Printer Questions

I have heard that while some Lexmarks produce good quality, the ink costs are very high. This goes for some Epsons too (eg my 820 (now retired hurt and clogged) costs about 80c per 8X10 - and you can't use non Epson ink because of the chips in the cartridges). Canons seem to be quite economical by comparison, as do HP. I have only owned Epson and Canons. I have had entry level Epson (most recently 820) and better model Canons (recently S9000). I have much preferred the Canons (and paid a lot more for them). They have presented me with very few problems and fast and good ouput.

I suspect the bottom line is: you get what you pay for.

Chris Fike said:

TheSwede said:

The consistently best results come from Epson and Canon printers,
with HP second. Lexmark are trying to push into the market, they're
known for budget printers, but I wouldn't get one. They don't
measure up to the best quality competitors and they're not cheap
enough to be worth it.

--
Jesper

Click to expand...

If that's true then Epson must be awsome. Wish I had a chance to
take a look last night.

Click to expand...

How did you come up with 80c per copy?

I have an 820 and I get about 40-45 8x10s per color ink cart @1440dpi (some times I do print index sheets a@720dpi) the color ink costs 20$ (16$-17 online). Because I print mostly photos with this printer the black cartridge last about 3-4 times as long. Epson premium photo paper is about 5c per page.

See link http://www.costco.com/frameset.asp?trg=product%2Easp&catid=354&subid=1123&hierid=1200&prdid=10003111&log=

This works out to 55c-60c per page. I have not had many problems with the heads clogging but I use this printer a few times a week. I had to clean the heads twice in the 7 months I have had this printer. I did have to run the cleaning process 3 times before the printer was 100%. So far I have printed at least 250 8.5x11 pages the majority of what I am printing is 4 pictures per page borderless.

Can you give me the same type of per page breakdown for the cannon S900 printer?

I am sure it will be less as it has individual inks for each color. This model cost 3.5 times more than the Epson 820. How many prints before it becomes more cost effective to buy this printer than the Epson? And how long will it take you?

In the next year or two I will buy another printer that will be faster cheaper and better quality.

My friend has a cannon S520 about the same price range as the Epson and I like the quality of the Epson better. I have not looked at the quality of the S900 is it 3.5 times better than the Epson 820c?

If you are comparing manufactures you should compare the Cannon S900 to the Epson 1280. They are about the same price.

Donsta said:

I suspect the bottom line is: you get what you pay for.

Donald Hutton said:

TheSwede said:

The consistently best results come from Epson and Canon printers,
with HP second. Lexmark are trying to push into the market, they're
known for budget printers, but I wouldn't get one. They don't
measure up to the best quality competitors and they're not cheap
enough to be worth it.

--
Jesper

Click to expand...

If that's true then Epson must be awsome. Wish I had a chance to
take a look last night.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Chris Fike said:

If that's true then Epson must be awsome. Wish I had a chance to
take a look last night.

Click to expand...

Remember that the test pictures printed by the various printers are always optimized to show off the strengths of that particular printer. Lots of time and money has been spent to make that image look like the printer will blow away the competition.

Granted, that doesn't mean the printer is bad, but what you will really notice the difference on is your own shots, especially more difficult ones with not really perfect light, contrast and color.

--
Jesper

festivus15 said:

Thanks for all the help/advice. Does anyone have an opinion on the
Canon s520?

thanks,
Tyler

Click to expand...

My brother in law just took his Canon520 back after running through an entire pack of paper trying to get it to print right. Everything had a color cast that could not be taken out. My opinion - not worth the hassle to use non-Canon materials. Canons do best with Canon paper, which can be hard to find (except for mail order) and is $$$

Epsons do well with Epson paper (get it locally almost everywhere, not super expensive). I have a 785 that is GREAT. Supplies are easy to find and not overly pricey. It also accepts roll paper which makes it easy to print out lots of 4x6 "proofs" -- haven't had use for it yet but I bought it in part for this feature.

I also own a Lexmark (not the new one) and now use it exclusively for text. I reprinted some images on the 785 that I had previously printed on the Lexmark and there is a WORLD of diffference. The Lexmark is AWFUL for photos and uses very expensive ink carts.

EPSON!!

All of the newer Epsons have a variable droplet size. That's not what wastes the ink. The ink is wasted when one has to throw away a 5 color cartridge because one of the colors ran out and the rest are not completely empty.

Tony

Chris Fike said:

Tony Reynolds said:

I am in the hunt for a new printer also.

Personally, I would stay away from the Lexmark printers as well as
the HP. They are neither recognised as brands that do justice to
photos by most in the forums I've read. You also may want to look
at the printer forum to come up with more info.

I'm looking at a printer that will handle Super B size, 13"x19" and
13"x whatever for panoramas. I use an Epson 1270 here at work and
have been generally very pleased with it.

I will probably end up going with the Canon 9000 however, as I want
the seperate ink tanks (I'm tired of throwing away ink) and the
Canon is FAST and QUIET.

Most of the Epson Photo Printers will do well for you and some of
the older models can be had for around $50-75 if you look. They
would be a great choice if you never see yourself printing anything
bigger than letter or legal size.

Printer resolution is not that important in my opinion. I usually
print at 720x720 for three main reasons:

1. Anything more wastes ink, and
2. Most people at a "normal" viewing distance can't tell the
difference.
3. Prints take twice as long at 1440x720.

I'll probably take some heat for this but it's my opinion. Paper
that can hold resolution at 2880x1440 is very expensive, and the
print times are too long.

Do a search for printers on http://www.epinions.com and check out what
users have said.

Tony

Click to expand...

Granted, I've only seen one sample print from the Lexmark but it
looked VERY good. It also printed fast, a lot faster than my old
HP 855cse could have. I don't know about Epson, I've yet to check
it out.

I don't know about the claim of wasting ink either. Maybe when
compared to the Epson because they use the same drop size, but not
compared to an HP. There are five microns (or whatever the units
are, I forget) between HP's and Lexmark and Epson.

Click to expand...

foodman wrote:
If you are comparing manufactures you should compare the Cannon
S900 to the Epson 1280. They are about the same price.

Huh, I think you mean Canon 9000 RIGHT?

The Canon 900 doesn't compare to the Epson 1280: it can't print Super B (13"x19").

Also, the only thing that's keeping me from making the jump to the Canon 9000 is that the 1280 comes with a roll feed attachment for roll paper and as near as I can tell, the Canon does not.

Tony

You have misread my post -

I get about 20 10X8s on a colour cartridge (if I don't have a clog - which is at least once a week, so then it's less than 20). You may be very fortunate to not have clogging problems - hundred of posts in this forum are testament ot the fact that some of these printers clog all the time. I use the printer every day and it clogs far too much. I print at 2880 - the quality at 1440 is average... It is a long way below 2880 quality.The S9000 prints a borderless letter size in 1 minute and the quality is much better than the 820 at 1440...

I was not factoring the cost of black ink - only colour. I generally pay over $20 per colour cartridge (in fact, I have never paid less than that). Hence at 20 8X10s per cartridge, my estimate of ink cost at 80c per page was erring on the conservative side. I had not factored paper cost into the equation. Epson Premium photo paper has never, and will never be 5c a page - the paper you show in your link is Epson glossy photo paper - a far inferior product which is so thin it's unusable. Epson PPP is generally closer to 70c a sheet (letter).

I can't realistically compare the Canon and the Epson (that is why what I stated was opinion and why I pointed ou that the two printers are at completely different levels - Epson 820 is a cheap entry level printer and the Canon S900/0 is a much better quality machine):

The quality of the output from the Canon is better than the Epson at 2880 - not a huge amount, but noticable. Certainly it is far better than the Epson at 1440. Also, it is unbelievable quicker (I haven't timed it, but I'm sure the Epson takes about 10 minutes to do an 8X10 at 2880dpi - the Canon 1 minute). The Canon is much quieter and while I haven't done any tests, it seems much more economical. Also, if cheaper printing was a factor, third party inks can be used with the Canon which would probably make up the price differential in 500 8X10 prints! As a bonus, you get a wide printer and all the other advantages. However, print longevity is more of an issue for me, and I like the suggestion that prints from the Canon may be good for 25 years under ideal conditions.

For the infrequent photo printer, maybe the lottery of the Epson (you may get lucky and get one which doesn't clog) is the option. For anyone serious about printing photos, there's no discussion.

foodman said:

http://www.costco.com/frameset.asp?trg=product%2Easp&catid=354&subid=1123&hierid=1200&prdid=10003111&log=

This works out to 55c-60c per page. I have not had many problems
with the heads clogging but I use this printer a few times a week.
I had to clean the heads twice in the 7 months I have had this
printer. I did have to run the cleaning process 3 times before the
printer was 100%. So far I have printed at least 250 8.5x11 pages
the majority of what I am printing is 4 pictures per page
borderless.

Can you give me the same type of per page breakdown for the cannon
S900 printer?
I am sure it will be less as it has individual inks for each color.
This model cost 3.5 times more than the Epson 820. How many prints
before it becomes more cost effective to buy this printer than the
Epson? And how long will it take you?
In the next year or two I will buy another printer that will be
faster cheaper and better quality.
My friend has a cannon S520 about the same price range as the Epson
and I like the quality of the Epson better. I have not looked at
the quality of the S900 is it 3.5 times better than the Epson 820c?

If you are comparing manufactures you should compare the Cannon
S900 to the Epson 1280. They are about the same price.

Donsta said:

I suspect the bottom line is: you get what you pay for.

foodman said:

TheSwede said:

The consistently best results come from Epson and Canon printers,
with HP second. Lexmark are trying to push into the market, they're
known for budget printers, but I wouldn't get one. They don't
measure up to the best quality competitors and they're not cheap
enough to be worth it.

--
Jesper

Click to expand...

If that's true then Epson must be awsome. Wish I had a chance to
take a look last night.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Tony. The 785 sounds great, but will I be "wasting" or at least going through too much ink if I use it for a lot of text printing instead of making it a dedicated photo printer? I just want to have one printer that will be good at doing both for me. I don't have to have incredible text quality (that's what the school's laser printers are for), but I don't want to be going through a lot of ink printing too much text. Also, have you had any problem with ink clogging? I will most likely only be printing photos every couple of weeks, so do you think that will be a factor for clogging for me?

Thanks
Tyler

tony ulchar said:

festivus15 said:

Thanks for all the help/advice. Does anyone have an opinion on the
Canon s520?

thanks,
Tyler

Click to expand...

My brother in law just took his Canon520 back after running through
an entire pack of paper trying to get it to print right.
Everything had a color cast that could not be taken out. My opinion

• not worth the hassle to use non-Canon materials. Canons do best

with Canon paper, which can be hard to find (except for mail order)
and is $$$

Epsons do well with Epson paper (get it locally almost everywhere,
not super expensive). I have a 785 that is GREAT. Supplies are
easy to find and not overly pricey. It also accepts roll paper
which makes it easy to print out lots of 4x6 "proofs" -- haven't
had use for it yet but I bought it in part for this feature.

I also own a Lexmark (not the new one) and now use it exclusively
for text. I reprinted some images on the 785 that I had previously
printed on the Lexmark and there is a WORLD of diffference. The
Lexmark is AWFUL for photos and uses very expensive ink carts.

EPSON!!

Click to expand...

Donsta:

You're right, I did misread the post. I agree with everything you are saying, and the speed and reduced noise level are two of the reasons I'm considering the Canon 9000, besides individual ink cartridges.

I realize that analysis of printers is perhaps even MORE subjective that cameras. They certainly are simpler, in that they do less things, but the quality is in the eye of the beholder.

I stand by my opinion that is is of little use to print above 720x720, at least on the Epsons. I have a public exhibition up right now of about 34 large prints, some as large as 13 x 78. NO ONE that I have heard comment on the images has said ANYTHING about the print quality. Most people assume that they are silver prints, until they read the descriptions. The Canon's have a top print res of 2400x1200, I will need to evaluate that.

One of these days, I plan on taking one of my best images in to a store, with my photo paper, to test the Epson 1280 and Canon 9000 side-by-side. Then perhaps I'll have something less subjective to go on. I really need a wide format printer.

Tony

Tony

If you need to see a sample from the S9000, email me a suitable pic (high res, something which will test a printer - I always like skin tones and lots of landscape shades - sky, beach etc) or I'll pic out what I think are suitable pics and post them to you. I have done this for other people and I'mk sure you could get a 1280 owner to do the same.

Tony Reynolds said:

Donsta:

You're right, I did misread the post. I agree with everything you
are saying, and the speed and reduced noise level are two of the
reasons I'm considering the Canon 9000, besides individual ink
cartridges.

I realize that analysis of printers is perhaps even MORE
subjective that cameras. They certainly are simpler, in that they
do less things, but the quality is in the eye of the beholder.

I stand by my opinion that is is of little use to print above
720x720, at least on the Epsons. I have a public exhibition up
right now of about 34 large prints, some as large as 13 x 78. NO
ONE that I have heard comment on the images has said ANYTHING about
the print quality. Most people assume that they are silver prints,
until they read the descriptions. The Canon's have a top print res
of 2400x1200, I will need to evaluate that.

One of these days, I plan on taking one of my best images in to a
store, with my photo paper, to test the Epson 1280 and Canon 9000
side-by-side. Then perhaps I'll have something less subjective to
go on. I really need a wide format printer.

Tony

Click to expand...

I guess it'd help if I read more carefully, huh?
-Chris

Tony Reynolds said:

Tony

Chris Fike said:

Tony Reynolds said:

I am in the hunt for a new printer also.

Personally, I would stay away from the Lexmark printers as well as
the HP. They are neither recognised as brands that do justice to
photos by most in the forums I've read. You also may want to look
at the printer forum to come up with more info.

I'm looking at a printer that will handle Super B size, 13"x19" and
13"x whatever for panoramas. I use an Epson 1270 here at work and
have been generally very pleased with it.

I will probably end up going with the Canon 9000 however, as I want
the seperate ink tanks (I'm tired of throwing away ink) and the
Canon is FAST and QUIET.

Most of the Epson Photo Printers will do well for you and some of
the older models can be had for around $50-75 if you look. They
would be a great choice if you never see yourself printing anything
bigger than letter or legal size.

Printer resolution is not that important in my opinion. I usually
print at 720x720 for three main reasons:

1. Anything more wastes ink, and
2. Most people at a "normal" viewing distance can't tell the
difference.
3. Prints take twice as long at 1440x720.

I'll probably take some heat for this but it's my opinion. Paper
that can hold resolution at 2880x1440 is very expensive, and the
print times are too long.

Do a search for printers on http://www.epinions.com and check out what
users have said.

Tony

Click to expand...

Granted, I've only seen one sample print from the Lexmark but it
looked VERY good. It also printed fast, a lot faster than my old
HP 855cse could have. I don't know about Epson, I've yet to check
it out.

I don't know about the claim of wasting ink either. Maybe when
compared to the Epson because they use the same drop size, but not
compared to an HP. There are five microns (or whatever the units
are, I forget) between HP's and Lexmark and Epson.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You're right. I just read some reviews on the Lexmark last night and it wasn't very favorable. I'm going to have to rethink this.

-Chris

TheSwede said:

Chris Fike said:

If that's true then Epson must be awsome. Wish I had a chance to
take a look last night.

Click to expand...

Remember that the test pictures printed by the various printers are
always optimized to show off the strengths of that particular
printer. Lots of time and money has been spent to make that image
look like the printer will blow away the competition.

Granted, that doesn't mean the printer is bad, but what you will
really notice the difference on is your own shots, especially more
difficult ones with not really perfect light, contrast and color.

--
Jesper

Click to expand...

IMHO after much research trough forums review sites and talking with people you actually use these printers her is my opinion

Stay away from Lexmark quaility is just not there

After owning 3 Hp photosmart printers all of which had problems within the first year, the last was defective right out of the box and would not even power up properly. (all replaced under warranty, when the last brand new printer was defective I just got my money back and went looking for a new printer.

Epson are nice and do a good job but ink costs are more expensive

If you are looking foe a printer to do mostly text with the occasional phot I would suggest the Cannon S750 it prints text great and is fast. Accordinq to Cnet.com review it is one of the cheapest printers to opperate( it has sepperate ink tanks). IT also does a great job with photos

Hope this helps

Doug

Thanks, Doug.

Tyler

Doug Brown said:

IMHO after much research trough forums review sites and talking
with people you actually use these printers her is my opinion

Stay away from Lexmark quaility is just not there

After owning 3 Hp photosmart printers all of which had problems
within the first year, the last was defective right out of the box
and would not even power up properly. (all replaced under warranty,
when the last brand new printer was defective I just got my money
back and went looking for a new printer.

Epson are nice and do a good job but ink costs are more expensive

If you are looking foe a printer to do mostly text with the
occasional phot I would suggest the Cannon S750 it prints text
great and is fast. Accordinq to Cnet.com review it is one of the
cheapest printers to opperate( it has sepperate ink tanks). IT also
does a great job with photos

Hope this helps

Doug

Click to expand...

Donsta:

Thanks for the offer, I'll consider it.

I'm considering either the Canon 9000 or the Epson 1280 for home office use. I actually have a 1270 sitting right next to me here in the office, and it's essentially the same as the 1280, so I may or may not need the 1280 test. I would of course reimburse you for paper and postage...

Thanks again,

Tony