Reading mode: Light Dark

I want to buy a printer but keep changing my mind.

Go to last post
D

Denise E. Kissinger

Member
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Location
Panhandle, TX, US
Hello All,

I keep switching back and forth between the Epson R800, Epson R300, and the Canon i9900. I wish I could afford a Fuji Frontier to put in my living room ; ^ ). Also, what's the difference between the two Epsons?

I have gotten really tired of going to labs. Driving to, standing in line, waiting, then dealing with the pictures and lab employees if they are not right. Driving home again, reprinting, doing it over... I've looked for something online but haven't found anything I really want to try.

It's possible that a printer for me will cost me money getting everything perfect, but also possible that once calibrated and a good work flow system that it will be easier and not too costly.

Pros about the epsons are the print disc feature, although not a necessity for me, the variety of paper choices, and the longevity. Cheaper ink prices I think.

Cons - S l o w..., only looks good on glossy? I really like matte.

Pros about the Canon are the print speed and the 13x19 paper size. Also not a necessity but definitely a bonus. If everything were equal, these features would definitely sway me this direction.

Cons - Have heard has a purple tint but could be because not calibrated, not much choice in media. Not sure if Canon's image quality can compete with Epson.

I shoot a Canon Digital Rebel but I can use a card or even my computer, not a problem there.

Another consideration, inkjets have to be used or the heads clog and dry up.

What I really want to know is...which one makes the best picture or are they the same once calibrated? Needs to be saleable and marketable.. I am a semi-pro photographer and I drive the lab employees around here crazy. I expect my pictures to be as close to perfect as possible. I spend hours correcting things that no one else even notices.

Do any of you own both or know people who own one or the other?

I appreciate any info you may have.

Sincerely,

Denise
 
I recently bought the Epson 2200 and am very pleased with it. The R800 has a gloss optimizer, which can be used on glossy prints to even out the reflection. The printer will also make very nice lustre and matte prints. I need to sell prints and I only feel comfortable with a printer with long lived prints. So for me, the choice were the printers with archival ink: Epson 2200 and R800. If you are really particular about your color (I am!), you might want to budget $40 (Cathy's Profiles) or $50 (Dry Creek Photo) to have a custom color profile made with your most often used paper. (Mine is the Premium Lustre.) I wouldn't bother with the custom profile uless you have a calibrated monitor and software that is color managed.

Happy Deciding!
Alice
Denise E. Kissinger said:
Hello All,

I keep switching back and forth between the Epson R800, Epson R300,
and the Canon i9900. I wish I could afford a Fuji Frontier to put
in my living room ; ^ ). Also, what's the difference between the
two Epsons?

I have gotten really tired of going to labs. Driving to, standing
in line, waiting, then dealing with the pictures and lab employees
if they are not right. Driving home again, reprinting, doing it
over... I've looked for something online but haven't found
anything I really want to try.

It's possible that a printer for me will cost me money getting
everything perfect, but also possible that once calibrated and a
good work flow system that it will be easier and not too costly.

Pros about the epsons are the print disc feature, although not a
necessity for me, the variety of paper choices, and the longevity.
Cheaper ink prices I think.

Cons - S l o w..., only looks good on glossy? I really like matte.

Pros about the Canon are the print speed and the 13x19 paper size.
Also not a necessity but definitely a bonus. If everything were
equal, these features would definitely sway me this direction.

Cons - Have heard has a purple tint but could be because not
calibrated, not much choice in media. Not sure if Canon's image
quality can compete with Epson.

I shoot a Canon Digital Rebel but I can use a card or even my
computer, not a problem there.

Another consideration, inkjets have to be used or the heads clog
and dry up.

What I really want to know is...which one makes the best picture or
are they the same once calibrated? Needs to be saleable and
marketable.. I am a semi-pro photographer and I drive the lab
employees around here crazy. I expect my pictures to be as close
to perfect as possible. I spend hours correcting things that no
one else even notices.

Do any of you own both or know people who own one or the other?

I appreciate any info you may have.

Sincerely,

Denise
Click to expand...
 
If you want the wide format, look at the Epson 2200. This is the gold standard for many pros and advanced amateurs.

