Which printer to buy?

lilharley · Dec 25, 2001

Epson's are a good printer, but .... they have been having problems which the company, Epson seems to be ignoring. The Canon S800 produces good or better prints then any Epson in it's class. For this reason, I would recommend the Canon over an Epson at this point. Ease of maintenance, individual ink tanks and exceptional prints.

If Canon keeps making their printers as good as the S800, the competion may bring Epson back around to start making printers without as many problems.

--Mike

Scott66322 · Dec 26, 2001

Hi Gavin,

I have a question about why you think that Dye-Sub printers are a dying breed? If that were true, then why are we seeing so many new Dye-Sub printers on the market the past couple of years. Let me give you some examples: Canon makes the CP-10 and the CD-200 Dye-Sub's, Olympus makes the P-200, P-300, and the P-400 Dye-Sub's, Sony makes the MP1, the SV55, the SV77, and the soon to released SV88, and Panasonic makes the PD2000, and PD-2100. It looks to like they are making a big come back, due to their excellent image quality, no dots, no clogged heads, and prints that will last a long long time.

The Canon S-800 looks like an excellent bubblejet, my only problem with it (aside from being a bubble jet) is the ink cartridges are $12.00 a piece, and there are six of them. (yikes!)

gavin said:
Warning: my comments are for regular people printing out photos. I
do not consider dunking in water a requirement.

Please be careful of the "specs" you are looking at for long life.
Most printer/paper combinations are tested under different
accelerated test. Many manufacturers find a test that projects a
long life for their prints and uses it for advertising and box
specs. Some manufacturers have been sued on this and had to stop
the practice.

Dye sub is a dying breed. It used to have an advantage but its
almost all gone now. Inkjet is the way to go for printing. I
recommend the HP Photosmart printers. If you are a casual photo
printer then the Photosmart 100 is great.

If you are really interested in high quality printout then go with
a proofing printer like HP Designjet 30 I think. It spec pantone
matching.

At the end of the day, just print another copy after a year or 2!
My only experience with Epson is my brother threw out his after 4
months and bought an HP.

Dave64053 · Dec 26, 2001

I agree with your Dye-Sub comments. Does anyone make an affordable 8X10 Dye-Sub printer? All I see are these 4X6 Dye-Sub printers with LCD screens. I don't really need an LCD screen and they just drive up the cost.

As for the S800... You can get ~~50 8X10 prints from 1 cartridge which is excellent. After that you can purchase refill kits which make the ink much more affordable. Any way you cut it I believe it's cheaper than a Dye-Sub.~~

Scooter said:
I have a question about why you think that Dye-Sub printers are a
dying breed? If that were true, then why are we seeing so many new
Dye-Sub printers on the market the past couple of years. Let me
give you some examples: Canon makes the CP-10 and the CD-200
Dye-Sub's, Olympus makes the P-200, P-300, and the P-400 Dye-Sub's,
Sony makes the MP1, the SV55, the SV77, and the soon to released
SV88, and Panasonic makes the PD2000, and PD-2100. It looks to like
they are making a big come back, due to their excellent image
quality, no dots, no clogged heads, and prints that will last a
long long time.

The Canon S-800 looks like an excellent bubblejet, my only problem
with it (aside from being a bubble jet) is the ink cartridges are
$12.00 a piece, and there are six of them. (yikes!)

gavin said:

Warning: my comments are for regular people printing out photos. I
do not consider dunking in water a requirement.

Please be careful of the "specs" you are looking at for long life.
Most printer/paper combinations are tested under different
accelerated test. Many manufacturers find a test that projects a
long life for their prints and uses it for advertising and box
specs. Some manufacturers have been sued on this and had to stop
the practice.

Dye sub is a dying breed. It used to have an advantage but its
almost all gone now. Inkjet is the way to go for printing. I
recommend the HP Photosmart printers. If you are a casual photo
printer then the Photosmart 100 is great.

If you are really interested in high quality printout then go with
a proofing printer like HP Designjet 30 I think. It spec pantone
matching.

At the end of the day, just print another copy after a year or 2!
My only experience with Epson is my brother threw out his after 4
months and bought an HP.

Click to expand...

SAM · Dec 26, 2001

gavin said:
Please be careful of the "specs" you are looking at for long life.
Most printer/paper combinations are tested under different
accelerated test. Many manufacturers find a test that projects a
long life for their prints and uses it for advertising and box
specs. Some manufacturers have been sued on this and had to stop
the practice.

Dye sub is a dying breed. It used to have an advantage but its
almost all gone now. Inkjet is the way to go for printing. I
recommend the HP Photosmart printers. If you are a casual photo
printer then the Photosmart 100 is great.

