens. This is usually determined by microcontrast, i.e. how much contrast the lens shows in the finest details. In film days Leica was the best followed by Contax (Zeiss). But today Zeiss has gone all out to be the best and so has improve markedly.</p> <p>I no longer keep up with Leica as it is way out of my price range, and if you want to shoot digitally are useable only on Leica bodies which always seem to me to be several generations behind the other manufactures. But Zeiss makes lenses for all major manufacturers, so if you can afford it, I doubt you'd be disappointed in the modern Zeiss glass.</p>

<p> I assume you have your monitor calibrated and are using soft proofing with Epson's profiles?<br> Not all colors can be printed (especially accurately) with even the best printers, there are always limitations.<br> Also different papers have different abilities to reproduce colors. Try a few other papers, maybe more professional ones like a good Baryta and see if you get better results.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Cone inks and Precision color inks are the ones I hear the most about people using, with Cone supposedly being the higher quality. But there are always risks using 3rd party inks (usually clogging and/or fading). If you're willing to take those risks then go for it and see what happens.</p> <p>There's also another forum you can ask here:<br> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1003</p>