Epson 300 is dye, the 800 is pigment (as is the 2200)

I recently had a chance to see 2200 and R800 prints side by side. Both exceptional, but the R800 had a slight edge. If I owned nothing, I would get the R800. If I already had a 2200, I would probably not get an 800
 
Many will tell you to get the 2200 printer, however if the you are driving lab personnel crazy then you are definitly an i9900 user.

You sound like you want a proofing machine and the i9900 fits the bill perfectly. If you are a even a semi-pro, you of course will be taking the steps to properly protect any proof print that goes in your customers hands, obviously unprotected longevity is not of primary importantance.

Canon's image quality blows Epson out of the water, I own the 2200 and the i9900 (am getting the R800 soon but have tried it out). Even with calibration and profiles the 2200 is just not up to the i9900 in color matching. Also you will be limited in your selection of glossy media with the 2200, less so with the i9900.

The i9900 will print about 4 or 5 times faster than either the 2200 or R800, in any print mode.

Now the R800 is a good compromise if you only need up to 8.5" width. Less artifact problems due to the optimiser cartridge, slightly wider color gamut than the 2200 in the blue and red ranges and more features than the i9900.

But based on the need for color matching I would have to recommend the i9900. Then go buy and R300 for you CD printing with the money you would have spent on an Epson 2200.
Denise E. Kissinger said:
Hello All,

I keep switching back and forth between the Epson R800, Epson R300,
and the Canon i9900. I wish I could afford a Fuji Frontier to put
in my living room ; ^ ). Also, what's the difference between the
two Epsons?

I have gotten really tired of going to labs. Driving to, standing
in line, waiting, then dealing with the pictures and lab employees
if they are not right. Driving home again, reprinting, doing it
over... I've looked for something online but haven't found
anything I really want to try.

It's possible that a printer for me will cost me money getting
everything perfect, but also possible that once calibrated and a
good work flow system that it will be easier and not too costly.

Pros about the epsons are the print disc feature, although not a
necessity for me, the variety of paper choices, and the longevity.
Cheaper ink prices I think.

Cons - S l o w..., only looks good on glossy? I really like matte.

Pros about the Canon are the print speed and the 13x19 paper size.
Also not a necessity but definitely a bonus. If everything were
equal, these features would definitely sway me this direction.

Cons - Have heard has a purple tint but could be because not
calibrated, not much choice in media. Not sure if Canon's image
quality can compete with Epson.

I shoot a Canon Digital Rebel but I can use a card or even my
computer, not a problem there.

Another consideration, inkjets have to be used or the heads clog
and dry up.

What I really want to know is...which one makes the best picture or
are they the same once calibrated? Needs to be saleable and
marketable.. I am a semi-pro photographer and I drive the lab
employees around here crazy. I expect my pictures to be as close
to perfect as possible. I spend hours correcting things that no
one else even notices.
Click to expand...
 
Denise E. Kissinger said:
It's possible that a printer for me will cost me money getting
everything perfect, but also possible that once calibrated and a
good work flow system that it will be easier and not too costly.
Click to expand...
The work flow is EVERYTHING!! I have GREAT looking shots on the P/C but getting them that way on print can be a challenge.
Denise E. Kissinger said:
Pros about the epsons are the print disc feature, although not a
necessity for me, the variety of paper choices, and the longevity.
Cheaper ink prices I think.

Cons - S l o w..., only looks good on glossy? I really like matte.
Click to expand...
The 2200 is GREAT on Matte paper. The R800 is supposed to be good on both ... using the gloss optimiser only on glossy paper (to elimiate bronzing). The 2200 is also a wide carriage and you can print 13" wide prints on it (any length)

