-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Epson 820
- Thread starter Lisa97316
- Start date
Donald Hutton
Leading Member
Photo quality is excellent. I had trouble getting the settings correct and then had clogging problems, but the photo quality is excellent.
tony ulchar
Member
Everything I've read about the 820 is good. Image quality ranks very high for its price. The downside to this machine are its speed S_L_O_W and it's build quality. Some sites seem to denegrate it because it's not as well built as other Epsons. Seems like it's not for everyday, hard use but will give a great image. You might also want to check out the 785 EPX which is not much more $$$ but gives more features.
Check out epson's website for side-by-side comparisons.
Steves-digicams.com has a review of the 785 that sold me on it (coming tomorrow!)
Check out epson's website for side-by-side comparisons.
Steves-digicams.com has a review of the 785 that sold me on it (coming tomorrow!)
TonyK_in_Texas
Senior Member
One of the biggest differences between the 785 and the 820 is the 785 can print directly from card media. It has a built in card reader. For the $100, I opted to forgo that and recently purchased the 820.
I LOVE the quality of the prints. I've not had it long enough to experience the clogging problems. I am letting it sit a few days and see if any develop. If they do, it goes back to CompUSA for replacement or refund.
CostCo have them for $89 and a $20 rebate. I unfortunately purchased mine one day before the sale began.
Oh well. IT is worth the $100 I paid for it.
Take care,
TonyK
I LOVE the quality of the prints. I've not had it long enough to experience the clogging problems. I am letting it sit a few days and see if any develop. If they do, it goes back to CompUSA for replacement or refund.
CostCo have them for $89 and a $20 rebate. I unfortunately purchased mine one day before the sale began.
Oh well. IT is worth the $100 I paid for it.Take care,
--
TonyK
I'm getting ready to buy one myself. Printing directly from the media card isn't a feature I really need. Most of my pictures go on the computer and get some minor ediing before they are printed anyway. When I looked at the Epson site, it seemed like the only real diffrerences between the two are the media card thing and that the 785 can print on 4" photo roll paper. All the print quality, speed, etc. seemed about the same.
I LOVE the quality of the prints. I've not had it long enough to
experience the clogging problems. I am letting it sit a few days
and see if any develop. If they do, it goes back to CompUSA for
replacement or refund.
CostCo have them for $89 and a $20 rebate. I unfortunately
purchased mine one day before the sale began.
worth the $100 I paid for it.
Take care,
--
TonyK
Linas
Forum Enthusiast
See
http://www.dp-now.com/Features/Printer_reviews/Epson_810/epson_810.html
Note that Epson 820 is 810 in Europe and 785 is 895 in Europe.
Cheers,
Linas
It's great. I would highly recommend it too someone that wants to make occasional prints (by this, I mean a few a week) and doesn't want to pay alot for a printer. The quality is comparable to printers costin thre times as much (but, to be fair, there are a few tradeoffs which are NOT in the print quality department and is expected for a bargain printer).
Speed, noise, construction quality (doubt it would cause a problem though), and ink costs. If you plan on doing alot of printing, these tradeoffs may be an issue. If you're going to make maybe a few prints per week then I wouldn't waste my money on things you don't need unless it is really important to you.
Donald Hutton
Leading Member
If you get the setiings right, it produces great 8x10s... The real issues in my experience with this camera are colour settings and clogging. But the image quality is excellent.
Although I have not seen 8x10's (you probably mean 8.5x11) from the 820, the 5x7's I've seen are more than semi-nice, they are very nice. Keep in mind, however, that the printer can not print better than what the source allows it to. A 3mp camera is a minimum requirement for 8.5x11 photo prints with any quality, and a 4 or 5 mp camera will be much better. Noise levels from the source also should be low.
TonyK_in_Texas
Senior Member
Using my 4.1MP E10, I get GREAT 8 x 10s.
Even 5 x 7s from a 3.31 MP Casio QV3000 are good.
Take care,
TonyK
Even 5 x 7s from a 3.31 MP Casio QV3000 are good.
Take care,
--
TonyK
Galen Huebner
Active member
Marga,
For years photo enthusiasts have been printing with Epson products. We've complained some about the noise and some about clogging printheads and recently on the 820 about it's flimsier construction, but until recently, Epson was always the king when it came to print quality. Personally, having examined prints from both, I believe they now share the throne.
Is the Epson 820 noiser? Yes. Is its contruction less sturdy? Yes. Do you have to clean the printheads more often? Yes, and particularly for some users. Why? I'm not sure. I have not experienced that may problems.