If you are really interested in high quality printout then go with
a proofing printer like HP Designjet 30 I think. It spec pantone
matching.

At the end of the day, just print another copy after a year or 2!
My only experience with Epson is my brother threw out his after 4
months and bought an HP.

Scooter said:

Mr.Obvious said:

Harrry a said:

Hi
I recently bought a powershot G2. I am planning to buy a printer
that would give long lasting pictures. I have read really good
things about the Canon S800. Does anybody know about the multi-use
printers that have fax, copier, scanner such as the Canon F50? Does
that compare to the S800 in the quality of prints? I would
appreciate input.

Harry

Click to expand...

'

Well it certainly is obvious to Mr.Obvious that most of you only
read or see the words that you want to see!

I did not reccomend a C80, I said it was the LEAST EXPENSIVE
printer that would get the job done and the C60 was half as fast,
but there WERE BETTER CHOICES!!!

For the person that pointed out that these were RGB and not "photo"
printers just shows his lack of knowledge of printing!!!(and
printers)

Also missed was my pointing out that ALL of my reccomendations have
to work TOGETHER to get the best print, especially paper.

Someone said the guy needed a dye-sub printer...no dots. If I look
at a print from my 980 that was printed on Pictorico White Glossy
Film with a 10x loupe, I cannot see a dot pattern either! In fact
you can't see a dot pattern on Lumijet Preservation Series Gallery
Gloss or Pictorico Gallery Glossy with a 5x loupe, and you
CERTAINLY cannot see dots with the naked eye!!! ( provided that you
did the paper profiling, printer calibration, and monitor
calibration first...but if you did NOT, then no matter what you
use, you are just pi* ing in the wind!). Not to mention that the
model Olympus 900 gives less than a 8x10 and costs almost a
thousand dollars.
Not only does the lowly RGB (with RhinoTek Ink = cheap) give a
Cibachrome or Ilfochrome quality print on Pictorico Glossy Film, it
is also WATERPROOF!
Totally, completely waterproof. I even soaked a print OVERNIGHT in
the sink. It is, at this moment , framed and on the wall. At first
I thought it failed because of a small bubble on one spot. Thirty
seconds with a hair-dryer fixed that!
These two papers also have a life of 25-50 years if placed under UV
non-glare acrylic or glass with RGB (dye-based ink). It was not
until this past year that pigmented inks were refined to the point
that prints look as good as a correctly printed RGB print. I'm
certain that both my 1160 and 980 will be replaced by six-color
printers. But at this moment, I'll match my prints and their
quality against anyones...no matter what the type!(or brand)

The Konica paper that was mentioned is terrific! Unfortunely, it
only looks terrific for about a year before the fade begins. This
can be helped with UV glass and framing, but why not spend a dollar
or two or more a sheet and get fifty years?
Ilford Inkjet Photo Paper is another very good choice that is
cheap, but once again, you have to put it under glass!!!
http://www.pictorico.com is a good place to go for an education about how
paper works. > pictorico central...the place to start when you get
there.
It also works excellent with archival printers like the 2000P. Also
go to http://www.lumijet.com and have a read in the tech, and preservation
ink, and preservation paper sections.

The Epson printers that were mentioned are ancient technology,
hardly fair to even put them in the mix. Get 2880 dpi and you'll
see the difference.

I LOVE Canon cameras and have about $10,000 worth, but the printers
and scanners leave much to be desired. Not to say you can't get
good results with ANY brand. It depends on who the operator is. But
there IS a reason that MOST professionals use an Epson
something.... : )

Click to expand...

You sound like a man who knows what he's talking about when it
comes to photo printing. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 700, and an
Epson Stylus Photo 1200, both of which are only slightly used. You
can have both of them for $250, and I'll pay shipping. I'm tired of
ink, and inkjets altogether. Dye-sub is the only way to go for me.
I and I WILL compare them with ANY of your inkjets.

& that includes the pros (hehe) -)

Click to expand...

I have looked at prints of identical images from the HP1315 and both the Sony and Olympic dye-subs. There is no comparison whatsoever. The dye-subs are so superior in quality that they are not even on the same scale as the HP

Scott66322 · Dec 26, 2001

Hi Dave,

I've been researching the new Dye-Subs for the past couple of weeks. The only DS that I know of that will do close to 8x10 (under a $1000) is the Oly P-400, which can do 7.64x10. Why they chose that output size I don't know. Tri-State Camera offers it for $669.00.

http://www.tristatecamera.com/lookat.php3?sku=OLYP400

If that is too pricey, and if 4x6 is okay for now, then I can strongly recommend the Sony sv55. (I agree, about not needing the lcd screen on the sv77), the print engines are identical in the sv55 and sv77, and the sv55 can be had for around $300. A 25 pack of 4x6 paper and ribbon sell for $12.15 at ecost. Which is pretty good at only $.049 per print.