The R800 and 2200 both use the pigmented inks so longevity is good on them. The 1280, which uses dye based inks, does a great job on gloss or semi-gloss (not so good on matte) but the longevity is less. Wilhelm claims 25 years for the dye ink. A hundred for the pigment inks.
Denise E. Kissinger said:
Another consideration, inkjets have to be used or the heads clog
and dry up.
Click to expand...
I have had my Epson 1280 sitting unused for up to 6 months without any problems. A few cleaning cycles and I was in business. Of course, I use only OEM inks (higher priced but worth it - IMHO).
Denise E. Kissinger said:
What I really want to know is...which one makes the best picture or
are they the same once calibrated? Needs to be saleable and
marketable.. I am a semi-pro photographer and I drive the lab
employees around here crazy. I expect my pictures to be as close
to perfect as possible. I spend hours correcting things that no
one else even notices.
Click to expand...
If I were selling prints I would definately go Epson because of the longevity. The pigmented inks have to be seen to be believed. Epson has a 1 ring circus which travels the country ... called the "Epson Print Academy". There is a great number of prints on display from each of the printers in their line. The cost is right and you will learn a lot of cool things ... not only about Epson, but some PhotoShop stuff as well. I would suggest going if it is near you ...
--
Barry in Frederick, Md.
 
Well Everyone...I'm going with the Canon. Never thought I'd say that. But hydrogyron's comments about color accuracy really hit the spot. I think that being careful with the type paper and a coating or something will bring the longevity up to at least 28-35 years. Easily better than lab longevity. I've got some prints that aren't that old in albums that have yellowed.

Now I'll have to do some more research to find out which papers and coatings are best.

Thanks,

Denise
 
Denise, it sounds like I am in the exact same boat you are in. Given that I have gone through hell with 2 other Epson printers, one of which was a 5000, I am going to go with the Canon i9900 as well. Thanks to hydrogyrum as well. Excellent comments. Thanks for the tips. See my messages re: paper. Any particular vendor you are using for the Canon? I'm looking at newegg but the return policy has a 15% restocking. But newegg seems reputable.
Best of luck,
George
Denise E. Kissinger said:
Well Everyone...I'm going with the Canon. Never thought I'd say
that. But hydrogyron's comments about color accuracy really hit
the spot. I think that being careful with the type paper and a
coating or something will bring the longevity up to at least 28-35
years. Easily better than lab longevity. I've got some prints
that aren't that old in albums that have yellowed.

Now I'll have to do some more research to find out which papers and
coatings are best.

Thanks,

Denise
Click to expand...
 
The Canon is a very good proof printer and is fast but I would never sell a print from it. They may fade in several months depending on how they are displayed. The best archival options are the Epson 2200, Epson R800, and HP 7960. There are dozens of threads here on Canon prints fading quickly.

Rich H
Denise E. Kissinger said:
Well Everyone...I'm going with the Canon. Never thought I'd say
that. But hydrogyron's comments about color accuracy really hit
the spot. I think that being careful with the type paper and a
coating or something will bring the longevity up to at least 28-35
years. Easily better than lab longevity. I've got some prints
that aren't that old in albums that have yellowed.

Now I'll have to do some more research to find out which papers and
coatings are best.

Thanks,

Denise
Click to expand...
 
Wilhelm's rates the Canon longevity at 38 years on Canon's Photo Paper Pro, not exactly a few months. Anyone who sells prints should properly prepare them for display. I purchased my i9900 from BuyDig, $412 from a highly rated company.
Rich H said:
Rich H
Denise E. Kissinger said:
Well Everyone...I'm going with the Canon. Never thought I'd say
that. But hydrogyron's comments about color accuracy really hit
the spot. I think that being careful with the type paper and a
coating or something will bring the longevity up to at least 28-35
years. Easily better than lab longevity. I've got some prints
that aren't that old in albums that have yellowed.

Now I'll have to do some more research to find out which papers and
coatings are best.

Thanks,

Denise
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
One thing you need to note is that Wilhelm only measures LIGHT fading. Prints can fade from other mechanisms, such as ozone.
Argo said:
Rich H said:
Rich H
Denise E. Kissinger said:
Well Everyone...I'm going with the Canon. Never thought I'd say
that. But hydrogyron's comments about color accuracy really hit
the spot. I think that being careful with the type paper and a
coating or something will bring the longevity up to at least 28-35
years. Easily better than lab longevity. I've got some prints
that aren't that old in albums that have yellowed.

Now I'll have to do some more research to find out which papers and
coatings are best.

Thanks,

Denise
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Denise,

Sorry to hear you relied on someone who grossly misrepresented Canon - neither brand blows the other out of the water. Talk about hyperbole.

I switched from a Canon i950 to Epson. Image quality is very close on both but I prefer my Epson 2200 because I favor matte paper (100% cotton rag) and I prefer more subtle, natural skin tones (canon was always a shade too saturated for my tastes). And yes, I'm fully color managed and color calibrated and print with a RIP for optimal output - especially b&w.

I get 95% print matching (many would say 99.9% but I'm VERY fussy) and would't trade my Epson for anything but an Epson 9600 (44" wide). :)

Joe
Denise E. Kissinger said:
Well Everyone...I'm going with the Canon. Never thought I'd say
that. But hydrogyron's comments about color accuracy really hit
the spot. I think that being careful with the type paper and a
coating or something will bring the longevity up to at least 28-35
years. Easily better than lab longevity. I've got some prints
that aren't that old in albums that have yellowed.

Now I'll have to do some more research to find out which papers and
coatings are best.

Thanks,

Denise
Click to expand...
 
Whether or not he has also tried the i9900 and compared it to the Epson 2200. That sounds reasonable doesn't it? :)
TysonicII said:
Joe Marques said:
Sorry to hear you relied on someone who grossly misrepresented
Canon - neither brand blows the other out of the water. Talk about
hyperbole.
Joe
Click to expand...
If that post by hyrdogyrum was hyperbole, then what's this?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_i9900_pg4.html#conclusion

Can you show that this review is grossly misrepresenting Canon?

--
Tyson Schettig
Click to expand...
 
My findings were similar and disuaded me from keeping either Epson. There is no doubt that the epson gamuts are improving, but in comparison to the Canon's output, they're not quite there. The R800 has solved much of the bronzing issue though the printer is still challenged in the greens/shadows/blue gradations/etc.

Like my cars - a tradeoff - flash v. longevity. A real b-tch!
TysonicII said:
Joe Marques said:
Sorry to hear you relied on someone who grossly misrepresented
Canon - neither brand blows the other out of the water. Talk about
hyperbole.
Joe
Click to expand...
If that post by hyrdogyrum was hyperbole, then what's this?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_i9900_pg4.html#conclusion

Can you show that this review is grossly misrepresenting Canon?

--
Tyson Schettig
Click to expand...
 
You and Tyson are funny. I could care less what anyone thinks of my opinion or what anyone buys. I'm 100% satisfied in all my equipment choices. I simply try to help when I can - especially when I see outrageous claims.

I will say this: at the level of Epson 2200, Canon i9900, and the like there is NO basis to say one printer blows the other out of the water. That's silly juvenile hyperbole - plain and simple. Each printer has its pros and cons - strengths and weaknesses. Comparing them on that basis is valid - flatly concluding one is far better is silly. It's all about features: print life, best paper choice, etc. The Epson 2200 fits my needs and is in no way "blown away" by Canon.

Moving on.

Joe
Peter.Lee said:
TysonicII said:
Joe Marques said:
Sorry to hear you relied on someone who grossly misrepresented
Canon - neither brand blows the other out of the water. Talk about
hyperbole.
Joe
Click to expand...
If that post by hyrdogyrum was hyperbole, then what's this?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_i9900_pg4.html#conclusion

Can you show that this review is grossly misrepresenting Canon?

--
Tyson Schettig
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Are you at all concerned with the fact that 10 days ago hyrdogyrum made this post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=9475211

Does he actually own a i9900 or Epson 2220? Not too sure.

BTW, it is gross misrepresentation to claim the i9900 "blows away" a printer of reasonably close capability - especially now in light of his questionable experience with either printer.

Steve's review is irrelevant - he loves the i9900 and he loves the 2200. They both are awesome printers. It really depends on your personal needs which will offer better output. I need the outstanding performance with 100% cotton rag paper and truly neutral B&W printing that the Epson gives me (with ImagePrint RIP). I'm not even sure the i9900 can take 300g paper. I made me choice based on best output for my needs. If my preference was glossy I'd go with the i9900.

Joe
TysonicII said:
Joe Marques said:
Sorry to hear you relied on someone who grossly misrepresented
Canon - neither brand blows the other out of the water. Talk about
hyperbole.
Joe
Click to expand...
If that post by hyrdogyrum was hyperbole, then what's this?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_i9900_pg4.html#conclusion

Can you show that this review is grossly misrepresenting Canon?

--
Tyson Schettig
Click to expand...
 
The original poster said that in his opinion "the i9900's image quality blows away the Epson 2200". You claim that it's "outrageous" to say that one of the aforementioned printers "blows away" the other, but you never back up your own opinion. Not only that, you call out the poster for a "gross misrepresentation". Come on. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his assessment, but if you're going to try to discredit someone else's opinion, then at least back it up with something more substantive than calling it "hyperbole". Why don't you show us why you're right and he isn't. Can it be that hard if it's so obvious? :P
Joe Marques said:
I will say this: at the level of Epson 2200, Canon i9900, and the
like there is NO basis to say one printer blows the other out of
the water. That's silly juvenile hyperbole - plain and simple.
Each printer has its pros and cons - strengths and weaknesses.
Comparing them on that basis is valid - flatly concluding one is
far better is silly. It's all about features: print life, best
paper choice, etc. The Epson 2200 fits my needs and is in no way
"blown away" by Canon.

Moving on.

Joe
Peter.Lee said:
TysonicII said:
Joe Marques said:
Sorry to hear you relied on someone who grossly misrepresented
Canon - neither brand blows the other out of the water. Talk about
hyperbole.
Joe
Click to expand...
If that post by hyrdogyrum was hyperbole, then what's this?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_i9900_pg4.html#conclusion

Can you show that this review is grossly misrepresenting Canon?

--
Tyson Schettig
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Peter, are you new at this stuff or being purposefully difficult? Do you believe that at the price/feature point of the Canon i9900 / Epson 2200 and the like that any one of these printers "blows away" any other? My point is simple yet you fail to see it - one can only imagine why.

You're forgetting the most important premise - I don't have to "prove" anything. I don't care if I'm "right". I don't need to win a childish debate to validate myself. I'm a happy guy and this is just fun for me. Why don't you take your marbles and go play with someone else.

Joe
Peter.Lee said:
Joe Marques said:
I will say this: at the level of Epson 2200, Canon i9900, and the
like there is NO basis to say one printer blows the other out of
the water. That's silly juvenile hyperbole - plain and simple.
Each printer has its pros and cons - strengths and weaknesses.
Comparing them on that basis is valid - flatly concluding one is
far better is silly. It's all about features: print life, best
paper choice, etc. The Epson 2200 fits my needs and is in no way
"blown away" by Canon.

Moving on.

Joe
Peter.Lee said:
TysonicII said:
Joe Marques said:
Sorry to hear you relied on someone who grossly misrepresented
Canon - neither brand blows the other out of the water. Talk about
hyperbole.
Joe
Click to expand...
If that post by hyrdogyrum was hyperbole, then what's this?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_i9900_pg4.html#conclusion

Can you show that this review is grossly misrepresenting Canon?

--
Tyson Schettig
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Joe Marques said:
I will say this: at the level of Epson 2200, Canon i9900, and the
like there is NO basis to say one printer blows the other out of
the water.
Joe
Click to expand...
Hmmm...
Epson 2200 print speed 13x19=takes 30 minutes
source: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml
Joe Marques said:
The Epson 2200 fits my needs and is in no way
"blown away" by Canon.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...
Canon i9900 print speed 13x19=two minutes and forty seconds
source: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_i9900.html#specs

Seems like a good enough basis to me to say that. Epson does have an edge on longevity, but at 3 minutes a reprint I don't care. What are you going to do when the 100 years are up on your 2200 prints and a great-great-grandson comes around to complain that his print faded? How about 50 years? How much do you bribe a nurses aid to let you get all your printing equipment setup on your half of the bedroom in a Nursing home anyway?

I'll agree to disagree with you, but posts on here like this:
Joe Marques said:
Sorry to hear you relied on someone who grossly misrepresented Canon
Click to expand...
will get a challenge from me. And just like Peter Lee said:
Joe Marques said:
...if you're going to try to discredit someone else's opinion, then at
least back it up with something more substantive than calling
it "hyperbole".
Click to expand...
--
Tyson Schettig
 
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