The bottom line, however, is that the Epson gives excellent prints for a fraction of the cost of a Canon. I've heard the cost of ink issue raised so many times that I'm weary of the misinformation. The following are some comments I made in another thread:
Epson's, too, are a quality product, with their own selling points. I, for one, don't like the inconvenience of having to change out six cartridges, when I only have to presently change out two. I am currently able to find a broader supplier of deeper discounted Epson cartridges than Canon. My Canon BJC-600 inks still cost more than my genuine Epson inks.
This issue of defending who is cheaper on inks is like a dog chasing it's tail. If my picture-taking tends toward the gray side in the color spectrum, I will tend to use my inks more equally and be changing out 6 cartridges nearly simultaneously. What did I save then? Further, minus the inks, I am looking at the production cost of 6 cartridges, not two. These cartridges do cost something.
Dye ink production costs are similar for all suppliers. Name Brands are always more expensive, but they must remain competitive, if they are to retain their business. If I compare MSRP of Epson and Canon OEM inks per page, it is my understanding from a professional review that Canon will just win out, but when you also add in the proprietory paper, Epson wins in producing a cheaper total per print cost. You see, the dog is still chasing his tail. The bottom line is that given the comparable per print ink price per manufacturer, it is futile to try to evaluate savings for individual users, because there are too many user variables which defy an accurate analysis for all.
Getting back to your original question on the quality of prints. You can make as many prints as you like per week and you will continue to produce excellent quality prints. In fact, the more you print (not just occasional use as some one else previously posted) you will actually reduce the likelihood of printhead clogging and dramatically reduce the the necessity for performing any cleaning procedures. In other words the quality of your prints stays consistent without the need for nozzle cleaning.
I own an Epson 800, 750, and 785 EPX, which is the computerless version of the 820. They have the same print engines. I am very very happy. If you elect to buy a Canon s800/900/9000, you will be buying a quality product but at a greater price. The Epson 820 for much less money will produce prints more noisely, more slowly, but with equal quality, and if comparatively you use the manufacturers inks and papers, than according to the following reviewer, your per print cost may actually be less than the Canon.
http://www.dp-now.com/Features/Printer_reviews/Photo-inkjets/Running_costs/running_costs.html
If you have the money, you won't be disappointed in the Canon. It is a quality printer, and if you wish to save money and sacrifice speed and endure a little noiser operation, you should be very satisfied with the Epson 820. I know I am.
I don't know how I could be any more balanced in my recommendations to you.
Hope this helps.
Galen
For years photo enthusiasts have been printing with Epson products. We've complained some about the noise and some about clogging printheads and recently on the 820 about it's flimsier construction, but until recently, Epson was always the king when it came to print quality. Personally, having examined prints from both, I believe they now share the throne.
Is the Epson 820 noiser? Yes. Is its contruction less sturdy? Yes. Do you have to clean the printheads more often? Yes, and particularly for some users. Why? I'm not sure. I have not experienced that may problems.
The bottom line, however, is that the Epson gives excellent prints for a fraction of the cost of a Canon. I've heard the cost of ink issue raised so many times that I'm weary of the misinformation. The following are some comments I made in another thread:
Epson's, too, are a quality product, with their own selling points. I, for one, don't like the inconvenience of having to change out six cartridges, when I only have to presently change out two. I am currently able to find a broader supplier of deeper discounted Epson cartridges than Canon. My Canon BJC-600 inks still cost more than my genuine Epson inks.
This issue of defending who is cheaper on inks is like a dog chasing it's tail. If my picture-taking tends toward the gray side in the color spectrum, I will tend to use my inks more equally and be changing out 6 cartridges nearly simultaneously. What did I save then? Further, minus the inks, I am looking at the production cost of 6 cartridges, not two. These cartridges do cost something.
Dye ink production costs are similar for all suppliers. Name Brands are always more expensive, but they must remain competitive, if they are to retain their business. If I compare MSRP of Epson and Canon OEM inks per page, it is my understanding from a professional review that Canon will just win out, but when you also add in the proprietory paper, Epson wins in producing a cheaper total per print cost. You see, the dog is still chasing his tail. The bottom line is that given the comparable per print ink price per manufacturer, it is futile to try to evaluate savings for individual users, because there are too many user variables which defy an accurate analysis for all.
Getting back to your original question on the quality of prints. You can make as many prints as you like per week and you will continue to produce excellent quality prints. In fact, the more you print (not just occasional use as some one else previously posted) you will actually reduce the likelihood of printhead clogging and dramatically reduce the the necessity for performing any cleaning procedures. In other words the quality of your prints stays consistent without the need for nozzle cleaning.