For me, image quality and longevity of the print are more important than the cost of print. I tend to think that cost is about the same.

Dave said:
I agree with your Dye-Sub comments. Does anyone make an affordable
8X10 Dye-Sub printer? All I see are these 4X6 Dye-Sub printers
with LCD screens. I don't really need an LCD screen and they just
drive up the cost.

As for the S800... You can get 50 8X10 prints from 1 cartridge
which is excellent. After that you can purchase refill kits which
make the ink much more affordable. Any way you cut it I believe
it's cheaper than a Dye-Sub.

dgrogers · Dec 26, 2001

Scooter said:
For me, image quality and longevity of the print are more important
than the cost of print. I tend to think that cost is about the same.

There isn't a big difference in print quality anymore, and ink jet prints will last a long time -- especially if you take care of them. The prints you want to last are prints you will have on a display and in a frame anyway, so it's not a big deal. The difference in quality just doesn't justify the difference in price -- it doesn't even come close, most people can not tell the difference.

dgrogers · Dec 26, 2001

Mr.Obvious said:
Well it certainly is obvious to Mr.Obvious that most of you only
read or see the words that you want to see!

I did not reccomend a C80, I said it was the LEAST EXPENSIVE
printer that would get the job done and the C60 was half as fast,
but there WERE BETTER CHOICES!!!

Then why mention them at all?

Mr.Obvious said:
For the person that pointed out that these were RGB and not "photo"
printers just shows his lack of knowledge of printing!!!(and
printers)

Does it? Harrry a is looking for a printer to print photos, and you certainly made it sound like the C60 is a better choice than the S800, which it is not. Dean made an informative post pointing out the Epson printers you did not recommend were 4 ink printers, not photo printers. For someone who isn't up to date with photo printing, that's important to know.

Mr.Obvious said:
Someone said the guy needed a dye-sub printer...no dots. If I look
at a print from my 980 that was printed on Pictorico White Glossy
Film with a 10x loupe, I cannot see a dot pattern either! In fact
you can't see a dot pattern on Lumijet Preservation Series Gallery
Gloss or Pictorico Gallery Glossy with a 5x loupe, and you
CERTAINLY cannot see dots with the naked eye!!! ( provided that you
did the paper profiling, printer calibration, and monitor
calibration first...but if you did NOT, then no matter what you
use, you are just pi* ing in the wind!).

"The 895 can’t quite match the sheer absence of grain demonstrated by the Canon S800, but it’s clearly ahead of the rest."

http://www.dp-now.com/Features/Printer_reviews/Photo-inkjets/Print_quality/Epson895-quality/epson895-quality.html

There were a few issues in this review, but if low grain is what you want, you can't rule out the S800. And yes, the 890 is better than the 980 for photos.

Mr.Obvious said:
Not only does the lowly RGB (with RhinoTek Ink = cheap) give a
Cibachrome or Ilfochrome quality print on Pictorico Glossy Film, it
is also WATERPROOF!

Canon ink for the S800 is cheap enough you don't need to purchase generic ink.

Mr.Obvious said:
I LOVE Canon cameras and have about $10,000 worth, but the printers
and scanners leave much to be desired. Not to say you can't get
good results with ANY brand. It depends on who the operator is.

Obviously, you have not seen prints from recent Canon printers. If you had, you would own one.

Mr.Obvious said:
But there IS a reason that MOST professionals use an Epson
something.... : )

If that's true, most professionals have been brain washed. At one time, Epson was the only brand worth concidering if you wanted high quality photo prints, but these times are long over. Epson is riding its reputation, not its current photo print quality.

Mr.Obvious · Dec 26, 2001

Scooter said:
Mr.Obvious said:

Harrry a said:

Hi
I recently bought a powershot G2. I am planning to buy a printer
that would give long lasting pictures. I have read really good
things about the Canon S800. Does anybody know about the multi-use
printers that have fax, copier, scanner such as the Canon F50? Does
that compare to the S800 in the quality of prints? I would
appreciate input.

Harry

Click to expand...

'

Well it certainly is obvious to Mr.Obvious that most of you only
read or see the words that you want to see!

I did not reccomend a C80, I said it was the LEAST EXPENSIVE
printer that would get the job done and the C60 was half as fast,
but there WERE BETTER CHOICES!!!

