Reading mode: Light Dark

Best Printer?

Go to last post
J

Jason Simms

Active member
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Knoxville, TN, US
This question may have come up before, and I'll be happy for someone to point me to some good threads. And I also know that the topic is highly subjective, but all opinions are welcome.

I have shot film for most of my life, so home printing wasn't a real concern for me. When I went digital, though, printing at home became a great possibility, especially if I could match lab quality up to 8x10.

Last night, I tried some test prints on my HP DeskJet 932c, and while the results weren't horrible, I am certain other printers could do a better job. Of course, my printer is only a three-ink model, so that hurts, and I purchased it not thinking about the possibility of printing photos from it.

So, what do you all use, and why? I know Epson is popular, but what models? Any other choice brands? I saw some interesting printers that accept CF cards directly (even though I probably wouldn't use this feature)... It's amazing where this stuff is heading.

Jason Simms
 
Most of the Epson Stylus Photo Printers use exactly the same engine to print, so that quality is uniform across all models. The main thing you will pay for is speed and features.

For example, the 785EX is good if you want to print directly from CF Card.

Personally I have the Epson 820. It's great and very cheap. It's not the fastest printer - about 2 mins for a borderess 8x10 at 1400dpi. But the prints are photo real. Best of all it can be had for only $80 on the net. The regular price is $150, but Epson have a $50 rebate. Then if you go to http://www.almostnothing.com and there was a coupon for $20 off with Staples.com. They also offer free delivery. Alternatively, the 820 can be had for $100 +TAX at any local supplier. Given that the Canon S800 and the more expensive Epsons have the same quality, are they really worth $200 more?

Matt.
Jason Simms said:
This question may have come up before, and I'll be happy for
someone to point me to some good threads. And I also know that the
topic is highly subjective, but all opinions are welcome.

I have shot film for most of my life, so home printing wasn't a
real concern for me. When I went digital, though, printing at home
became a great possibility, especially if I could match lab quality
up to 8x10.

Last night, I tried some test prints on my HP DeskJet 932c, and
while the results weren't horrible, I am certain other printers
could do a better job. Of course, my printer is only a three-ink
model, so that hurts, and I purchased it not thinking about the
possibility of printing photos from it.

So, what do you all use, and why? I know Epson is popular, but
what models? Any other choice brands? I saw some interesting
printers that accept CF cards directly (even though I probably
wouldn't use this feature)... It's amazing where this stuff is
heading.

Jason Simms
Click to expand...
 
Matt Gannon said:
Most of the Epson Stylus Photo Printers use exactly the same engine
to print, so that quality is uniform across all models. The main
thing you will pay for is speed and features.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that I will have absolutely no difference in output quality between an Epson 820 and 890? Speed is not an issue; I just want great looking prints.

However, after looking at some of the reviews of Epson printers, owners are saying that they "drink ink." One reviewer said that he can only print about 30 4x5 prints at 720dpi, which, after the cost of ink is factored in, he claims comes out to over $1 per page. Is this your experience?
Matt Gannon said:
For example, the 785EX is good if you want to print directly from
CF Card.
Click to expand...
I don't really care about this feature, since I like to do some processing in Photoshop usually. I know I could re-upload it to a CF and then print, but why not just print directly from Photoshop?

Jason Simms
 
Canon printers are great. Check out the S800 (soon to be replaced), S820, S900, and S9000. I will likely be replacing my BJC-8200 with the S9000 for printing wide prints, even though I am still very satisfied with prints from it. Canon printers are also very economical on ink and print very fast, though the recommended paper is a little expensive (but definitely worth the price!).
 
Jason,

I have been told that there is no noticable change in quality between the 820 vs. 890. I got that info directly from Epson - and they have no interest in pursuading me to buy the cheaper printer. See for yourself. Get one of your favorite pics and go to Microcenter, Circuit City or Comp USA and get them to print your image on Premium Paper. You can then see for yourself.

All 6 colour inkjets are thirsty, but the fact is that you will not want to print all of your pictures. I have not found the running costs to be particularly expensive at all. There is no way that they cost $1 per print. I use my printer for all purposes - documents, presentations, etc. If your only concern is printing photos, then maybe you should just use WalMart's Digital Printing Service.

The only thing I would say about Epsons is that you must run the nozzle check every now and then to stop the nozzles being clogged. Other than that, they are great.

For the sake of $100 you just can't go wrong. Even if you only use the printer from time to time, it's great to have the ability to run prints off for friends when they come to visit, etc.

Trust me, you can't go wrong with the 820.