I own an Epson 800, 750, and 785 EPX, which is the computerless version of the 820. They have the same print engines. I am very very happy. If you elect to buy a Canon s800/900/9000, you will be buying a quality product but at a greater price. The Epson 820 for much less money will produce prints more noisely, more slowly, but with equal quality, and if comparatively you use the manufacturers inks and papers, than according to the following reviewer, your per print cost may actually be less than the Canon.
http://www.dp-now.com/Features/Printer_reviews/Photo-inkjets/Running_costs/running_costs.html
If you have the money, you won't be disappointed in the Canon. It is a quality printer, and if you wish to save money and sacrifice speed and endure a little noiser operation, you should be very satisfied with the Epson 820. I know I am.
I don't know how I could be any more balanced in my recommendations to you.
Hope this helps.
Galen
BamaPanda
Senior Member
I have the S75 myself, and the Epson C80. Getting great results ...to 8x10, easy now that I have a good printing program.
I was trying PhotoShop but wasted a # of prints getting bad colors ...not calibrated good.
Finally got PS calibrated ...good images, but now have Qimage ...getting better / great results ..easily.
The C80 has archival inks. Youe prints will last way longer.
Andy Smith
I was trying PhotoShop but wasted a # of prints getting bad colors ...not calibrated good.
Finally got PS calibrated ...good images, but now have Qimage ...getting better / great results ..easily.
The C80 has archival inks. Youe prints will last way longer.
Andy Smith
deeee
Member
after agonizing about it for about a week or two, i bought an 820 today at costco...$69. they also have a pakage deal on the ink cartridges...2 color cartridges and 1 black for $42, also bought a package of paper, 100 sheets of "photo paper" for $20 (i know it's not the best paper, but it's all they had i wanted to start playing with my new toy). Soooo, for under $140, i have a decent set up.
The VERY FIRST picture, my test picture came out FANTASTIC! (do you hear me knocking on wood!)
yes, it's loud, but i don't care. kinda slow, but i have time. for the price, i think i did great. (knocking harder now!)
Been reading this forum for a while, so i think i know what to watch for, besides, costco has a very liberal return policy!
Any advise on where to buy better quality paper for the epson? i checked there web site...kinda pricey!
The VERY FIRST picture, my test picture came out FANTASTIC! (do you hear me knocking on wood!)
yes, it's loud, but i don't care. kinda slow, but i have time. for the price, i think i did great. (knocking harder now!)
Been reading this forum for a while, so i think i know what to watch for, besides, costco has a very liberal return policy!
Any advise on where to buy better quality paper for the epson? i checked there web site...kinda pricey!
J
Josh
Guest
I bet you could take the receipt in, and they'd give you the difference. They're really good about that at Costco.
I LOVE the quality of the prints. I've not had it long enough to
experience the clogging problems. I am letting it sit a few days
and see if any develop. If they do, it goes back to CompUSA for
replacement or refund.
CostCo have them for $89 and a $20 rebate. I unfortunately
purchased mine one day before the sale began.
worth the $100 I paid for it.
Take care,
--
TonyK
I have had an Epson 820 for about 5 months. The quality of the prints are very good, however, I send most of my prints to a lab as it is significantly cheaper and the resulting photo quality from the labs are significantly superior to the Epson 820. That said it is nice to have the option to print at home.
My complaints about the 820 are
1) it contains a chipped cartridge so you basically have to buy Epson genuine cartridges which are very expensive
2) clogging - if I don't use it regularly the print heads clog and I have to run up to 9 cleaning cycles to get it to print properly (wastes a lot of expensive ink)
If I had to do it again I would not buy it - it is the worst Epson printer I have owned ( I have 2 others, the 640 and 880 which work excellent).
I would look at a Canon S900.
My complaints about the 820 are
1) it contains a chipped cartridge so you basically have to buy Epson genuine cartridges which are very expensive
2) clogging - if I don't use it regularly the print heads clog and I have to run up to 9 cleaning cycles to get it to print properly (wastes a lot of expensive ink)
If I had to do it again I would not buy it - it is the worst Epson printer I have owned ( I have 2 others, the 640 and 880 which work excellent).
I would look at a Canon S900.
Steve Cavigliano
Veteran Member
For what it's worth, the first day I got my 820, I printed 7 - 8 X 10's. I was stunned. I mean it was surprising for a $69 printer, even for a $300 printer. I have a 5mp cam, so I'm gonna be doing lot's of 8X10's and this baby will be doin all but the ones I want to frame. I'll send those to a pro. From the prints I've seen, the $400 and $500 inkjets don't seem to have that kind of professional quality (including the S900/9000). I'm real happy with this printer, geez I've got filters that cost more...LOL.
Steve
Steve
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum