Reading mode: Light Dark

The HP Edge

Go to last post
W

William Finnell

Leading Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Location
OR, US
There are a lot of truly fine printers on the market today, Epson and Canon being just two. But HP has the edge in one very, very important department and that is printheads: They are in the cartridge and not the printer.

To those who have never had printhead problems, this probably won't seem a problem. But if you are one of those who have (I am), you will know what I mean. I have had two very fine Epsons, but both fell victim to clogged or partially clogged heads. One I finally junked. The other I had repaired for $65. I finally gave up and got an HP primarily because the printheads are essentially disposable, being in the cartridge. I have never been sorry.

I won't get into an argument on the aesthetics of HP vs. Epson or Canon, but I can say that I have many prints from both and unless you get them under a very strong magnifier, there is no visible difference. Even then, the differences are miniscule. To those who insist on microscopic examination, I have but one message: most of us don't use microscopes to view our pics. We put them in books or on the wall, or in slide shows and enjoy them. If I had to drag out a magnifier and nitpick every picture I or someone else takes, I would dump digital photography like a hot potato. Fun is finding beauty, not faults.

To those who insist on panning HP's, I guess there's nothing we can do but remind you that HP's track record, reliability, AND printhead technology are all proven facts. I, for one, will stick with HP until Epson and the others finally figure out how to keep their printheads more trouble-free. Then I might make the switch.
 
My sentiments exactly.
Bill Finnell said:
There are a lot of truly fine printers on the market today, Epson
and Canon being just two. But HP has the edge in one very, very
important department and that is printheads: They are in the
cartridge and not the printer.

To those who have never had printhead problems, this probably won't
seem a problem. But if you are one of those who have (I am), you
will know what I mean. I have had two very fine Epsons, but both
fell victim to clogged or partially clogged heads. One I finally
junked. The other I had repaired for $65. I finally gave up and got
an HP primarily because the printheads are essentially disposable,
being in the cartridge. I have never been sorry.

I won't get into an argument on the aesthetics of HP vs. Epson or
Canon, but I can say that I have many prints from both and unless
you get them under a very strong magnifier, there is no visible
difference. Even then, the differences are miniscule. To those who
insist on microscopic examination, I have but one message: most of
us don't use microscopes to view our pics. We put them in books or
on the wall, or in slide shows and enjoy them. If I had to drag out
a magnifier and nitpick every picture I or someone else takes, I
would dump digital photography like a hot potato. Fun is finding
beauty, not faults.

To those who insist on panning HP's, I guess there's nothing we can
do but remind you that HP's track record, reliability, AND
printhead technology are all proven facts. I, for one, will stick
with HP until Epson and the others finally figure out how to keep
their printheads more trouble-free. Then I might make the switch.
Click to expand...
 
Bill,

I have simialr experience with my HP original PhotoSmart Printer for reliability, durability and consistency in quality. The printer is more than three years old but it has not disappointed me once (even when I used different papers e.g. Kodak Ultima, Epson Heavy Weight Matt and Canon Glossy Photo).

I hope HP can come up with a 6 color, wide format printer and blow the Canon S9000 and Epson 1280 right out of the water.

Regards,

Val
SteveB said:
Bill Finnell said:
There are a lot of truly fine printers on the market today, Epson
and Canon being just two. But HP has the edge in one very, very
important department and that is printheads: They are in the
cartridge and not the printer.

To those who have never had printhead problems, this probably won't
seem a problem. But if you are one of those who have (I am), you
will know what I mean. I have had two very fine Epsons, but both
fell victim to clogged or partially clogged heads. One I finally
junked. The other I had repaired for $65. I finally gave up and got
an HP primarily because the printheads are essentially disposable,
being in the cartridge. I have never been sorry.

I won't get into an argument on the aesthetics of HP vs. Epson or
Canon, but I can say that I have many prints from both and unless
you get them under a very strong magnifier, there is no visible
difference. Even then, the differences are miniscule. To those who
insist on microscopic examination, I have but one message: most of
us don't use microscopes to view our pics. We put them in books or
on the wall, or in slide shows and enjoy them. If I had to drag out
a magnifier and nitpick every picture I or someone else takes, I
would dump digital photography like a hot potato. Fun is finding
beauty, not faults.

To those who insist on panning HP's, I guess there's nothing we can
do but remind you that HP's track record, reliability, AND
printhead technology are all proven facts. I, for one, will stick
with HP until Epson and the others finally figure out how to keep
their printheads more trouble-free. Then I might make the switch.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Val Patel said:
I have simialr experience with my HP original PhotoSmart Printer
for reliability, durability and consistency in quality. The printer
is more than three years old but it has not disappointed me once
(even when I used different papers e.g. Kodak Ultima, Epson Heavy
Weight Matt and Canon Glossy Photo).

I hope HP can come up with a 6 color, wide format printer and blow
the Canon S9000 and Epson 1280 right out of the water.

Regards,

Val
Click to expand...
I am looking at one of the new Canon printers because my Original PhotoSmart just stopped printing one channel altogether. It's really too bad because I have had nothing but good success with this printer for almost four years. I can't get anyone to even look at it to fix it. Ironically one of my friends bought one around the same time I did and his just recently stopped printing two channels. I also have an HP1220 wide body which is a very good all purpose work horse and has the same specs as the new Photo printers from HP. It is OK for photos but not great,the old PhotoSmart gave me much better results. As I stated in another post, I am leaning toward getting the S820 or S900 for my dedicated photo printer.--Andy
 
The challenge is pointless (sorry). I think most HP owners would already grant that there are higher quality photo printers around like the Canon, but they have chosen HP for it's other strengths and are also very happy also with their HP's photo results, so why worry?

By the way, have Canon sorted out the problem they had a couple of years ago when they had models that used ALL of their ink up if you switched the printer on 60 times regardless of whether you printed anything or not?
Mr. Stacey said:
The HP D135 is one of their newest multi-functions. They use a
seperate ink tank and seperate printhead.

How about taking the challege?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=2329579
Click to expand...
 
It already blows away any canon or epson. Have you seen the HP designjet 10ps. Far away from 1290. I have not seen canon 9000 results. But this printer makes really good photos
Val Patel said:
I have simialr experience with my HP original PhotoSmart Printer
for reliability, durability and consistency in quality. The printer
is more than three years old but it has not disappointed me once
(even when I used different papers e.g. Kodak Ultima, Epson Heavy
Weight Matt and Canon Glossy Photo).

I hope HP can come up with a 6 color, wide format printer and blow
the Canon S9000 and Epson 1280 right out of the water.

Regards,

Val
SteveB said:
Bill Finnell said:
There are a lot of truly fine printers on the market today, Epson
and Canon being just two. But HP has the edge in one very, very
important department and that is printheads: They are in the
cartridge and not the printer.

To those who have never had printhead problems, this probably won't
seem a problem. But if you are one of those who have (I am), you
will know what I mean. I have had two very fine Epsons, but both
fell victim to clogged or partially clogged heads. One I finally
junked. The other I had repaired for $65. I finally gave up and got
an HP primarily because the printheads are essentially disposable,
being in the cartridge. I have never been sorry.

I won't get into an argument on the aesthetics of HP vs. Epson or
Canon, but I can say that I have many prints from both and unless
you get them under a very strong magnifier, there is no visible
difference. Even then, the differences are miniscule. To those who
insist on microscopic examination, I have but one message: most of
us don't use microscopes to view our pics. We put them in books or
on the wall, or in slide shows and enjoy them. If I had to drag out
a magnifier and nitpick every picture I or someone else takes, I
would dump digital photography like a hot potato. Fun is finding
beauty, not faults.