Matt.
Jason Simms said:
Matt Gannon said:
Most of the Epson Stylus Photo Printers use exactly the same engine
to print, so that quality is uniform across all models. The main
thing you will pay for is speed and features.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that I will have absolutely no difference in
output quality between an Epson 820 and 890? Speed is not an
issue; I just want great looking prints.

However, after looking at some of the reviews of Epson printers,
owners are saying that they "drink ink." One reviewer said that he
can only print about 30 4x5 prints at 720dpi, which, after the cost
of ink is factored in, he claims comes out to over $1 per page. Is
this your experience?
Jason Simms said:
For example, the 785EX is good if you want to print directly from
CF Card.
Click to expand...
I don't really care about this feature, since I like to do some
processing in Photoshop usually. I know I could re-upload it to a
CF and then print, but why not just print directly from Photoshop?

Jason Simms
Click to expand...
 
I remember that I owned a printer some years back (circa 1997) that was by a company called Alps, and it was a dye-sublimation printer. Fairly cheap for the printer, but the cartridges were expensive (though each was separate, so no wasted dye). The print quality, however, was unreal, even for 1997. Too bad more consumer models like that didn't take off. I think those small printers by Canon are dye-sub, but they can't go very big in terms of print size.

Jason Simms
 
Matt Gannon said:
Trust me, you can't go wrong with the 820.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt you at all, I just find it amazing that a sub-$100 printer ends up being equal to or better than printers that cost upwards of $200-$300. I would be willing to spend about that on a printer, but I won't waste my money if a $99 printer will do the job. If speed truly is the only difference, then I'll wait the extra 30 seconds or my print if it means I can save a couple hundred...

Jason Simms
 
Jason Simms said:
I don't doubt you at all, I just find it amazing that a sub-$100
printer ends up being equal to or better than printers that cost
upwards of $200-$300. I would be willing to spend about that on a
printer, but I won't waste my money if a $99 printer will do the
job. If speed truly is the only difference, then I'll wait the
extra 30 seconds or my print if it means I can save a couple
hundred...
Click to expand...
If it were only 30 seconds difference....unfortunately, it's much more than that. You also have to consider the quality of the printer itself (how long will it last?), noise, and ink usage.
 
dgrogers said:
Jason Simms said:
job. If speed truly is the only difference, then I'll wait the
extra 30 seconds or my print if it means I can save a couple
hundred...
Click to expand...
If it were only 30 seconds difference....unfortunately, it's much
more than that. You also have to consider the quality of the
printer itself (how long will it last?), noise, and ink usage.
Click to expand...
I just used 30 seconds as an arbitrary time - really, it doesn't matter. Even if I had to wait several minutes for a good print, I wouldn't care. After all, my life is not on hold while I await the printing to finish.

Noise is no issue either, short of it waking the neighbors...

Ink usage is a concern, but I think Matt's right. When I think about it, how many prints will I really want made? Even when I was shooting only film, I would maybe want one or two enlargements from any given roll of 36 exposures, if that. Everything else can just sit as a file that I can look at as the mood strikes me.

Quality is an issue as well, but I don't think Epson is known for poor quality. Besides, for $99, even if I had to purchase a new one next year, I wouldn't really care.

Jason Simms
 
If price is not to much a matter, Olympus P-400 Dye-sub is awesome(around $700-$800). I've seen some print samples of this printer at B&H, it is REALLY dotless at 314dpi, and the color is brilliant too IMO.

Here is a link from Olympus: http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_lobbypage.asp?l=1&bc=23&p=19&product=632
Jason Simms said:
This question may have come up before, and I'll be happy for
someone to point me to some good threads. And I also know that the
topic is highly subjective, but all opinions are welcome.

I have shot film for most of my life, so home printing wasn't a
real concern for me. When I went digital, though, printing at home
became a great possibility, especially if I could match lab quality
up to 8x10.

Last night, I tried some test prints on my HP DeskJet 932c, and
while the results weren't horrible, I am certain other printers
could do a better job. Of course, my printer is only a three-ink
model, so that hurts, and I purchased it not thinking about the
possibility of printing photos from it.

So, what do you all use, and why? I know Epson is popular, but
what models? Any other choice brands? I saw some interesting
printers that accept CF cards directly (even though I probably
wouldn't use this feature)... It's amazing where this stuff is
heading.

Jason Simms
Click to expand...
--Xunwww.pbase.com/shinew
 
Jason Simms said:
Matt Gannon said:
Most of the Epson Stylus Photo Printers use exactly the same engine
to print, so that quality is uniform across all models. The main
thing you will pay for is speed and features.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that I will have absolutely no difference in
output quality between an Epson 820 and 890? Speed is not an
issue; I just want great looking prints.

However, after looking at some of the reviews of Epson printers,
owners are saying that they "drink ink." One reviewer said that he
can only print about 30 4x5 prints at 720dpi, which, after the cost
of ink is factored in, he claims comes out to over $1 per page. Is
this your experience?
Jason Simms said:
For example, the 785EX is good if you want to print directly from
CF Card.
Click to expand...
I don't really care about this feature, since I like to do some
processing in Photoshop usually. I know I could re-upload it to a
CF and then print, but why not just print directly from Photoshop?

Jason Simms
Click to expand...
I get abt 35 8X10 from a cart but mine is not a photo printer (Epson 1160)
My friend gets abt 25-30 8x10 on his 1280 6colour photo printer.
 
I get very good prints from my HP 932c--as good as the Canon 800 which I bought for a song because of a going out of business sale and it was a demo. I print at 300 resolution. I use Kodak premium picture paper. I think the paper is more important than the printer because most inkjet printers do a good job. Yes, the HP is slow, but I am in no hurry. I purchase the large color cartridges and find the HP reasonably economical. Yes, dye sublimination printers are awesome. So is the price.
 
Harv said:
I get very good prints from my HP 932c--as good as the Canon 800
which I bought for a song because of a going out of business sale
and it was a demo. I print at 300 resolution. I use Kodak premium
picture paper. I think the paper is more important than the
printer because most inkjet printers do a good job. Yes, the HP is
slow, but I am in no hurry. I purchase the large color cartridges
and find the HP reasonably economical. Yes, dye sublimination
printers are awesome. So is the price.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to hear further comments on this matter. Granted, the prints I made last night were my first try with the 932c, but they just don't look right. I printed directly from Photoshop, but the details I had there did not come through on the final print, and the colors were off (substantially, in my opinion).

For instance, my subject was wearing a black wool business suit jacket, and in the digital photo the folds of the collar, button holes, and even lint were clearly visible (i.e., visibly different shades of black). However, on the printout, the entire jacket is just black... And no, I didn't resample the image or antyhing; I printed from a TIFF created directly from the RAW file, with no cropping, etc. Photoshop indicated that I would have about 240dpi on the print, which is supposed to be solid quality.

The Epson interests me, also, because of its borderless option.

Jason Simms
 
Jason,

This as a bigger question than it appears at first. I would recommend you go to the printers and printing forum, you may get a more informed and balanced body of opinion there.

These days we are not only looking for print quality; we are also looking for economy of operation, speed, and archival quality. The last one is a big issue because regular inkjet prints don't last very long out in the light. Epson has a printer that will produce print that will last a hundred years, others will last 25 to 30 years if you use the right papers. The Canon s800 prints will last 30 or so years.

The other issue is economy of operation. The Canon printer uses six separate ink cartridges, so when your cyan runs out you just replace it. The Epson has all the colors in one cartridge so when your cyan runs out you replace the whole cartrige, even if there is lots left of the other colors.

The print you described as being printed at 240 ppi. I'm assuming that that was not an 8 x 10. If it was you didn't take that shot with a G2.
Also check out the reviews of printers on: http://www.steves-digicams.com/printers.html
Cheers--Happy SnappingDon McVee http://www.pbase.com/mcveed
 
Don said:
Jason,
This as a bigger question than it appears at first. I would
recommend you go to the printers and printing forum, you may get a
more informed and balanced body of opinion there.
These days we are not only looking for print quality; we are also
looking for economy of operation, speed, and archival quality. The
last one is a big issue because regular inkjet prints don't last
very long out in the light. Epson has a printer that will produce
print that will last a hundred years, others will last 25 to 30
years if you use the right papers. The Canon s800 prints will last
30 or so years.
The other issue is economy of operation. The Canon printer uses six
separate ink cartridges, so when your cyan runs out you just
replace it. The Epson has all the colors in one cartridge so when
your cyan runs out you replace the whole cartrige, even if there is
lots left of the other colors.
The print you described as being printed at 240 ppi. I'm assuming
that that was not an 8 x 10. If it was you didn't take that shot
with a G2.
Also check out the reviews of printers on:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/printers.html
Cheers
--
Happy Snapping
Don McVee
http://www.pbase.com/mcveed
Click to expand...
 