For the person that pointed out that these were RGB and not "photo"
printers just shows his lack of knowledge of printing!!!(and
printers)

Also missed was my pointing out that ALL of my reccomendations have
to work TOGETHER to get the best print, especially paper.

Someone said the guy needed a dye-sub printer...no dots. If I look
at a print from my 980 that was printed on Pictorico White Glossy
Film with a 10x loupe, I cannot see a dot pattern either! In fact
you can't see a dot pattern on Lumijet Preservation Series Gallery
Gloss or Pictorico Gallery Glossy with a 5x loupe, and you
CERTAINLY cannot see dots with the naked eye!!! ( provided that you
did the paper profiling, printer calibration, and monitor
calibration first...but if you did NOT, then no matter what you
use, you are just pi* ing in the wind!). Not to mention that the
model Olympus 900 gives less than a 8x10 and costs almost a
thousand dollars.
Not only does the lowly RGB (with RhinoTek Ink = cheap) give a
Cibachrome or Ilfochrome quality print on Pictorico Glossy Film, it
is also WATERPROOF!
Totally, completely waterproof. I even soaked a print OVERNIGHT in
the sink. It is, at this moment , framed and on the wall. At first
I thought it failed because of a small bubble on one spot. Thirty
seconds with a hair-dryer fixed that!
These two papers also have a life of 25-50 years if placed under UV
non-glare acrylic or glass with RGB (dye-based ink). It was not
until this past year that pigmented inks were refined to the point
that prints look as good as a correctly printed RGB print. I'm
certain that both my 1160 and 980 will be replaced by six-color
printers. But at this moment, I'll match my prints and their
quality against anyones...no matter what the type!(or brand)

The Konica paper that was mentioned is terrific! Unfortunely, it
only looks terrific for about a year before the fade begins. This
can be helped with UV glass and framing, but why not spend a dollar
or two or more a sheet and get fifty years?
Ilford Inkjet Photo Paper is another very good choice that is
cheap, but once again, you have to put it under glass!!!
http://www.pictorico.com is a good place to go for an education about how
paper works. > pictorico central...the place to start when you get
there.
It also works excellent with archival printers like the 2000P. Also
go to http://www.lumijet.com and have a read in the tech, and preservation
ink, and preservation paper sections.

The Epson printers that were mentioned are ancient technology,
hardly fair to even put them in the mix. Get 2880 dpi and you'll
see the difference.

I LOVE Canon cameras and have about $10,000 worth, but the printers
and scanners leave much to be desired. Not to say you can't get
good results with ANY brand. It depends on who the operator is. But
there IS a reason that MOST professionals use an Epson
something.... : )

Click to expand...

You sound like a man who knows what he's talking about when it
comes to photo printing. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 700, and an
Epson Stylus Photo 1200, both of which are only slightly used. You
can have both of them for $250, and I'll pay shipping. I'm tired of
ink, and inkjets altogether. Dye-sub is the only way to go for me.
I and I WILL compare them with ANY of your inkjets.

& that includes the pros (hehe) -)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No thanks, I would't care to own such outdated technology.

I would bet that the reason that you don't like them is the same reason (you just don't know it).

Dye-subs are wonderful, but I personally cannot live with their limited print sizes and exspensive paper and color media.
Oh well, different strokes for different folks!

Scott66322 · Dec 26, 2001

I agree no doubt that print quality is nearly the same and that most people cannot tell the difference with the naked eye. But here is my take on inkjet/bubblejet vs. dye-sub printers:

Image quality: edge to dye-sub
Longevity of print: edge to dye-sub
Cost per print: push
Initial costs: edge to injet/bubblejet
Large prints: edge to inkjet/bubblejet (large print dye-subs are expensive)

I won't get into great detail for why I am trying to unload my epson 700 and 1200, but head clogging, inks fading, banding, wasted ink from cleaning, pizza wheels on the prints, and not borderless are most of my reasons.

dgrogers said:
Scooter said:

For me, image quality and longevity of the print are more important
than the cost of print. I tend to think that cost is about the same.

Click to expand...

There isn't a big difference in print quality anymore, and ink jet
prints will last a long time -- especially if you take care of
them. The prints you want to last are prints you will have on a
display and in a frame anyway, so it's not a big deal. The
difference in quality just doesn't justify the difference in price
-- it doesn't even come close, most people can not tell the
difference.

Mr.Obvious · Dec 26, 2001

dgrogers said:
Mr.Obvious said:

Well it certainly is obvious to Mr.Obvious that most of you only
read or see the words that you want to see!

I did not reccomend a C80, I said it was the LEAST EXPENSIVE
printer that would get the job done and the C60 was half as fast,
but there WERE BETTER CHOICES!!!

Click to expand...

Then why mention them at all?

dgrogers said:

For the person that pointed out that these were RGB and not "photo"
printers just shows his lack of knowledge of printing!!!(and
printers)

Click to expand...

Does it? Harrry a is looking for a printer to print photos, and you
certainly made it sound like the C60 is a better choice than the
S800, which it is not. Dean made an informative post pointing out
the Epson printers you did not recommend were 4 ink printers, not
photo printers. For someone who isn't up to date with photo
printing, that's important to know.

dgrogers said:

Someone said the guy needed a dye-sub printer...no dots. If I look
at a print from my 980 that was printed on Pictorico White Glossy
Film with a 10x loupe, I cannot see a dot pattern either! In fact
you can't see a dot pattern on Lumijet Preservation Series Gallery
Gloss or Pictorico Gallery Glossy with a 5x loupe, and you
CERTAINLY cannot see dots with the naked eye!!! ( provided that you
did the paper profiling, printer calibration, and monitor
calibration first...but if you did NOT, then no matter what you
use, you are just pi* ing in the wind!).

Click to expand...

"The 895 can’t quite match the sheer absence of grain demonstrated
by the Canon S800, but it’s clearly ahead of the rest."

http://www.dp-now.com/Features/Printer_reviews/Photo-inkjets/Print_quality/Epson895-quality/epson895-quality.html

There were a few issues in this review, but if low grain is what
you want, you can't rule out the S800. And yes, the 890 is better
than the 980 for photos.

dgrogers said:

Not only does the lowly RGB (with RhinoTek Ink = cheap) give a
Cibachrome or Ilfochrome quality print on Pictorico Glossy Film, it
is also WATERPROOF!

Click to expand...

Canon ink for the S800 is cheap enough you don't need to purchase
generic ink.

dgrogers said:

I LOVE Canon cameras and have about $10,000 worth, but the printers
and scanners leave much to be desired. Not to say you can't get
good results with ANY brand. It depends on who the operator is.

Click to expand...

Obviously, you have not seen prints from recent Canon printers. If
you had, you would own one.

dgrogers said:

But there IS a reason that MOST professionals use an Epson
something.... : )

Click to expand...

If that's true, most professionals have been brain washed. At one
time, Epson was the only brand worth concidering if you wanted high
quality photo prints, but these times are long over. Epson is
riding its reputation, not its current photo print quality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I see that NOW you have at least READ the WORDS, but you still don't understand them!

Scott66322 · Dec 26, 2001

Mr.Obvious said:
Scooter said:

Mr.Obvious said:

Harrry a said:

Hi
I recently bought a powershot G2. I am planning to buy a printer
that would give long lasting pictures. I have read really good
things about the Canon S800. Does anybody know about the multi-use
printers that have fax, copier, scanner such as the Canon F50? Does
that compare to the S800 in the quality of prints? I would
appreciate input.

Harry

Click to expand...

'

Well it certainly is obvious to Mr.Obvious that most of you only
read or see the words that you want to see!

I did not reccomend a C80, I said it was the LEAST EXPENSIVE
printer that would get the job done and the C60 was half as fast,
but there WERE BETTER CHOICES!!!

For the person that pointed out that these were RGB and not "photo"
printers just shows his lack of knowledge of printing!!!(and
printers)

Also missed was my pointing out that ALL of my reccomendations have
to work TOGETHER to get the best print, especially paper.

Someone said the guy needed a dye-sub printer...no dots. If I look
at a print from my 980 that was printed on Pictorico White Glossy
Film with a 10x loupe, I cannot see a dot pattern either! In fact
you can't see a dot pattern on Lumijet Preservation Series Gallery
Gloss or Pictorico Gallery Glossy with a 5x loupe, and you
CERTAINLY cannot see dots with the naked eye!!! ( provided that you
did the paper profiling, printer calibration, and monitor
calibration first...but if you did NOT, then no matter what you
use, you are just pi* ing in the wind!). Not to mention that the
model Olympus 900 gives less than a 8x10 and costs almost a
thousand dollars.
Not only does the lowly RGB (with RhinoTek Ink = cheap) give a
Cibachrome or Ilfochrome quality print on Pictorico Glossy Film, it
is also WATERPROOF!
Totally, completely waterproof. I even soaked a print OVERNIGHT in
the sink. It is, at this moment , framed and on the wall. At first
I thought it failed because of a small bubble on one spot. Thirty
seconds with a hair-dryer fixed that!
These two papers also have a life of 25-50 years if placed under UV
non-glare acrylic or glass with RGB (dye-based ink). It was not
until this past year that pigmented inks were refined to the point
that prints look as good as a correctly printed RGB print. I'm
certain that both my 1160 and 980 will be replaced by six-color
printers. But at this moment, I'll match my prints and their
quality against anyones...no matter what the type!(or brand)