To those who insist on panning HP's, I guess there's nothing we can
do but remind you that HP's track record, reliability, AND
printhead technology are all proven facts. I, for one, will stick
with HP until Epson and the others finally figure out how to keep
their printheads more trouble-free. Then I might make the switch.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Cristian
 
I quit using Canon injets two years ago after losing my 1st and second one to printhead problems. These were very costly mistakes. At the time these printers were selling for around $300. I called a repair man and he said the best thing to do is to use the Canon for a doorstop! Said to go with HP. I have since had two Hp's and both are still working. My current 930c does outstanding photo quality and only cost intially about $150. The sales man at Staples said that HP's photret technology uses far less ink than comparable models..so I'm sold. Don't really see any reason to use anything else...bc
 
I bought into the Canon/Epson hype that was played up on this forum and went out and bought an Epson printer and was dissapointed in the results. The same with Canon when i tried the s800, speed was the only nice thing, prints lacked the sharpness and richness that HP delivered. Yet you may wonder why Epson always gets excellant reviews, well that's easy, look at any magazine that has given Epson printers high ranks and you will see somewhere in the front of the magazine a full two page advertisement from Epson, that advertisment costs quite a bit of money, enough $$$ to persuade any magazine to write a shining review to keep it's high paying client. Ahhh, is it now starting to make sense ?

Dan
Bill Finnell said:
There are a lot of truly fine printers on the market today, Epson
and Canon being just two. But HP has the edge in one very, very
important department and that is printheads: They are in the
cartridge and not the printer.

To those who have never had printhead problems, this probably won't
seem a problem. But if you are one of those who have (I am), you
will know what I mean. I have had two very fine Epsons, but both
fell victim to clogged or partially clogged heads. One I finally
junked. The other I had repaired for $65. I finally gave up and got
an HP primarily because the printheads are essentially disposable,
being in the cartridge. I have never been sorry.

I won't get into an argument on the aesthetics of HP vs. Epson or
Canon, but I can say that I have many prints from both and unless
you get them under a very strong magnifier, there is no visible
difference. Even then, the differences are miniscule. To those who
insist on microscopic examination, I have but one message: most of
us don't use microscopes to view our pics. We put them in books or
on the wall, or in slide shows and enjoy them. If I had to drag out
a magnifier and nitpick every picture I or someone else takes, I
would dump digital photography like a hot potato. Fun is finding
beauty, not faults.

To those who insist on panning HP's, I guess there's nothing we can
do but remind you that HP's track record, reliability, AND
printhead technology are all proven facts. I, for one, will stick
with HP until Epson and the others finally figure out how to keep
their printheads more trouble-free. Then I might make the switch.
Click to expand...
 
My replies are embedded in the following quotes:
Bill Finnell said:
There are a lot of truly fine printers on the market today, Epson
and Canon being just two. But HP has the edge in one very, very
important department and that is printheads: They are in the
cartridge and not the printer.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Print technology has come so far and there are some fine printers out there. I think the disposable printhead approach is a double edged sword though. I have had to throw away carts that still had ink in them due to printhead problems. All in all though, I would have to say that from a reliability standpoint, this is a very good strategy and I have NEVER been unhappy with ANY HP printer I have ever owned (dating back to some of the original Laserjets and Deskjets).
William Finnell said:
To those who have never had printhead problems, this probably won't
seem a problem. But if you are one of those who have (I am), you
will know what I mean. I have had two very fine Epsons, but both
fell victim to clogged or partially clogged heads. One I finally
junked. The other I had repaired for $65. I finally gave up and got
an HP primarily because the printheads are essentially disposable,
being in the cartridge. I have never been sorry.
Click to expand...
I think any printer, HP included, could conceivably run into printhead problems. All printheads have a finite life. Print a photo on an HP and then leave the printer alone for 3 months. You may end up throwing the cartridge away. Not that big of a deal in the scheme of things. Most of us don't use our printers that way. My only point is that it's not a perfect system, as stated above. I must say though, concerning Epson, the only good luck I have ever had with them is their old wide carriage impact printers. All Epson inkjet products I have ever owned have been very unreliable. But, that's just me. I have heard stories from others who have had great luck with them. I don't think Epson's suck, but, they are just not for me right now.
William Finnell said:
I won't get into an argument on the aesthetics of HP vs. Epson or
Canon, but I can say that I have many prints from both and unless
you get them under a very strong magnifier, there is no visible
difference. Even then, the differences are miniscule. To those who
insist on microscopic examination, I have but one message: most of
us don't use microscopes to view our pics. We put them in books or
on the wall, or in slide shows and enjoy them. If I had to drag out
a magnifier and nitpick every picture I or someone else takes, I
would dump digital photography like a hot potato. Fun is finding
beauty, not faults.
Click to expand...
At one time, I thought the same thing too. But, from experience, it's simply not true. Normal people with no experience in the technology other than being a pedestrian observer can in fact tell the difference with the naked eye. Not a single person has failed to comment(these were unsolicited, I didn't tell anyone that I had acquired a new printer) on the difference between the output of my HP 932C as compared to my Canon S800. People are used to seeing my latest pics when they come over (they are sitting all over the house most times, in various stages of cropping/mounting/framing). Comments range from "Where did you get these processed" to "New printer huh?". The quality from the HP is NOT bad. Not at all. The initial responses to my HP prints were "These came out of a printer???", people were amazed at the quality. This is all anectdotal evidence of course and is presented as such, but it is definitely my experience that you don't need a microscope or a degree in engineering to discern a difference (and I have many, many prints from Canon, Epson and HP in my posession).
William Finnell said:
To those who insist on panning HP's, I guess there's nothing we can
do but remind you that HP's track record, reliability, AND
printhead technology are all proven facts. I, for one, will stick
with HP until Epson and the others finally figure out how to keep
their printheads more trouble-free. Then I might make the switch.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I have seen much panning of HP. I think people put them on the lower end of the print quality scale. I don't think I have ever seen anyone making blanket assertions about build quality, reliability, etc. If you don't see the difference in print quality, then obviously there is no need to look elsewhere for a printer. That's really all that matters. My HP will stay on serving the bulk of my printing needs (text and graphics). It's all about compramise.

As always, just my two cents.
 
Bill Finnell (and others )wrote:
William Finnell said:
There are a lot of truly fine printers on the market today, Epson
and Canon being just two. But HP has the edge in one very, very
important department and that is printheads: They are in the
cartridge and not the printer.... [snip]
Click to expand...
Whew, I'm glad I found this site and posts. I'm currently on the holy grail to find a new color printer. After going through 3 Epsons, I've had it with clogged heads. It's ridiculous.

So, here's my quest: I'm looking for a color printer that:

1. has its printer heads in the cartridges.
2. has large ink capacities, preferably separate ones.
3. I'll give up photo quality printing for more reliable printing!

My needs are not in the photo realm, but more in the color flyers for workshops, etc. realm. Of course I won't refuse a photo quality printer, but it's not critical. The only thing critical is keeping the chances of clogged heads down to a minimum.

After reading these great posts, I'm guessing that the model of choice is HP. Any suggestions on which model?

Many, many thanks for this site!
 
I used to work for CompUSA and the HPs were alright, 932s,etc ... but they would never print on the right side of the paper ... ie there always was a 1/2in channel on the right side of the paper ... Epsons, on the other hand, could always print within 1/8 of any edge ... AND, I never much liked the FAKE ... notice I said the word FAKE .... PhotoRET stuff. ...

I've alwasys liked the quality prints that the Epsons make, ... and yes, have had to get used to cleaning those 'itty bitty print nozzles' more often than I would like .... and I like the current crop of Canons as well ... but there was a period after the 600 model .... where they went downhill ... but now the 9000 is looking real good ... BUT what it all boils down to ... could a $400 Canon be better than a $53 Epson 780??? (hsn.com) .... I guess if you had money to burn .... and wanted that last 4% increase in quality or speed .... then the 9000 might do, ... but ... those cheapie 780s are 'hard' to beat!!! .... oh yeah .... the HPs are WAY TOO EXPENSIVE !!
 
