thank you.
The funny thing is, I was working on a shot on the other side of the road. . .looked over my shoulder and said "Oooh" and took this quick shot. Came home to look at the files and liked this one better than the one I was working so hard on. :lol:

Hmmm. . .actually I lied. It was a RAW file, so it did get enhanced some before I even looked at the original. No wonder it looks so brilliant. .. but the red really was red looking in real life too. (Just like to be square about things :mrgreen: )

There are only a few printers optimized for photo printing in current production that fit on a typical office table. They print on up to 13" wide paper. All are “inkjet”. Two use dye ink. They are the Canon Pixma Pro-100 and Epson Artisan 1430. Three that use pigment ink, are the Canon Pixma Pro-10, Epson Stylus Photo R2000 and Epson Stylus Photo R3000. The R3000 is believed to be a little better than the R200 for B&W prints . Two more photo optimized printers have huge and pricy ink tanks and are aimed at high volume printers. They are the Canon Pro-1 and Epson 3880. Dye ink printers are less expensive, believed to be less likely to clog and the prints are assumed to resist fading for a few decades. Pigment ink printers cost more, are believed to be more likely to clog when used infrequently and the prints are expected to resist fading for several decades.

People that print for galleries and exhibitions tend to believe that pigment inks are a necessity. People that print for personal use often find the dye ink printers good enough. Owners of each of these seven printers will endorse their print quality. They are all capable of making stunning prints. None make poor prints. Ink cost per print can be argued, but it is nearly impossible to accurately measure. Unless you are a high volume printer, the marginal ink cost differences may not be significant.

In the end, choosing between these seven printers may come down to what's on sale, what is bundled with it and how big is the rebate. Places like B&H have all off them, price them competitively, ship for free and normally don't charge sales tax.

Two years ago I bought the cheapest one I could find at the time. It was the Canon Pixma Pro-100. Prints are wonderful, they will outlast me, it has not clogged (even with months of being turned off) and I think the cost per print is about the same or slightly less than "quality priced" commercial printing.

Do ya really think the guy that bought a Canon is going to say to you " Buy a Nikon I wish I had" or vica versa?
Not a chance in hell!! Your going to get a load of biased opinion from one brand blinkered people in the main. That is human nature at work.
So now engage brain huh. No one makes a bad camera, the two you are thinking about are excellent and equal in most ways. You have done some research already cos you know about the WiFi so the only differences is slight change in color rendition between Canon and Nikon and how they feel in your hand. Images you can see here and Nikon and Canon sites and how they feel in your hand can be investigated at your local camera store.
Easy huh so please engage brain before asking dumb questions and worse than dumb likely to lead to a very boring thread in which no one learns a damn thing including you.
By the way Im not rude as some will say just absolutely honest and cut through crap quickly.