Which printer to buy?

[Amal]

I am looking for my first photo printer and would appreciate the input of those who already have one, or two. I have the Epson Scan 2500 and the HP 1700 color printers but do not like the quality of photos printed from my digital camera.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Amal

 

[Michael Thomas Mitchell]

Amal,

Your question is perfectly legit, but expect to get plenty of responses of all types of owners enthusiastic about their printers. Actually, you can take this as a good sign, for wheras 3 years ago, only a couple of models delivered "photo quality", today many do. Ultimately, I think you'll find your decision based more on features and economics, with a touch of personal preference in image quality. Rather than recommend a specific brand, I'll just try to point you in some general directions. Actually, it's tough to go wrong with any number of printers now available. The toughest part will be learning how to use it to its potential.

The Big Three include models from HP (9xx and PhotoSmart series), Epson (take your pic), and Canon (the 8200 is getting the raves right now). A couple of Lexmark models are also standouts and I've seen some good prints from a new Xerox, but their user numbers are somewhat smaller.

EPSON

For serious photographers, this is often the only choice. I own 5 different models. For me, as a working pro, the advantage with these printers is their compatibility with continuous flow systems, which, instead of replacing individual cartridges, rather allows you to connect bottles of ink for endless printing with no cartridge replacement or refilling required. The small bottles of ink I intend to use with a 1200 should be good for the equivelent of up to 12 standard cartridges. When a single color gets low, the bottle is merely replaced. Savings potential is ENORMOUS. In addition, Epson printes are compatible with Quadtone inks, that is, inks in shades of black for gorgeous true black and white printing. Unfortunately, Epson's latest line of photo printers (870/875/1270) incorporate cartridges with built-in computer chips that prohibit refilling or third-party replacement. On the plus side, prints from these machines made with either Epson's Matte Heavyweight or Premium Glossy papers are suppose to rival many traditional film prints in longevity.

HP

HP's original PhotoSmart printer three years ago allowed users to make prints rivaling those from photo labs. Today, all of the 9xx series printers as well as the PhotoSmart line produce great results with only four colors. The real plus for these machines is their ability to also produce terrific looking text, easily rivaling laser quality. If you want just one printer to do all your work, from presentation quality letters and graphics to photos, you won't go wrong. The cartridges can be refilled with third party inks for economic printing. Bad news: no Mac compatibility.

CANON

"Unlike our competitors, this is not the first device we've made for photographers." Indeed, Canon has been at the forefront of photographic innovation for decades. I'm surprised they don't simply dominate the printer world. Still, the 8200 has been generating lots of buzz and the output from it is terrific. While various reviews and comparisons typically place the Epsons over their competitors in image quality, comparisons with the Canon are practically too close to call. I, for one, have been amazed with the incredible detail and gorgeous color. In addition, prints are virtually dotless, as close to continous tone as I've seen in an inkjet. Canon's inkjet cartridge system is innovative, too. This 6-color system employs inidvidual tanks for each color; you only replace what is empty, resulting in potential savings as you won't be throwing away perfectly good ink of one color just because another is empty. In addition, third-party inks and refills are available for this model.

Consider the features you need:
Large format?
Refillable or continuous flow for large volume printing?
Dedicated photo or all-purpose use?
Archival quality?

Personally, I've heard from too many people who debated endlessly which printer to buy and, after finally making the decision of a lifetime, obliterated their choice by using cheap paper. Nothing will take the place of using quality paper. And even quality paper produces tremendously varying image characteristics. Don't skimp on paper and even a "lowly" Epson 740 ($49 after rebate is the best price I've seen) can produce traditional film quality.

Good luck

Dale

I am looking for my first photo printer and would appreciate the
input of those who already have one, or two. I have the Epson Scan
2500 and the HP 1700 color printers but do not like the quality of
photos printed from my digital camera.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Amal

 

[Amal]

Dale,

Thanks a million for your thorough and insightful response. After reviewing it and reading some reviews on the printers you mentioned, I decided to go with the Caonon 2800. I will be using it soly for photo printing and cost of prints will be a factor. Thanks again.

Amal

Your question is perfectly legit, but expect to get plenty of
responses of all types of owners enthusiastic about their printers.
Actually, you can take this as a good sign, for wheras 3 years ago,
only a couple of models delivered "photo quality", today many do.
Ultimately, I think you'll find your decision based more on
features and economics, with a touch of personal preference in
image quality. Rather than recommend a specific brand, I'll just
try to point you in some general directions. Actually, it's tough
to go wrong with any number of printers now available. The toughest
part will be learning how to use it to its potential.

The Big Three include models from HP (9xx and PhotoSmart series),
Epson (take your pic), and Canon (the 8200 is getting the raves
right now). A couple of Lexmark models are also standouts and I've
seen some good prints from a new Xerox, but their user numbers are
somewhat smaller.

EPSON
For serious photographers, this is often the only choice. I own 5
different models. For me, as a working pro, the advantage with
these printers is their compatibility with continuous flow systems,
which, instead of replacing individual cartridges, rather allows
you to connect bottles of ink for endless printing with no
cartridge replacement or refilling required. The small bottles of
ink I intend to use with a 1200 should be good for the equivelent
of up to 12 standard cartridges. When a single color gets low, the
bottle is merely replaced. Savings potential is ENORMOUS. In
addition, Epson printes are compatible with Quadtone inks, that is,
inks in shades of black for gorgeous true black and white printing.
Unfortunately, Epson's latest line of photo printers (870/875/1270)
incorporate cartridges with built-in computer chips that prohibit
refilling or third-party replacement. On the plus side, prints from
these machines made with either Epson's Matte Heavyweight or
Premium Glossy papers are suppose to rival many traditional film
prints in longevity.

HP
HP's original PhotoSmart printer three years ago allowed users to
make prints rivaling those from photo labs. Today, all of the 9xx
series printers as well as the PhotoSmart line produce great
results with only four colors. The real plus for these machines is
their ability to also produce terrific looking text, easily
rivaling laser quality. If you want just one printer to do all your
work, from presentation quality letters and graphics to photos, you
won't go wrong. The cartridges can be refilled with third party
inks for economic printing. Bad news: no Mac compatibility.

CANON
"Unlike our competitors, this is not the first device we've made
for photographers." Indeed, Canon has been at the forefront of
photographic innovation for decades. I'm surprised they don't
simply dominate the printer world. Still, the 8200 has been
generating lots of buzz and the output from it is terrific. While
various reviews and comparisons typically place the Epsons over
their competitors in image quality, comparisons with the Canon are
practically too close to call. I, for one, have been amazed with
the incredible detail and gorgeous color. In addition, prints are
virtually dotless, as close to continous tone as I've seen in an
inkjet. Canon's inkjet cartridge system is innovative, too. This
6-color system employs inidvidual tanks for each color; you only
replace what is empty, resulting in potential savings as you won't
be throwing away perfectly good ink of one color just because
another is empty. In addition, third-party inks and refills are
available for this model.

Consider the features you need:
Large format?
Refillable or continuous flow for large volume printing?
Dedicated photo or all-purpose use?
Archival quality?

Personally, I've heard from too many people who debated endlessly
which printer to buy and, after finally making the decision of a
lifetime, obliterated their choice by using cheap paper. Nothing
will take the place of using quality paper. And even quality paper
produces tremendously varying image characteristics. Don't skimp on
paper and even a "lowly" Epson 740 ($49 after rebate is the best
price I've seen) can produce traditional film quality.

Good luck

Dale

I am looking for my first photo printer and would appreciate the
input of those who already have one, or two. I have the Epson Scan
2500 and the HP 1700 color printers but do not like the quality of
photos printed from my digital camera.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Amal

 

[Amal]

Oops, I mean the canon 8200
Amal

Thanks a million for your thorough and insightful response. After
reviewing it and reading some reviews on the printers you
mentioned, I decided to go with the Caonon 2800. I will be using it
soly for photo printing and cost of prints will be a factor.
Thanks again.

Amal

Your question is perfectly legit, but expect to get plenty of
responses of all types of owners enthusiastic about their printers.
Actually, you can take this as a good sign, for wheras 3 years ago,
only a couple of models delivered "photo quality", today many do.
Ultimately, I think you'll find your decision based more on
features and economics, with a touch of personal preference in
image quality. Rather than recommend a specific brand, I'll just
try to point you in some general directions. Actually, it's tough
to go wrong with any number of printers now available. The toughest
part will be learning how to use it to its potential.

The Big Three include models from HP (9xx and PhotoSmart series),
Epson (take your pic), and Canon (the 8200 is getting the raves
right now). A couple of Lexmark models are also standouts and I've
seen some good prints from a new Xerox, but their user numbers are
somewhat smaller.

EPSON
For serious photographers, this is often the only choice. I own 5
different models. For me, as a working pro, the advantage with
these printers is their compatibility with continuous flow systems,
which, instead of replacing individual cartridges, rather allows
you to connect bottles of ink for endless printing with no
cartridge replacement or refilling required. The small bottles of
ink I intend to use with a 1200 should be good for the equivelent
of up to 12 standard cartridges. When a single color gets low, the
bottle is merely replaced. Savings potential is ENORMOUS. In
addition, Epson printes are compatible with Quadtone inks, that is,
inks in shades of black for gorgeous true black and white printing.
Unfortunately, Epson's latest line of photo printers (870/875/1270)
incorporate cartridges with built-in computer chips that prohibit
refilling or third-party replacement. On the plus side, prints from
these machines made with either Epson's Matte Heavyweight or
Premium Glossy papers are suppose to rival many traditional film
prints in longevity.

HP
HP's original PhotoSmart printer three years ago allowed users to
make prints rivaling those from photo labs. Today, all of the 9xx
series printers as well as the PhotoSmart line produce great
results with only four colors. The real plus for these machines is
their ability to also produce terrific looking text, easily
rivaling laser quality. If you want just one printer to do all your
work, from presentation quality letters and graphics to photos, you
won't go wrong. The cartridges can be refilled with third party
inks for economic printing. Bad news: no Mac compatibility.

CANON
"Unlike our competitors, this is not the first device we've made
for photographers." Indeed, Canon has been at the forefront of
photographic innovation for decades. I'm surprised they don't
simply dominate the printer world. Still, the 8200 has been
generating lots of buzz and the output from it is terrific. While
various reviews and comparisons typically place the Epsons over
their competitors in image quality, comparisons with the Canon are
practically too close to call. I, for one, have been amazed with
the incredible detail and gorgeous color. In addition, prints are
virtually dotless, as close to continous tone as I've seen in an
inkjet. Canon's inkjet cartridge system is innovative, too. This
6-color system employs inidvidual tanks for each color; you only
replace what is empty, resulting in potential savings as you won't
be throwing away perfectly good ink of one color just because
another is empty. In addition, third-party inks and refills are
available for this model.

Consider the features you need:
Large format?
Refillable or continuous flow for large volume printing?
Dedicated photo or all-purpose use?
Archival quality?

Personally, I've heard from too many people who debated endlessly
which printer to buy and, after finally making the decision of a
lifetime, obliterated their choice by using cheap paper. Nothing
will take the place of using quality paper. And even quality paper
produces tremendously varying image characteristics. Don't skimp on
paper and even a "lowly" Epson 740 ($49 after rebate is the best
price I've seen) can produce traditional film quality.

Good luck

Dale

I am looking for my first photo printer and would appreciate the
input of those who already have one, or two. I have the Epson Scan
2500 and the HP 1700 color printers but do not like the quality of
photos printed from my digital camera.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Amal

 

[Michael Thomas Mitchell]

Amal,

Glad to be of help. There's no doubt you'll be pleased with it. At least one review I've read says that it produces the best results of ANY inkjet currently on the market. Of course, others may cry Epson or HP, but that just shows how good the market is as a whole and hard is to go wrong with so many choices.

One thing I forgot to mention: if you use Mac, you'll need to download updated drivers. The ones included with the printer may be out of date and cause a few problems that have now been fixed.

By the way, if you havn't tried them already, go to Red River Paper for your paper needs. Their own brands are terrific and they stock others as well.

http://www.redriverpaper.com

Dale

Thanks a million for your thorough and insightful response. After
reviewing it and reading some reviews on the printers you
mentioned, I decided to go with the Caonon 2800. I will be using it
soly for photo printing and cost of prints will be a factor.
Thanks again.

Amal

Your question is perfectly legit, but expect to get plenty of
responses of all types of owners enthusiastic about their printers.
Actually, you can take this as a good sign, for wheras 3 years ago,
only a couple of models delivered "photo quality", today many do.
Ultimately, I think you'll find your decision based more on
features and economics, with a touch of personal preference in
image quality. Rather than recommend a specific brand, I'll just
try to point you in some general directions. Actually, it's tough
to go wrong with any number of printers now available. The toughest
part will be learning how to use it to its potential.

The Big Three include models from HP (9xx and PhotoSmart series),
Epson (take your pic), and Canon (the 8200 is getting the raves
right now). A couple of Lexmark models are also standouts and I've
seen some good prints from a new Xerox, but their user numbers are
somewhat smaller.

EPSON
For serious photographers, this is often the only choice. I own 5
different models. For me, as a working pro, the advantage with
these printers is their compatibility with continuous flow systems,
which, instead of replacing individual cartridges, rather allows
you to connect bottles of ink for endless printing with no
cartridge replacement or refilling required. The small bottles of
ink I intend to use with a 1200 should be good for the equivelent
of up to 12 standard cartridges. When a single color gets low, the
bottle is merely replaced. Savings potential is ENORMOUS. In
addition, Epson printes are compatible with Quadtone inks, that is,
inks in shades of black for gorgeous true black and white printing.
Unfortunately, Epson's latest line of photo printers (870/875/1270)
incorporate cartridges with built-in computer chips that prohibit
refilling or third-party replacement. On the plus side, prints from
these machines made with either Epson's Matte Heavyweight or
Premium Glossy papers are suppose to rival many traditional film
prints in longevity.

HP
HP's original PhotoSmart printer three years ago allowed users to
make prints rivaling those from photo labs. Today, all of the 9xx
series printers as well as the PhotoSmart line produce great
results with only four colors. The real plus for these machines is
their ability to also produce terrific looking text, easily
rivaling laser quality. If you want just one printer to do all your
work, from presentation quality letters and graphics to photos, you
won't go wrong. The cartridges can be refilled with third party
inks for economic printing. Bad news: no Mac compatibility.

CANON
"Unlike our competitors, this is not the first device we've made
for photographers." Indeed, Canon has been at the forefront of
photographic innovation for decades. I'm surprised they don't
simply dominate the printer world. Still, the 8200 has been
generating lots of buzz and the output from it is terrific. While
various reviews and comparisons typically place the Epsons over
their competitors in image quality, comparisons with the Canon are
practically too close to call. I, for one, have been amazed with
the incredible detail and gorgeous color. In addition, prints are
virtually dotless, as close to continous tone as I've seen in an
inkjet. Canon's inkjet cartridge system is innovative, too. This
6-color system employs inidvidual tanks for each color; you only
replace what is empty, resulting in potential savings as you won't
be throwing away perfectly good ink of one color just because
another is empty. In addition, third-party inks and refills are
available for this model.

Consider the features you need:
Large format?
Refillable or continuous flow for large volume printing?
Dedicated photo or all-purpose use?
Archival quality?

Personally, I've heard from too many people who debated endlessly
which printer to buy and, after finally making the decision of a
lifetime, obliterated their choice by using cheap paper. Nothing
will take the place of using quality paper. And even quality paper
produces tremendously varying image characteristics. Don't skimp on
paper and even a "lowly" Epson 740 ($49 after rebate is the best
price I've seen) can produce traditional film quality.

Good luck

Dale

I am looking for my first photo printer and would appreciate the
input of those who already have one, or two. I have the Epson Scan
2500 and the HP 1700 color printers but do not like the quality of
photos printed from my digital camera.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Amal

 

[dgrogers]

I own an 8200, and am very happy with it. I'm also very hard to please.

Thanks a million for your thorough and insightful response. After
reviewing it and reading some reviews on the printers you
mentioned, I decided to go with the Caonon 2800. I will be using it
soly for photo printing and cost of prints will be a factor.
Thanks again.

Amal

Your question is perfectly legit, but expect to get plenty of
responses of all types of owners enthusiastic about their printers.
Actually, you can take this as a good sign, for wheras 3 years ago,
only a couple of models delivered "photo quality", today many do.
Ultimately, I think you'll find your decision based more on
features and economics, with a touch of personal preference in
image quality. Rather than recommend a specific brand, I'll just
try to point you in some general directions. Actually, it's tough
to go wrong with any number of printers now available. The toughest
part will be learning how to use it to its potential.

The Big Three include models from HP (9xx and PhotoSmart series),
Epson (take your pic), and Canon (the 8200 is getting the raves
right now). A couple of Lexmark models are also standouts and I've
seen some good prints from a new Xerox, but their user numbers are
somewhat smaller.

EPSON
For serious photographers, this is often the only choice. I own 5
different models. For me, as a working pro, the advantage with
these printers is their compatibility with continuous flow systems,
which, instead of replacing individual cartridges, rather allows
you to connect bottles of ink for endless printing with no
cartridge replacement or refilling required. The small bottles of
ink I intend to use with a 1200 should be good for the equivelent
of up to 12 standard cartridges. When a single color gets low, the
bottle is merely replaced. Savings potential is ENORMOUS. In
addition, Epson printes are compatible with Quadtone inks, that is,
inks in shades of black for gorgeous true black and white printing.
Unfortunately, Epson's latest line of photo printers (870/875/1270)
incorporate cartridges with built-in computer chips that prohibit
refilling or third-party replacement. On the plus side, prints from
these machines made with either Epson's Matte Heavyweight or
Premium Glossy papers are suppose to rival many traditional film
prints in longevity.

HP
HP's original PhotoSmart printer three years ago allowed users to
make prints rivaling those from photo labs. Today, all of the 9xx
series printers as well as the PhotoSmart line produce great
results with only four colors. The real plus for these machines is
their ability to also produce terrific looking text, easily
rivaling laser quality. If you want just one printer to do all your
work, from presentation quality letters and graphics to photos, you
won't go wrong. The cartridges can be refilled with third party
inks for economic printing. Bad news: no Mac compatibility.

CANON
"Unlike our competitors, this is not the first device we've made
for photographers." Indeed, Canon has been at the forefront of
photographic innovation for decades. I'm surprised they don't
simply dominate the printer world. Still, the 8200 has been
generating lots of buzz and the output from it is terrific. While
various reviews and comparisons typically place the Epsons over
their competitors in image quality, comparisons with the Canon are
practically too close to call. I, for one, have been amazed with
the incredible detail and gorgeous color. In addition, prints are
virtually dotless, as close to continous tone as I've seen in an
inkjet. Canon's inkjet cartridge system is innovative, too. This
6-color system employs inidvidual tanks for each color; you only
replace what is empty, resulting in potential savings as you won't
be throwing away perfectly good ink of one color just because
another is empty. In addition, third-party inks and refills are
available for this model.

Consider the features you need:
Large format?
Refillable or continuous flow for large volume printing?
Dedicated photo or all-purpose use?
Archival quality?

Personally, I've heard from too many people who debated endlessly
which printer to buy and, after finally making the decision of a
lifetime, obliterated their choice by using cheap paper. Nothing
will take the place of using quality paper. And even quality paper
produces tremendously varying image characteristics. Don't skimp on
paper and even a "lowly" Epson 740 ($49 after rebate is the best
price I've seen) can produce traditional film quality.

Good luck

Dale

I am looking for my first photo printer and would appreciate the
input of those who already have one, or two. I have the Epson Scan
2500 and the HP 1700 color printers but do not like the quality of
photos printed from my digital camera.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Amal

 

[Amal]

dgrougers

This is very assuring. I am hard to please too, especially when it comes to photos.

Amal

Thanks a million for your thorough and insightful response. After
reviewing it and reading some reviews on the printers you
mentioned, I decided to go with the Caonon 2800. I will be using it
soly for photo printing and cost of prints will be a factor.
Thanks again.

Amal

Your question is perfectly legit, but expect to get plenty of
responses of all types of owners enthusiastic about their printers.
Actually, you can take this as a good sign, for wheras 3 years ago,
only a couple of models delivered "photo quality", today many do.
Ultimately, I think you'll find your decision based more on
features and economics, with a touch of personal preference in
image quality. Rather than recommend a specific brand, I'll just
try to point you in some general directions. Actually, it's tough
to go wrong with any number of printers now available. The toughest
part will be learning how to use it to its potential.

The Big Three include models from HP (9xx and PhotoSmart series),
Epson (take your pic), and Canon (the 8200 is getting the raves
right now). A couple of Lexmark models are also standouts and I've
seen some good prints from a new Xerox, but their user numbers are
somewhat smaller.

EPSON
For serious photographers, this is often the only choice. I own 5
different models. For me, as a working pro, the advantage with
these printers is their compatibility with continuous flow systems,
which, instead of replacing individual cartridges, rather allows
you to connect bottles of ink for endless printing with no
cartridge replacement or refilling required. The small bottles of
ink I intend to use with a 1200 should be good for the equivelent
of up to 12 standard cartridges. When a single color gets low, the
bottle is merely replaced. Savings potential is ENORMOUS. In
addition, Epson printes are compatible with Quadtone inks, that is,
inks in shades of black for gorgeous true black and white printing.
Unfortunately, Epson's latest line of photo printers (870/875/1270)
incorporate cartridges with built-in computer chips that prohibit
refilling or third-party replacement. On the plus side, prints from
these machines made with either Epson's Matte Heavyweight or
Premium Glossy papers are suppose to rival many traditional film
prints in longevity.

HP
HP's original PhotoSmart printer three years ago allowed users to
make prints rivaling those from photo labs. Today, all of the 9xx
series printers as well as the PhotoSmart line produce great
results with only four colors. The real plus for these machines is
their ability to also produce terrific looking text, easily
rivaling laser quality. If you want just one printer to do all your
work, from presentation quality letters and graphics to photos, you
won't go wrong. The cartridges can be refilled with third party
inks for economic printing. Bad news: no Mac compatibility.

CANON
"Unlike our competitors, this is not the first device we've made
for photographers." Indeed, Canon has been at the forefront of
photographic innovation for decades. I'm surprised they don't
simply dominate the printer world. Still, the 8200 has been
generating lots of buzz and the output from it is terrific. While
various reviews and comparisons typically place the Epsons over
their competitors in image quality, comparisons with the Canon are
practically too close to call. I, for one, have been amazed with
the incredible detail and gorgeous color. In addition, prints are
virtually dotless, as close to continous tone as I've seen in an
inkjet. Canon's inkjet cartridge system is innovative, too. This
6-color system employs inidvidual tanks for each color; you only
replace what is empty, resulting in potential savings as you won't
be throwing away perfectly good ink of one color just because
another is empty. In addition, third-party inks and refills are
available for this model.

Consider the features you need:
Large format?
Refillable or continuous flow for large volume printing?
Dedicated photo or all-purpose use?
Archival quality?

Personally, I've heard from too many people who debated endlessly
which printer to buy and, after finally making the decision of a
lifetime, obliterated their choice by using cheap paper. Nothing
will take the place of using quality paper. And even quality paper
produces tremendously varying image characteristics. Don't skimp on
paper and even a "lowly" Epson 740 ($49 after rebate is the best
price I've seen) can produce traditional film quality.

Good luck

Dale

I am looking for my first photo printer and would appreciate the
input of those who already have one, or two. I have the Epson Scan
2500 and the HP 1700 color printers but do not like the quality of
photos printed from my digital camera.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Amal

 

[Kristin Bliss]

OK- I need you to back up a step Dale. What if archival quality is an issue. I am a new user of an Olympus Z2000 and I own an Epson Stylus Color 850 (my third Epson), but I want to print pictures that are going to last. I heard Alps used to be the affordable way to go,being dye Sub. instead of ink jet, but they are no longer marketing printers. Who would you reccommend?

Kristin

Glad to be of help. There's no doubt you'll be pleased with it. At
least one review I've read says that it produces the best results
of ANY inkjet currently on the market. Of course, others may cry
Epson or HP, but that just shows how good the market is as a whole
and hard is to go wrong with so many choices.

One thing I forgot to mention: if you use Mac, you'll need to
download updated drivers. The ones included with the printer may be
out of date and cause a few problems that have now been fixed.

By the way, if you havn't tried them already, go to Red River Paper
for your paper needs. Their own brands are terrific and they stock
others as well.

http://www.redriverpaper.com

Dale

Thanks a million for your thorough and insightful response. After
reviewing it and reading some reviews on the printers you
mentioned, I decided to go with the Caonon 2800. I will be using it
soly for photo printing and cost of prints will be a factor.
Thanks again.

Amal

Your question is perfectly legit, but expect to get plenty of
responses of all types of owners enthusiastic about their printers.
Actually, you can take this as a good sign, for wheras 3 years ago,
only a couple of models delivered "photo quality", today many do.
Ultimately, I think you'll find your decision based more on
features and economics, with a touch of personal preference in
image quality. Rather than recommend a specific brand, I'll just
try to point you in some general directions. Actually, it's tough
to go wrong with any number of printers now available. The toughest
part will be learning how to use it to its potential.

The Big Three include models from HP (9xx and PhotoSmart series),
Epson (take your pic), and Canon (the 8200 is getting the raves
right now). A couple of Lexmark models are also standouts and I've
seen some good prints from a new Xerox, but their user numbers are
somewhat smaller.

EPSON
For serious photographers, this is often the only choice. I own 5
different models. For me, as a working pro, the advantage with
these printers is their compatibility with continuous flow systems,
which, instead of replacing individual cartridges, rather allows
you to connect bottles of ink for endless printing with no
cartridge replacement or refilling required. The small bottles of
ink I intend to use with a 1200 should be good for the equivelent
of up to 12 standard cartridges. When a single color gets low, the
bottle is merely replaced. Savings potential is ENORMOUS. In
addition, Epson printes are compatible with Quadtone inks, that is,
inks in shades of black for gorgeous true black and white printing.
Unfortunately, Epson's latest line of photo printers (870/875/1270)
incorporate cartridges with built-in computer chips that prohibit
refilling or third-party replacement. On the plus side, prints from
these machines made with either Epson's Matte Heavyweight or
Premium Glossy papers are suppose to rival many traditional film
prints in longevity.

HP
HP's original PhotoSmart printer three years ago allowed users to
make prints rivaling those from photo labs. Today, all of the 9xx
series printers as well as the PhotoSmart line produce great
results with only four colors. The real plus for these machines is
their ability to also produce terrific looking text, easily
rivaling laser quality. If you want just one printer to do all your
work, from presentation quality letters and graphics to photos, you
won't go wrong. The cartridges can be refilled with third party
inks for economic printing. Bad news: no Mac compatibility.

CANON
"Unlike our competitors, this is not the first device we've made
for photographers." Indeed, Canon has been at the forefront of
photographic innovation for decades. I'm surprised they don't
simply dominate the printer world. Still, the 8200 has been
generating lots of buzz and the output from it is terrific. While
various reviews and comparisons typically place the Epsons over
their competitors in image quality, comparisons with the Canon are
practically too close to call. I, for one, have been amazed with
the incredible detail and gorgeous color. In addition, prints are
virtually dotless, as close to continous tone as I've seen in an
inkjet. Canon's inkjet cartridge system is innovative, too. This
6-color system employs inidvidual tanks for each color; you only
replace what is empty, resulting in potential savings as you won't
be throwing away perfectly good ink of one color just because
another is empty. In addition, third-party inks and refills are
available for this model.

Consider the features you need:
Large format?
Refillable or continuous flow for large volume printing?
Dedicated photo or all-purpose use?
Archival quality?

Personally, I've heard from too many people who debated endlessly
which printer to buy and, after finally making the decision of a
lifetime, obliterated their choice by using cheap paper. Nothing
will take the place of using quality paper. And even quality paper
produces tremendously varying image characteristics. Don't skimp on
paper and even a "lowly" Epson 740 ($49 after rebate is the best
price I've seen) can produce traditional film quality.

Good luck

Dale

I am looking for my first photo printer and would appreciate the
input of those who already have one, or two. I have the Epson Scan
2500 and the HP 1700 color printers but do not like the quality of
photos printed from my digital camera.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Amal

 

[TZZDC26562]

Honestly I like the idea of the 3rd party inks from the bottle which kicks but you cant use it with the 870,875DC,1270 which I'm looking to buy. Can someone please send me prints on matte and glossy paper from a Canon 8200 series printer (4x6 would be fine) E-mail me for address.

I have a 932C and it does beautiful prints but I'm looking to upgrade to either an Epson 870 or the new PM-900C, 7 color printer, either that or the canon 8200.

The only thing that discourages me from the Canon is the 1200x1200DPI which is alittle on the low side.
But if the prints are beautiful then I can give it a whirl.

 

[TZZDC26562]

I am very hard to please
for the love of god I dont even have a girlfriend and I'm 18
hehe I'm not picky when it comes to girls but printers and computers yes

for me my motto is:
"Go BIG or go HOME"

 

[TZZDC26562]

too bad its only the 2000P from Epson that has the Microencapsulation technology delivering 200 years of fade resistance.

I like the printer but I've heard that its a pain in the rear to get the colors right on and the printer is pricey.

 

[dannyjl]

I forgot to mention last week when talking about the new Epson 900 that Cannon also introduced a new killer printer, the 870. The demo prints I've seen are outstanding. The printer is 2400 x 1200 dpi and Cannon claims a 20 yr. lifespan for prints made on their pricey pro paper. Looks great but I'm still leaning towards the Epson with its wide range of papers.
danny

 

[TZZDC26562]

when are they coming out now?

 

[dgrogers]

Actually, Canon's 8200 has a better DPI rating than Epson's 870,875DC, and 1270. Remember, that's 1200x1200 vs 1440x700.

Honestly I like the idea of the 3rd party inks from the bottle
which kicks but you cant use it with the 870,875DC,1270 which I'm
looking to buy. Can someone please send me prints on matte and
glossy paper from a Canon 8200 series printer (4x6 would be fine)
E-mail me for address.

I have a 932C and it does beautiful prints but I'm looking to
upgrade to either an Epson 870 or the new PM-900C, 7 color printer,
either that or the canon 8200.

The only thing that discourages me from the Canon is the
1200x1200DPI which is alittle on the low side.
But if the prints are beautiful then I can give it a whirl.

 

[dgrogers]

Canon 870??? You sure you didn't mix it up with Epson's model? Anyway, Canons Photo Paper Pro is no more expensive than other paper of comparable quality (including Konica QP and others). But please, give me more information about Canon's new model (they told me they would also be bringing out an archival inkset for the 8200).

I forgot to mention last week when talking about the new Epson 900
that Cannon also introduced a new killer printer, the 870. The demo
prints I've seen are outstanding. The printer is 2400 x 1200 dpi
and Cannon claims a 20 yr. lifespan for prints made on their pricey
pro paper. Looks great but I'm still leaning towards the Epson with
its wide range of papers.
danny

 

[dgrogers]

Canon will send you samples if you ask them. Check out this link-- http://www.ccsi.canon.com/goto.shtml?/bjc/index.html .

Honestly I like the idea of the 3rd party inks from the bottle
which kicks but you cant use it with the 870,875DC,1270 which I'm
looking to buy. Can someone please send me prints on matte and
glossy paper from a Canon 8200 series printer (4x6 would be fine)
E-mail me for address.

I have a 932C and it does beautiful prints but I'm looking to
upgrade to either an Epson 870 or the new PM-900C, 7 color printer,
either that or the canon 8200.

The only thing that discourages me from the Canon is the
1200x1200DPI which is alittle on the low side.
But if the prints are beautiful then I can give it a whirl.

 

[dgrogers]

Sorry, it didn't work out right (sends you to the general printer page, guess it won't let you go straight to the product info page). Anyway, select the 8200, then click on request product info and select the printers you want prints from.

Honestly I like the idea of the 3rd party inks from the bottle
which kicks but you cant use it with the 870,875DC,1270 which I'm
looking to buy. Can someone please send me prints on matte and
glossy paper from a Canon 8200 series printer (4x6 would be fine)
E-mail me for address.

I have a 932C and it does beautiful prints but I'm looking to
upgrade to either an Epson 870 or the new PM-900C, 7 color printer,
either that or the canon 8200.

The only thing that discourages me from the Canon is the
1200x1200DPI which is alittle on the low side.
But if the prints are beautiful then I can give it a whirl.

 

[dannyjl]

I forgot to mention last week when talking about the new Epson 900
that Cannon also introduced a new killer printer, the 870. The demo
prints I've seen are outstanding. The printer is 2400 x 1200 dpi
and Cannon claims a 20 yr. lifespan for prints made on their pricey
pro paper. Looks great but I'm still leaning towards the Epson with
its wide range of papers.
danny

No man, this is the scene in Japan and I'm sure the 870 will come out with a different number as usual when it is released in the states. The Cannon paper in Japan is about 30% moe expensive than Epson's top quality stuff. I'd stay away form the Konica. My prints faded after about 6 months.

 

[N. Nolan]

Does the F870 support both parallel and USB connections,
or just USB only? Since I can't read Japanese I can't tell
from the Canon press announcement. Thanks for any info!

I forgot to mention last week when talking about the new Epson 900
that Cannon also introduced a new killer printer, the 870. The demo
prints I've seen are outstanding. The printer is 2400 x 1200 dpi
and Cannon claims a 20 yr. lifespan for prints made on their pricey
pro paper. Looks great but I'm still leaning towards the Epson with
its wide range of papers.
danny

No man, this is the scene in Japan and I'm sure the 870 will come
out with a different number as usual when it is released in the
states. The Cannon paper in Japan is about 30% moe expensive than
Epson's top quality stuff. I'd stay away form the Konica. My prints
faded after about 6 months.

 

[Michael McNight]

Amal,

I work at the Las Vegas Convention Center and get to attend all the major trade shows like Comdex, Consumer Electronics, PMA ect...

Basically I collect print samples from the booths and then hang them in my office under fluorescent lighting. Originally, I hung then because they were such excellent studio photos. But then, over a short amount of time, I noticed that they started to fade. Some more than others. Keep in mind these photos were printed by the manufactures and are optimized to show the best the side of their printers.

The first to fade was the HP sample, then the Canon. The Canon photo I picked-up at PMA last Feb. By summer the black background behind the model had turned brown. This shocked me since it was a very large and sharp print of a beautiful model's head and the guy at the Canon booth told me it came off a $2400 inkjet printer. I didn't get the model number, but I saw the same print this week at Comdex so I'll see if I can get it. I'm not sure how many large format printers actually Canon makes.

Bottom line: I also had a print hanging I made off my old(Dec-96) Epson Color Stylus 500 printer and the blacks never faded! I now have a Epson 1270 and the prints are supposed to last even longer! While all of the top of-the-line printers can produce excellent photos, which will probably last in a photo album, do you want prints you can hang on the wall w/o fading?

It should be noted that even the B&W photos( conventional 35mm prints) that hang on my shop walls fade under the fluorescent lighting. The ones closest to the lights fading the most.

PS: I use an Epson 800 at work and go through about one set of cartridges every two to three weeks. When I pull the color cartridge out I've found rarely is there any ink left in one of the three tanks. Surprisingly, all three tanks empty quite equally. So this thing about separate color tanks I think is a lot of hype!