I think your wrong Mr. Stacey. Just checked on the D135 and it appears NOT to have seperate ink tanks. They use one Black cartridge and one TRI color cartridge much like most of HP's printers. It also uses PhotoRet III which all of HP color printers use. Why would you mention this 500 dollar All-in-one (it prints, faxes, copys, and scans) in this photo forum, when you can get the same HP technology (PhotoRet III) in a less expensive photo printer. Something is fishy around here.

DougT
Mr. Stacey said:
The HP D135 is one of their newest multi-functions. They use a
seperate ink tank and seperate printhead.
Click to expand...
 
Not sure what is fake about photoret technology. Personally, I liked the results. It uses so very little ink to produce a decent print.

As for the comment about Epsons, I liked the print quality. Very nice. But, my $300 Canon prints when I want it to. I took the $100 Epson back. You can have the clogging and the astronomical ink consumption (especially on one of my MANY attempts to unclog the heads). I burned through $60 worth of ink (3 carts) in about 5 days with the Epson and only had about 30-40 8x10's. I have spent about $30 on ink for my Canon over the course 3 weeks of heavy printing (for me) and I have WAY more than 30-40 8x10's.

What's it worth to have a printer that works properly when you turn it on and put in a sheet of expensive photo paper? For me, the $300 is a bargain compared to the cheaper Epson. I want a printer that works consistently. A $100 doorstop is no bargain. Unfortunately, my last Epson nightmare was my third in about 8 years. It's starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth. This is only my second Canon, my first was no performer, but I got it cheap. Anyway, just my two cents.
Allen Shope said:
I used to work for CompUSA and the HPs were alright, 932s,etc ...
but they would never print on the right side of the paper ... ie
there always was a 1/2in channel on the right side of the paper ...
Epsons, on the other hand, could always print within 1/8 of any
edge ... AND, I never much liked the FAKE ... notice I said the
word FAKE .... PhotoRET stuff. ...
I've alwasys liked the quality prints that the Epsons make, ... and
yes, have had to get used to cleaning those 'itty bitty print
nozzles' more often than I would like .... and I like the current
crop of Canons as well ... but there was a period after the 600
model .... where they went downhill ... but now the 9000 is looking
real good ... BUT what it all boils down to ... could a $400 Canon
be better than a $53 Epson 780??? (hsn.com) .... I guess if you had
money to burn .... and wanted that last 4% increase in quality or
speed .... then the 9000 might do, ... but ... those cheapie 780s
are 'hard' to beat!!! .... oh yeah .... the HPs are WAY TOO
EXPENSIVE !!
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, but the DesignJet is $850 and I don't think it will be as good or as fast as the S9000.

Are the ink cartridges for the DesignJet 10ps reasonably priced? Can you get them at most stores like OfficeMax, etc.?

In the past, I found it hard to find consumables for the HP non-consumer stuff. Especially their series of DesignJet plotters.
Cristian Baitg said:
Val Patel said:
I have simialr experience with my HP original PhotoSmart Printer
for reliability, durability and consistency in quality. The printer
is more than three years old but it has not disappointed me once
(even when I used different papers e.g. Kodak Ultima, Epson Heavy
Weight Matt and Canon Glossy Photo).

I hope HP can come up with a 6 color, wide format printer and blow
the Canon S9000 and Epson 1280 right out of the water.

Regards,

Val
SteveB said:
Bill Finnell said:
There are a lot of truly fine printers on the market today, Epson
and Canon being just two. But HP has the edge in one very, very
important department and that is printheads: They are in the
cartridge and not the printer.

To those who have never had printhead problems, this probably won't
seem a problem. But if you are one of those who have (I am), you
will know what I mean. I have had two very fine Epsons, but both
fell victim to clogged or partially clogged heads. One I finally
junked. The other I had repaired for $65. I finally gave up and got
an HP primarily because the printheads are essentially disposable,
being in the cartridge. I have never been sorry.

I won't get into an argument on the aesthetics of HP vs. Epson or
Canon, but I can say that I have many prints from both and unless
you get them under a very strong magnifier, there is no visible
difference. Even then, the differences are miniscule. To those who
insist on microscopic examination, I have but one message: most of
us don't use microscopes to view our pics. We put them in books or
on the wall, or in slide shows and enjoy them. If I had to drag out
a magnifier and nitpick every picture I or someone else takes, I
would dump digital photography like a hot potato. Fun is finding
beauty, not faults.

To those who insist on panning HP's, I guess there's nothing we can
do but remind you that HP's track record, reliability, AND
printhead technology are all proven facts. I, for one, will stick
with HP until Epson and the others finally figure out how to keep
their printheads more trouble-free. Then I might make the switch.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Cristian
Click to expand...
 
I used an Epson 3000 for a long time and was content, except the paper feed which is real bad.

New camery and a new printer to go with.

I decided to buy a HP1700. For one I like HP and secondly it has a Duplex unit.

Colour calibration was a pain until I made my own profile. But the pictures suffer fro heavy metamerism.

That there is no "real" XP driver (only some hybrid with reduced fuctionality) didn't improve my temper.

So i looked into it and the problem is that black dries flat, not hsiny. With some papers it is better (i.e. EPSON Glossy and Ilford Pearl) and with some worse (i.e. HP Premium Glossy or Ilfor classic glossy). I didn't find a satifying solution. The pictures were sharp, but the blacks dry flat and there is always a little mist over the pictures (it's the flat black) using the small black cartridge (none pigment) improves things a bit, but not as much that I got real happy.

So I finally I switched to a Canon 9000 and the pictures are visibly better, they are (at least they look) sharper and the colours are brighter.

I never thought that I need "frameless printing" but now that I have it, I'm glad it exists. The driver also seems to be better and I like the Canon way to adjust colours better than the HP way.

All I miss is Duplex for mundane work.

Whether the print heads will clog quicker or whether the mechanics will break sooner (the HP is considerably more massive than the Canon) I do not know, but right now I'm glad I switched.

Regards
SH
 
Hi,
This is my first post on this forum. I have a HP OfficeJet G85 Printer/Fax/

Scanner/Copier. I have had it 19 months and it has never failed me. A very good reliable work horse and I am very satisified with it. I bought a digital camera about 4 months ago and am now very interested in printing out my pictures. I have been considering the HP 1315 to use for printing pictures only, and use the G85 for the bulk of my office work.

My question is this: Will I get better results printing pictures with the
1315 or will they basically be the same as the results I
get from the G85. Naturally I don't want to buy the
1315 if I get the same results, however if it does a
better job I would buy it.

I would appreciate any help from anyone who has experience in these printers.

Harvey F
tuqqer said:
tuqqer said:
There are a lot of truly fine printers on the market today, Epson
and Canon being just two. But HP has the edge in one very, very
important department and that is printheads: They are in the
cartridge and not the printer.... [snip]
Click to expand...
Whew, I'm glad I found this site and posts. I'm currently on the
holy grail to find a new color printer. After going through 3
Epsons, I've had it with clogged heads. It's ridiculous.

So, here's my quest: I'm looking for a color printer that:

1. has its printer heads in the cartridges.
2. has large ink capacities, preferably separate ones.
3. I'll give up photo quality printing for more reliable printing!

My needs are not in the photo realm, but more in the color flyers
for workshops, etc. realm. Of course I won't refuse a photo quality
printer, but it's not critical. The only thing critical is keeping
the chances of clogged heads down to a minimum.

After reading these great posts, I'm guessing that the model of
choice is HP. Any suggestions on which model?

Many, many thanks for this site!
Click to expand...
 
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