Epson C80 CRASHES and BURNS...

If you're tempted to get the brand-spanking-new Epson C80 on account of its fancy pigment-based 70-years-before-they-fade inks, don't bother. It sucks.

Well, it sucks for ME, anyway. Or it sucks for printing photographs. I have a C-3040z. Using the bundled Camedia 2.5 software and my bog-standard $79 Lexmark Z22 printer (that I only have because it came FREE with my iMac), with no special settings whatsoever, the prints look just gorgeous--great color, great contrast, great detail. And, I might add, the prints look very close to what the monitor looks like.

Printing the same files with the Epson C80 on the very same paper (Epson Matte Heavyweight) at the very same standard settings was a disaster. The prints look muddy, grayed-out, and waaay undersaturated. So I tried everything--decreasing brightness, increasing contrast, playing with the gamma--and eventually I made a print that looked much better (although then it looked nothing at all like the monitor!) but I couldn't for the life of me make a print that looked anywhere close to as good as the set-it-and-forget-it Lexmark.

I should add that I have a degree in photography and used to be a custom printer, so I know what to try when something looks wrong. I'm sure a Photoshop expert could come a lot closer to a decent print than I did with my simple bundled software, but I have my doubts that it would look anywhere near what you can get with an actual PHOTO printer.

I also got caught in a very peculiar limbo with regard to support. The only way I could get support from the STORE (CompUSA) was if I had purchased a special support package--so they not only wouldn't help me, they wouldn't even give me Epson Support's phone number! But I couldn't get to Epson Support from their website, because to do so, you have to pick from a menu and indicate what product you have--but they have NOTHING about the C80 up on their website yet, so of course it's not in their menu to pick!! So I was effectively completely cut off from Epson support. It really is inexcusable for a major company to bring a product to market and not be able to get basic information about the product up on the web. What, did their own product introduction sneak up and surprise the hell out of them?!? Must have. Or else the webmaster is on vacation or something.

The only thing the store would let me do is return the printer for a refund. Which, of course, I hastily did.

I don't know if there are just bugs in the system still (the C80 is only a few days on the market at this point) or what, but if it's a photo printer you're after, I'd say avoid it--or at least wait a while until its foibles are better known.

--Mike
-- http://www.37thframe.com

I haven't used the C80 (you're the first person I've seen post something based on hands-on experience -- the printers weren't supposed to ship until Sept 4), and it may not be up to snuff, but generally Epson printers produce nice output. I've found that if you're going to do photos on an Epson, you need to set the driver to "Photo Enhance". Anything else generally does a poor job. Biut again, it may not be a very good device.

The monitor issue is different and I think your criticism here is unfair. Really no printer should be expected to calibrate with a monitor, any more than a monitor should be expected to match a printer (really it's the same thing, so if you had the printer first then the monitor would suck if it didn't match?). Different devices will render color differently, especially when they have totally different gamuts and use entirely different color technologies. Since no two monitors render the same way, it's unreasonable to expect a printer to do so. Just be glad your Lexmark is doing the job for you!

Mike J. said:

If you're tempted to get the brand-spanking-new Epson C80 on
account of its fancy pigment-based 70-years-before-they-fade inks,
don't bother. It sucks.

Click to expand...

Don Cooper said:

I haven't used the C80 (you're the first person I've seen post
something based on hands-on experience -- the printers weren't
supposed to ship until Sept 4)

Click to expand...

Don,

Thanks for the response. My CompUSA has a whole stack of them as of Tuesday, and I've got one sitting right here on my desk. But that might explain why they're nowhere to be seen on the Epson website.

Member said:

I've found that if
you're going to do photos on an Epson, you need to set the driver
to "Photo Enhance". Anything else generally does a poor job.

Click to expand...

I tried that. Didn't seem to help.

Member said:

The monitor issue is different and I think your criticism here is
unfair. Really no printer should be expected to calibrate with a
monitor, any more than a monitor should be expected to match a
printer (really it's the same thing, so if you had the printer
first then the monitor would suck if it didn't match?). Different
devices will render color differently, especially when they have
totally different gamuts and use entirely different color
technologies. Since no two monitors render the same way, it's
unreasonable to expect a printer to do so.

Click to expand...

Okay, I accept all that. In fact I'm pretty sure I'm not giving the Epson a very fair tryout. But my friend Michael Reichmann (who has a digital website at http://www.luminous-landscape.com ) tells me it's because the C80 has four inks and the better photo printers have six and "it makes all the difference in the world." I'm prepared to believe that based on what I've seen today.

Member said:

Just be glad your
Lexmark is doing the job for you!

Click to expand...

Except according to the Canon website, Lexmark printers are the one major brand with real fading problems still. I don't know which is worse--getting a great print that isn't going to last worth spit, or getting a print that will last 75 years but isn't any good in the first place!

I suppose the BEST thing to do would be to wait until the inevitable Epson printer comes out that is called a "Stylus PHOTO" and uses six colors of the DuraBrite pigment inks.

--Mike

We want to get one of these to check it out, so we'll someone out today to see if the local CompUSA has them in stock.

Generally the six color photo printers are better for photos, but not that different. So if the C80 is a stinker, I wouldn't think a six ink version would be that wonderful.

It might be the paper. The pigment inks may not work well with all media. I think the 2000 had this problem with some types of glossy stock, but I can't recall all the details, and I could be wrong.

In the meantime, you might want to try the 785, it's under a hundred dollars and MacWorld ranks it number 1 for photos (based partly on price at around $200). In the right paper and in photo realistic mode, this printer will turn out nice prints.

Don Cooper said:

It might be the paper. The pigment inks may not work well with all
media. I think the 2000 had this problem with some types of glossy
stock, but I can't recall all the details, and I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Could be. I don't think I'm a very good de facto beta-tester for the device, since I don't have much expertise and I'm not very committed to getting the best out of it before making up my mind; real reviewers have a responsibility to get a device working as well as it can before judging it, and I don't have that degree of dedication in this case. I'm not going to try ten different papers with it. Actually, I'm not going to try two different papers with it, since I really like the surface of Matte Heavyweight and I want to print on that. I'm just an idiosyncratic consumer, disappointed that the supposed latest and greatest from the supposed best company in the inkjet field can't beat out the lowly freebie I got from MacMall.

Member said:

785

Click to expand...

Actually I'm looking at the Canon S800 at this point. It seems to have a lot of supporters here on dpreview. I like the idea of individually replaceable ink cartridges and replaceable print heads, and the output I've seen from it is just out of this world--I pressed the "Try It" button on a floor model at Best Buy and the picture it spit out on a piece of plain paper was just stunning. Unlike a lot of people, I'm not looking to fiddle and tweak till the cows come home, and I'm not into ultimates (that's what they have large-format traditional black-and-white for ). I just want a decent digicam and a pleasing printer, so I can concentrate on taking snaps.

--Mike

Mike J. said:

I also got caught in a very peculiar limbo with regard to support.
The only way I could get support from the STORE (CompUSA) was if I
had purchased a special support package--so they not only wouldn't
help me, they wouldn't even give me Epson Support's phone number!
But I couldn't get to Epson Support from their website, because to
do so, you have to pick from a menu and indicate what product you
have--but they have NOTHING about the C80 up on their website yet,
so of course it's not in their menu to pick!! So I was effectively
completely cut off from Epson support. It really is inexcusable for
a major company to bring a product to market and not be able to get
basic information about the product up on the web. What, did their
own product introduction sneak up and surprise the hell out of
them?!? Must have. Or else the webmaster is on vacation or
something.

The only thing the store would let me do is return the printer for
a refund. Which, of course, I hastily did.

Click to expand...

I guess it's too late for you but here is a web page of tech contact info for Epson inkjets:
http://support.epson.com/contacts_inkjet.html

Don Cooper said:

We want to get one of these to check it out, so we'll someone out
today to see if the local CompUSA has them in stock.

Generally the six color photo printers are better for photos, but
not that different. So if the C80 is a stinker, I wouldn't think a
six ink version would be that wonderful.

It might be the paper. The pigment inks may not work well with all
media. I think the 2000 had this problem with some types of glossy
stock, but I can't recall all the details, and I could be wrong.

In the meantime, you might want to try the 785, it's under a
hundred dollars and MacWorld ranks it number 1 for photos (based
partly on price at around $200). In the right paper and in photo
realistic mode, this printer will turn out nice prints.

Click to expand...

Who is "We"?

Six inks are better than four inks but I would not say "all the difference in the world." Generally you have to look fairly closely to see the differences. Four color printers tend to be a bit warm on faces as compared to six and so forth. Now I must caveat my comments since they do not include this new ink set for the C80. What is true for the older four ink sets may not be true for the new set. I'm also curious as to whether the new inks really are pigments. They do last longer than the older inks which were dyes but nowhere as long as the 2000P inks which are definitely pigmented. In the literature I've seen so far, Epson doesn't really specify what the inks are made of.

Mike J. said:

Don Cooper said:

I haven't used the C80 (you're the first person I've seen post
something based on hands-on experience -- the printers weren't
supposed to ship until Sept 4)

Click to expand...

Don,
Thanks for the response. My CompUSA has a whole stack of them as of
Tuesday, and I've got one sitting right here on my desk. But that
might explain why they're nowhere to be seen on the Epson website.

Mike Johnston said:

I've found that if
you're going to do photos on an Epson, you need to set the driver
to "Photo Enhance". Anything else generally does a poor job.

Click to expand...

I tried that. Didn't seem to help.

Mike Johnston said:

The monitor issue is different and I think your criticism here is
unfair. Really no printer should be expected to calibrate with a
monitor, any more than a monitor should be expected to match a
printer (really it's the same thing, so if you had the printer
first then the monitor would suck if it didn't match?). Different
devices will render color differently, especially when they have
totally different gamuts and use entirely different color
technologies. Since no two monitors render the same way, it's
unreasonable to expect a printer to do so.

Click to expand...

Okay, I accept all that. In fact I'm pretty sure I'm not giving the
Epson a very fair tryout. But my friend Michael Reichmann (who has
a digital website at http://www.luminous-landscape.com ) tells me it's
because the C80 has four inks and the better photo printers have
six and "it makes all the difference in the world." I'm prepared to
believe that based on what I've seen today.

Mike Johnston said:

Just be glad your
Lexmark is doing the job for you!

Click to expand...

Except according to the Canon website, Lexmark printers are the one
major brand with real fading problems still. I don't know which is
worse--getting a great print that isn't going to last worth spit,
or getting a print that will last 75 years but isn't any good in
the first place!

I suppose the BEST thing to do would be to wait until the
inevitable Epson printer comes out that is called a "Stylus PHOTO"
and uses six colors of the DuraBrite pigment inks.

--Mike

Click to expand...

I purchased a 785 a few days ago and I am returning it unopened. With all this talk about Epson fading, I'm not going to bother. I will pick up one of sony's new dye sub printers with the new LCD touch screen. Real cool..

I just printed a test shot from a web site of a fishing reel, rods and lure. The shot has a lot of contrast plus polished chrome and brass which to me is the real test of a printer. Ill try to find the site I obtained this image from and post it laster. This is a spectacular file. I don't know if I can legally post someone elses image without their consent. My 2-3 year old HP-2000 did a spectacular job. And that does not have photo RETIII !

Anyway, you don't need to have 6 colors to make a good print, thats silly.

It's in the execution of a design thats important.

Epson's sales sheet says the inks are pigment inks. I was wondering about this myself until I saw this. This is getting very close to the 5500 -- variable drop down to 3 picoliters with pigment inks. Sounds great, except of course that the one reported experience has been less than stellar!!

Leon Wittwer said:

I'm also curious as to whether the new inks
really are pigments.

Click to expand...

The Epson is rated far longer with respect to fading than the HP. HP doesn't claim any longevity. And without dissing your older HP, that printer simply cannot compete with the Epson 785 or the current HP offerings with respect to quality prints.

Since you haven't yet bought your dye-sub, you should realize that we dont' know about fading and the dye-subs. I don't think Sony makes any representations about this. Also, FWIW, MacWorld thought that the Panasonic home dye-sub ran rings around the Sony for quality output. So you might want to look at the Panasonic as well.

Jeff Morris said:

I purchased a 785 a few days ago and I am returning it unopened.
With all this talk about Epson fading, I'm not going to bother. I
will pick up one of sony's new dye sub printers with the new LCD
touch screen. Real cool.

Click to expand...

Don Cooper said:

The Epson is rated far longer with respect to fading than the HP.
HP doesn't claim any longevity. And without dissing your older HP,
that printer simply cannot compete with the Epson 785 or the
current HP offerings with respect to quality prints.

Since you haven't yet bought your dye-sub, you should realize that
we dont' know about fading and the dye-subs. I don't think Sony
makes any representations about this. Also, FWIW, MacWorld thought
that the Panasonic home dye-sub ran rings around the Sony for
quality output. So you might want to look at the Panasonic as well.

Click to expand...

Don, you made a reference to "WE" in an earlier post about the C80. Do you belong to some printer research group or Epson affiliated entity?

Just wanted to report what I did...I stayed up until the wee hours reading forum messages and reviews on the web, and ended up buying a Canon S800.

Most of the reviews seemed to give it high marks for printing photographs. This is what I need it for. The less positive reviews generally acknowledged that it is good at photos, but faulted its text printing.

I'm pleased to say that the printer's quality just blows me away. I'm annoyed at myself for overindulging, but I've printed far too many images since yesterday! It's just wonderful to see what this printer can do. The dot pattern is extremely fine, and the finished prints have an almost painterly quality that is wonderful. I wish I could show them to you.

I used some tips I read here on the dpreview forum to set up the printer for Epson Matte Heavyweight paper. Thanks to those who posted about this!!!

Skin tones are especially great. I've always worried about this aspect of Epson printers, as many photographers I know are less than pleased with Epson skin tones. Since I'm mainly a people photographer, skin tones are important.

For the record, I got great prints with both the cheapie Lexmark and the Canon S800 right away. Don't know whether it was the printer, its inks, a fault with my sample, an incompatibility with the programs I was using, or operator error, but I could not get a very good print from the C80.

--Mike

Mike,

I just left you a message regarding image editing on the other thread. Glad to see that you are happy with your S800 purchase. I suspect that the C80 is targeted more at the home office crowd rather than photographers.

Have to pass this story on to you..

I had until recently, a CD-1000 that I interfaced with a G4, (I'm holding out for the F707) and so I frequent Mavian.nu. One fellow had purchased an iMac (slot loading) which won't accept the mini CD-RW of his CD-300 and Sony doesn't support USB to Macs. What a fix he's in...

Tom

Mike J. said:

Just wanted to report what I did...I stayed up until the wee hours
reading forum messages and reviews on the web, and ended up buying
a Canon S800.

Most of the reviews seemed to give it high marks for printing
photographs. This is what I need it for. The less positive reviews
generally acknowledged that it is good at photos, but faulted its
text printing.

I'm pleased to say that the printer's quality just blows me away.
I'm annoyed at myself for overindulging, but I've printed far too
many images since yesterday! It's just wonderful to see what this
printer can do. The dot pattern is extremely fine, and the finished
prints have an almost painterly quality that is wonderful. I wish I
could show them to you.

I used some tips I read here on the dpreview forum to set up the
printer for Epson Matte Heavyweight paper. Thanks to those who
posted about this!!!

Skin tones are especially great. I've always worried about this
aspect of Epson printers, as many photographers I know are less
than pleased with Epson skin tones. Since I'm mainly a people
photographer, skin tones are important.

For the record, I got great prints with both the cheapie Lexmark
and the Canon S800 right away. Don't know whether it was the
printer, its inks, a fault with my sample, an incompatibility with
the programs I was using, or operator error, but I could not get a
very good print from the C80.

--Mike

Click to expand...

Hi Mike I have been using the Epson 1280 and selling A3 prints to gallerys and clients. One in a window display is fine after 5 months (no direct sun) and my business card printed on an HP-882 faded and was replaced twice. I saw the C80 today at Sams' Club for $169.95 and there was no display or info just the boxes. I was surprised there was no hype on it, maybe it is a looser. The heavy weight matte is the only one I sell because of the 25 year claim. What did you pay for yours ?

The best always,
JP Photography

Tom May said:

I just left you a message regarding image editing on the other
thread. Glad to see that you are happy with your S800 purchase. I
suspect that the C80 is targeted more at the home office crowd
rather than photographers.

Have to pass this story on to you..

I had until recently, a CD-1000 that I interfaced with a G4, (I'm
holding out for the F707) and so I frequent Mavian.nu. One fellow
had purchased an iMac (slot loading) which won't accept the mini
CD-RW of his CD-300 and Sony doesn't support USB to Macs. What a
fix he's in...

Tom

Mike J. said:

Just wanted to report what I did...I stayed up until the wee hours
reading forum messages and reviews on the web, and ended up buying
a Canon S800.

Most of the reviews seemed to give it high marks for printing
photographs. This is what I need it for. The less positive reviews
generally acknowledged that it is good at photos, but faulted its
text printing.

I'm pleased to say that the printer's quality just blows me away.
I'm annoyed at myself for overindulging, but I've printed far too
many images since yesterday! It's just wonderful to see what this
printer can do. The dot pattern is extremely fine, and the finished
prints have an almost painterly quality that is wonderful. I wish I
could show them to you.

I used some tips I read here on the dpreview forum to set up the
printer for Epson Matte Heavyweight paper. Thanks to those who
posted about this!!!

Skin tones are especially great. I've always worried about this
aspect of Epson printers, as many photographers I know are less
than pleased with Epson skin tones. Since I'm mainly a people
photographer, skin tones are important.

For the record, I got great prints with both the cheapie Lexmark
and the Canon S800 right away. Don't know whether it was the
printer, its inks, a fault with my sample, an incompatibility with
the programs I was using, or operator error, but I could not get a
very good print from the C80.

--Mike

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JP Photography said:

I saw the C80 today at Sams' Club
for $169.95 and there was no display or info just the boxes. I was
surprised there was no hype on it, maybe it is a looser. The heavy
weight matte is the only one I sell because of the 25 year claim.
What did you pay for yours ?

Click to expand...

Member said:

JP Photography,

Click to expand...

I paid $199 at CompUSA. I was convinced by the salesman and two customers who said they always printed their pictures on regular Stylus printers and had never bothered with the "Photo" models.

It went for credit on the S800, for which I paid $299. That's not the lowest price you can find, but it's close, and so far it looks like the best $299 I've spent on photography in many years.

--Mike

Thanks Mike, Good printing. I went to the Epson site , no info on the C80, very strange indeed.

The best always,
JP Photography

Mike J. said:

JP Photography said:

I saw the C80 today at Sams' Club
for $169.95 and there was no display or info just the boxes. I was
surprised there was no hype on it, maybe it is a looser. The heavy
weight matte is the only one I sell because of the 25 year claim.
What did you pay for yours ?

Click to expand...

Mike Johnston said:

JP Photography,

Click to expand...

I paid $199 at CompUSA. I was convinced by the salesman and two
customers who said they always printed their pictures on regular
Stylus printers and had never bothered with the "Photo" models.

It went for credit on the S800, for which I paid $299. That's not
the lowest price you can find, but it's close, and so far it looks
like the best $299 I've spent on photography in many years.

--Mike

Click to expand...

JP Photography said:

Thanks Mike, Good printing. I went to the Epson site , no info on
the C80, very strange indeed.

Click to expand...

I'm glad somebody else thinks so! I thinks it's peculiar bordering on mysterious. I'm mean, it's not exactly a little fly-by-night or Mom-and-Pop company. Anyway, I'm very happy with the Canon, and feeling rather fortunate to have discovered it. So in a strange way I'm rather glad I had problems with the Epson.

--Mike