Lawrence Hrusovsky said:
Don said:
Jason,
This as a bigger question than it appears at first. I would
recommend you go to the printers and printing forum, you may get a
more informed and balanced body of opinion there.
These days we are not only looking for print quality; we are also
looking for economy of operation, speed, and archival quality. The
last one is a big issue because regular inkjet prints don't last
very long out in the light. Epson has a printer that will produce
print that will last a hundred years, others will last 25 to 30
years if you use the right papers. The Canon s800 prints will last
30 or so years.
The other issue is economy of operation. The Canon printer uses six
separate ink cartridges, so when your cyan runs out you just
replace it. The Epson has all the colors in one cartridge so when
your cyan runs out you replace the whole cartrige, even if there is
lots left of the other colors.
The print you described as being printed at 240 ppi. I'm assuming
that that was not an 8 x 10. If it was you didn't take that shot
with a G2.
Also check out the reviews of printers on:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/printers.html
Cheers
--
Happy Snapping
Don McVee
http://www.pbase.com/mcveed
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that none of the Epson supporters brought up or complained about Epson putting chips in their ink cartridges. Does this not eliminate the use of some 3rd party archival inks in an Epson printer. I personally think this is a dirty underhanded tactic to increase Epson's market share in the ink cartridge arena.

Larry Hrusovsky
 
Don said:
These days we are not only looking for print quality; we are also
looking for economy of operation, speed, and archival quality. The
last one is a big issue because regular inkjet prints don't last
very long out in the light. Epson has a printer that will produce
print that will last a hundred years, others will last 25 to 30
years if you use the right papers. The Canon s800 prints will last
30 or so years.
Click to expand...
I understand about archival quality and all that (I do all my own B&W printing), but, it's not like my digital negatives are going anywhere. If I have to print another copy in thirty years, well, that's no big deal. Thirty years vs. 100 is like the difference between a billion and a trillion dollars...
mcveed said:
The other issue is economy of operation. The Canon printer uses six
separate ink cartridges, so when your cyan runs out you just
replace it. The Epson has all the colors in one cartridge so when
your cyan runs out you replace the whole cartrige, even if there is
lots left of the other colors.
Click to expand...
This is a big question, and as you will see I brought it up in one of my first posts. However, one can purchase the Epson five color cartridge for less than $20, whereas each tank for the Canon is like $12. Just something to think on, because to replace the whole Canon color set would be about $60, vs. $20 for Epson.
mcveed said:
The print you described as being printed at 240 ppi. I'm assuming
that that was not an 8 x 10. If it was you didn't take that shot
with a G2.
Click to expand...
I was estimating... I guess it's more like 213 ppi or something like that.

Jason Simms
 
I have an HP932C and recently bought an Epson 780. The difference
is huge. Also, I bought the Epson through http://www.hsn.com with one of
the various 'introductory offer' vouchers, and it cost $60 total, including
shipping.

I've a comparison of the output quality at:

http://home.austin.rr.com/g2darkroom/printer_comparison.htm

and

http://home.austin.rr.com/g2darkroom/comparion_scans.htm

Both were printed using the manufacturers ink and papers. No other
differences in the printing process, both used Qimage with colour
management where possible.

Gordon
Jason Simms said:
dgrogers said:
Jason Simms said:
job. If speed truly is the only difference, then I'll wait the
extra 30 seconds or my print if it means I can save a couple
hundred...
Click to expand...
If it were only 30 seconds difference....unfortunately, it's much
more than that. You also have to consider the quality of the
printer itself (how long will it last?), noise, and ink usage.
Click to expand...
I just used 30 seconds as an arbitrary time - really, it doesn't
matter. Even if I had to wait several minutes for a good print, I
wouldn't care. After all, my life is not on hold while I await the
printing to finish.

Noise is no issue either, short of it waking the neighbors...

Ink usage is a concern, but I think Matt's right. When I think
about it, how many prints will I really want made? Even when I was
shooting only film, I would maybe want one or two enlargements from
any given roll of 36 exposures, if that. Everything else can just
sit as a file that I can look at as the mood strikes me.

Quality is an issue as well, but I don't think Epson is known for
poor quality. Besides, for $99, even if I had to purchase a new
one next year, I wouldn't really care.

Jason Simms
Click to expand...
 
Hello Jason,

The Olympus P 400 produces wonderfuly sharp pictures with very accurate color reproduction up to A4. I have had mine now for over a year and am very pleased with it! It accepts SmartMedia and CompactFlash cards using a standard PC Card adapter. It works well with my G2.

Regards,
KF--Ken F.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top