The Konica paper that was mentioned is terrific! Unfortunely, it
only looks terrific for about a year before the fade begins. This
can be helped with UV glass and framing, but why not spend a dollar
or two or more a sheet and get fifty years?
Ilford Inkjet Photo Paper is another very good choice that is
cheap, but once again, you have to put it under glass!!!
http://www.pictorico.com is a good place to go for an education about how
paper works. > pictorico central...the place to start when you get
there.
It also works excellent with archival printers like the 2000P. Also
go to http://www.lumijet.com and have a read in the tech, and preservation
ink, and preservation paper sections.

The Epson printers that were mentioned are ancient technology,
hardly fair to even put them in the mix. Get 2880 dpi and you'll
see the difference.

I LOVE Canon cameras and have about $10,000 worth, but the printers
and scanners leave much to be desired. Not to say you can't get
good results with ANY brand. It depends on who the operator is. But
there IS a reason that MOST professionals use an Epson
something.... : )

Click to expand...

You sound like a man who knows what he's talking about when it
comes to photo printing. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 700, and an
Epson Stylus Photo 1200, both of which are only slightly used. You
can have both of them for $250, and I'll pay shipping. I'm tired of
ink, and inkjets altogether. Dye-sub is the only way to go for me.
I and I WILL compare them with ANY of your inkjets.

& that includes the pros (hehe) -)

Click to expand...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No thanks, I would't care to own such outdated technology.
I would bet that the reason that you don't like them is the same
reason (you just don't know it).
Dye-subs are wonderful, but I personally cannot live with their
limited print sizes and exspensive paper and color media.
Oh well, different strokes for different folks!

Yeah, I know. The 1200 is nearly two years old now, and the 1270 came out about 2 months after. But the fact these printers, whose combined cost was around $750 two years ago, are not worth even $250 now, tells me something about the epson line.

Bobby Lee · Dec 26, 2001

I think that the comprehension is just fine, it still is your context that is debatable. --Bobby Lee

GeneS · Dec 26, 2001

dgrogers said:
"The 895 can’t quite match the sheer absence of grain demonstrated
by the Canon S800, but it’s clearly ahead of the rest."

http://www.dp-now.com/Features/Printer_reviews/Photo-inkjets/Print_quality/Epson895-quality/epson895-quality.html

dgrogers said:
Obviously, you have not seen prints from recent Canon printers. If
you had, you would own one.

The Epson 895 is the European version of the 785EPX.
Not sure if you read the full review , but I quote;

"the 895 returned a marginally superior colour gamut test result to the S800"

Not bad for a printer that cost me $99 after my rebate. I think I'll stick with my Epson

dgrogers said:
dgrogers said:

But there IS a reason that MOST professionals use an Epson
something.... : )

Click to expand...

If that's true, most professionals have been brain washed. At one
time, Epson was the only brand worth concidering if you wanted high
quality photo prints, but these times are long over. Epson is
riding its reputation, not its current photo print quality.

My Epson 785EPX continues to amaze me with it's print quality. It sits near the bottom on the Epson line.

Greg M · Dec 26, 2001

gavin said:
Warning: my comments are for regular people printing out photos. I
do not consider dunking in water a requirement.

Please be careful of the "specs" you are looking at for long life.
Most printer/paper combinations are tested under different
accelerated test. Many manufacturers find a test that projects a
long life for their prints and uses it for advertising and box
specs. Some manufacturers have been sued on this and had to stop
the practice.

Except if they use Wilhelm imaging for there test results. You can compare different printers and papers for yourself. However, I do agree that you need to take a manufacturer's claims with a grain of salt.

gavin said:
Dye sub is a dying breed. It used to have an advantage but its
almost all gone now. Inkjet is the way to go for printing. I
recommend the HP Photosmart printers. If you are a casual photo
printer then the Photosmart 100 is great.

If you are really interested in high quality printout then go with
a proofing printer like HP Designjet 30 I think. It spec pantone
matching.

At the end of the day, just print another copy after a year or 2!
My only experience with Epson is my brother threw out his after 4
months and bought an HP.

As to the implied difference between Epson and HP as only being the longevity of the prints I will have to disagree on that. I have a HP 1215 and an Epson 870. The ONLY thing that the HP has on the Epson is speed. My prints, from a D30, look alot better on the Epson. There really is a big difference and I don't have to do reprints.

dgrogers · Dec 26, 2001

GeneS said:
The Epson 895 is the European version of the 785EPX.
Not sure if you read the full review , but I quote;

"the 895 returned a marginally superior colour gamut test result to
the S800"

"Our panel agreed the S800 produced the most natural looking prints"

That's including color. A marginally superior colour gamut means nothing compared to accuracy (unless you like your colors overdone like so many digi cam manufacturers seem to think).

Mixing "the most natural looking prints" with the far superior speed, the complete lack of fear from clogged nozzels, and the low cost per print are enough to convince me that Canon is superior.

GeneS said:
Not bad for a printer that cost me $99 after my rebate. I think
I'll stick with my Epson

That really is a good deal.

GeneS said:
My Epson 785EPX continues to amaze me with it's print quality. It
sits near the bottom on the Epson line.

Print quality from the 785 is the same as the more expensive 890. I'm sure you get fantastic prints, I’m just disputing this statement made by Mr Obvious: “I LOVE Canon cameras and have about $10,000 worth, but the printers and scanners leave much to be desired.” Which is completely false, especially when you look at comments in reviews like this: “Personally and the view of the panel is that the Canon just has it, but the Stylus 895 produces great photo prints in its own right.”

Bobby Lee · Dec 26, 2001

Actually, if you read the entire article, both printers are exceptional, but the conclusion was "Personally and the view of the panel is that the Canon just has it, but the Stylus 895 produces great photo prints in its own right."

This is not to start a flame war, but to put a finish to Mr. Obvious's lame remarks about Canon printers.

A person isn't going to go wrong with either printer for quality, my concern is with maintenance and the access to individual tanks.
--Bobby Lee

Mr.Obvious · Dec 26, 2001

Bobby Lee said:
Actually, if you read the entire article, both printers are
exceptional, but the conclusion was "Personally and the view of the
panel is that the Canon just has it, but the Stylus 895 produces
great photo prints in its own right."
This is not to start a flame war, but to put a finish to Mr.
Obvious's lame remarks about Canon printers.
A person isn't going to go wrong with either printer for quality,
my concern is with maintenance and the access to individual tanks.

--
Bobby Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then keep boiling that ink, Bobby Boy, Burn Baby Burn...

Everyone has their own preferences as is easlily seen. But my LS 2000 is superior to a Canon film scanner and the 4000 it is being replaced with is beyond compare. My Umax Powerlook III with Trans. adapt is being replaced by the Epson Expression 1680 Pro. No one else even comes close (at least not at the 1680 price)
But I'm sure that someday they will and we will all live happily ever after.
Goodnight and farewell, so long and goodbye!

You are happy with what you have and I am happy with what I have. Isn't it wonderful that finally we are all happy!

Well I have to go and get the wheelchair to cart off my lame remarks about the ink boiling printers.

Dave64053 · Dec 27, 2001

Thanks guys for the tips. I agree that dye-subs cost too much right now. I think the overall quality is better than an inkjet but not exponentially better. If the quality was that much greater than I would believe a dye-sub would be worth spending some money on.

Scooter, some of the problems you mention regarding your Epson is the reason I was considering a Canon S800. Then I discovered you couldn't do full 8.5 X 11 edge-to-edge with the S800 so now I'm waiting for the new S820D coming out in February. It seems the S800 doesn't have all the the head clogging problems and such that you describe your Epson as having. With any luck the S820D will be a further improvement over the S800 and be worth every penny. Estimated retail cost is $399.

Scooter said:
Image quality: edge to dye-sub
Longevity of print: edge to dye-sub
Cost per print: push
Initial costs: edge to injet/bubblejet
Large prints: edge to inkjet/bubblejet (large print dye-subs are
expensive)

I won't get into great detail for why I am trying to unload my
epson 700 and 1200, but head clogging, inks fading, banding, wasted
ink from cleaning, pizza wheels on the prints, and not borderless
are most of my reasons.

dgrogers said:

Scooter said:

For me, image quality and longevity of the print are more important
than the cost of print. I tend to think that cost is about the same.

Click to expand...

There isn't a big difference in print quality anymore, and ink jet
prints will last a long time -- especially if you take care of
them. The prints you want to last are prints you will have on a
display and in a frame anyway, so it's not a big deal. The
difference in quality just doesn't justify the difference in price
-- it doesn't even come close, most people can not tell the
difference.

Click to expand...

Mr.computer · Dec 27, 2001

Dave said:
Scooter, some of the problems you mention regarding your Epson is
the reason I was considering a Canon S800. Then I discovered you
couldn't do full 8.5 X 11 edge-to-edge with the S800 so now I'm
waiting for the new S820D coming out in February. It seems the
S800 doesn't have all the the head clogging problems and such that
you describe your Epson as having. With any luck the S820D will be
a further improvement over the S800 and be worth every penny.
Estimated retail cost is $399.

Scooter said:

Image quality: edge to dye-sub
Longevity of print: edge to dye-sub
Cost per print: push
Initial costs: edge to injet/bubblejet
Large prints: edge to inkjet/bubblejet (large print dye-subs are
expensive)

I won't get into great detail for why I am trying to unload my
epson 700 and 1200, but head clogging, inks fading, banding, wasted
ink from cleaning, pizza wheels on the prints, and not borderless
are most of my reasons.

dgrogers said:

Scooter said:

For me, image quality and longevity of the print are more important
than the cost of print. I tend to think that cost is about the same.

Click to expand...

There isn't a big difference in print quality anymore, and ink jet
prints will last a long time -- especially if you take care of
them. The prints you want to last are prints you will have on a
display and in a frame anyway, so it's not a big deal. The
difference in quality just doesn't justify the difference in price
-- it doesn't even come close, most people can not tell the
difference.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If longevity and quality is important then you can have both as well as a very large cost savings by staying with old fashion film. The resolution is far superior than any digital cam out there (unless you scan prints or negsto get them into a digital format). The cost per 4x6 print for film is cheaper you can get walmart developing for 24-27 photos plus double prints for under 6 bucks which is 12cents per print. even after your print fades which I admit can happen you can have another one printed cheaply. Yes you have to wait 3days to see your prints but is it really that important to have instant gratification. And no one has mentioned the time you spent on a damm computer Fixing your prints, adjusting color settings etc etc. And lets not forget the time it takes to do the actual printing. Ink jets and dyes are slow. Yes if you do only web or computer based photos digital has big atvantages other then this I think its a big mistake to put you faith in the longevity of eithor the prints you make or for that matter the storage of digital photos ( will the burned cds everyone makes last the 50 to 100 years mfgs talk about) I for one can say that those burned disks are very fragile on the top surface, its only a very thin layer of paint that seperates your precious data from destruction. If you dont believe this take some duct tape and tape over a coaster disk then pull it off, depending on the brand of cd and the batch it caame from I think you will be surprized how easy it is to pull off that reflective layer of paint and there goes all your pictures. Yes film can be damaged but you can scan in a damaged neg and use photoshop to fix it up...try recovering that damaged cd even if its just scratched. By the way ive had epsons (good prints, tend to clog the heads if not used a lot) hp,s (not bad overall print for casual use) used a cannon for a bit not bad eithor tho reliability was a issue tho a friend has a s800 and its nice. I currently use a laser printer for printing and leave photos to film scanning any print that I want to use digitally. This is just something to think about.

Scott66322 · Dec 27, 2001

Hi Dave,

I think that you will be happier with the Canon, too. As I've said before, I used to be a big epson fan, until I started having problems with the nozzles. I have read a lot of other posts that say the same. Canon has definately bridged the gap when it comes to photo printers. I was almost ready to break down and get the Oly P-400, but I'm tapped out right now after having made a big investment in a Canon D30. The wife thinks I paid around $1000 for it, but it was more like $2500.

Thanks for the tip on the S820D. I'll be watching that one, because I still need a photo printer that can do 8x10's. Does the S820D do borderless?

Thanks, Scooter

Dave said:
Scooter, some of the problems you mention regarding your Epson is
the reason I was considering a Canon S800. Then I discovered you
couldn't do full 8.5 X 11 edge-to-edge with the S800 so now I'm
waiting for the new S820D coming out in February. It seems the
S800 doesn't have all the the head clogging problems and such that
you describe your Epson as having. With any luck the S820D will be
a further improvement over the S800 and be worth every penny.
Estimated retail cost is $399.

Scooter said:

Image quality: edge to dye-sub
Longevity of print: edge to dye-sub
Cost per print: push
Initial costs: edge to injet/bubblejet
Large prints: edge to inkjet/bubblejet (large print dye-subs are
expensive)

I won't get into great detail for why I am trying to unload my
epson 700 and 1200, but head clogging, inks fading, banding, wasted
ink from cleaning, pizza wheels on the prints, and not borderless
are most of my reasons.

dgrogers said:

Scooter said:

For me, image quality and longevity of the print are more important
than the cost of print. I tend to think that cost is about the same.

Click to expand...

There isn't a big difference in print quality anymore, and ink jet
prints will last a long time -- especially if you take care of
them. The prints you want to last are prints you will have on a
display and in a frame anyway, so it's not a big deal. The
difference in quality just doesn't justify the difference in price
-- it doesn't even come close, most people can not tell the
difference.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Which printer to buy?

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

SAM

Guest

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

New member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts