I hope I don't make an enemy out of you! I don't deny Canon
printers are capable of stunning prints. I only point to Brian that
on sheer print quality alone, Epson will win hands down. Yes, they
have bronzing, which could be irritating when people use glossy
paper stock, but we must remember that in terms of fade resistance,
Canon will not be able to compete with the Epon top-end. Then
again, I speak about experience with the 1280 (sp895?) and the
s800, not 2200 or s900x...
I agree there are just too many factors to consider, and if you
have to include all, then there is no end to the evaluation. You
set out an objective and based on seeing it
yourself you choose
the one that suit you best. I think that's the most important.
I agree Epson still has the clogging issues. Canon, I can see, if
one uses the OEM (which if I am not wrong, is what you intend to
do), will not have clogging to contend with. But Canon inks are
known to
dry-up if left idle. This is so with the 'older' models.
But when we did not use the Canon s800 for three months and someone
in HP (who has a secret crush on Canon output!) for the kick of it
wanted to use the printer, some of the inks didn't work!
Granted, the lab was at a constantly low humidity (dry) and this
could contribute to the problems). But in Asia Pacific regions,
there seem to be more complaints of the Canon low end printers with
inks drying up as little as 2 weeks idle. I would say, 6 weeks is
the limit. So, if you run some prints every now and again, I should
think this problem will not bug you. And I also believe the new
Canon s8xx/s900x has somewhat address this problems already...
I am grateful of your hard work, and in showing us your evaluation.
Fotografer,
I think we all agreed that the 2200 has the better print target of
the non-continuous tone printers. Ref our ratings:
http://www.thenichols.net/html/ratings.html
I also agree that the S9000 is at its limit, that's why tweaking
with the printer is critical (it's a good image learning process as
well).
But doesn't the Epson have a technology that eventhough produces
better image is more prone for clogging (Do not know this for sure,
need more research)?
Also one can't forget all the other stuff that comes with the 2200,
such as metamerism and bronzing. I think our scores were a little
unfair for including ratings on micro-banding and doting, but not
on other things that its better at. We just didn't want to make the
scoring process endless. There's nothing like seeing the real thing
tho.
Alfred.
--
Fotografer
and because I am constantly in the middle of two bright-as-daylight light box on either side of me. Under such intense (though indoor) lights, all patterns come up, and unless you enjoy looking at pictures under a bright summer afternoon, you would not normally see those dots or micro-banding.
)
