landretti

<p>For me, street photography is about the way that composition tells the story. Without reasoned compostion, the story is flat. I like when shapes and shadows and lines draw my eye to add layers of meaning. I do not believe that this is easy by any means although sometimes we all get lucky. I don't see it in terms of the observer "getting it." I see it more in terms of the image "getting the observer." Let's face it, when you see an image that grabs AND holds you, there are composition principles at play and most likely the photographer constructed an intentioned scene to produce that quality. </p>

Let me be more specific. Is there anything the Canon can do that the Epson cannot.

I have had a Canon Pixma 9000 for several weeks and although it prints color just fine, I really want to do BW. If I

purchase an Epson 3800, is there any reason for me to keep the Canon? Thanks in advance.

I have had a Pixma Pro9000 for several weeks and am pleased with the performance and the color intensity.

However, it does not print true black and white and should not be purchased if that is your primary interest. Using all

colors to print BW will generally produce a magenta tone. Reducing the magenta helps but then the cyan emerges. I

have not printed many "grayscale only" so I cannot comment on that other than it is excruciatingly slow. You can get

an aftermarket BW set but it is expensive to clean the heads and once done, the printer should probably be

dedicated to BW because of that cost. My BW experience with the 9000 raises a question. If the machine is

incapabile of producing true black tones, the tint prolem must also extend into color photos within the shades of gray

through black and therefor degrade the "precision" of some color printing. Perhaps someone can comment about this.

I have struggled with the "carry weight" issue for some time. Here are my current thoughts. I have an XTi with a stable of nice lenses and a battery pack. I find it too heavy to carry into the woods for casual shooting (unless I strip it down and put on a 50 mm prime). So, I use the XTi when I have "intention of that quality of photography." I am going to upgrade to the 50D for the same shooting. Now, when I go on into the woods, I carry a Olympus 550 uz. It is light and versitile, like your G9 only with a 18x optical zoom. On a daily basis, I carry a Canon 770 in my pocket. The point here is that I find that I take more pictures with the lighter cameras becasue they are easier to carry. Nonetheless, they are no substitute for the quality of the SLR's. The Canon is 1.5 pounds, the XTi is slightly less at 20 oz. In summary, I don't find the body to be an issue but rather the weight of the lenses. The G9 is an awfully nice camera.

I have a bag full of cameras and lenses and will upgrade from a 400D to the 50cal. Having said this, Matt's post is illustrative. It almost seems like damn luck is one of the keys to a good shot. My point is that I hope for more damn luck with the 50D than I have had with other cameras.