Dale,
I have both the HP1000 and the Canon 8200. I bought the 8200 specifcally to replace the HP.
I had mixed results with the alignment on the HP, and wasn't thrilled with the tonal gradation of many shots I printed with it. The alignment problem was actually difficulties with the cartridges themselves. About half of the cartridges would make very fine lines in the prints. I got tired of exchanging 'defective' cartridges.
I looked hard at the Epson 870/1270 printers. There seemed to be a severe color shifting problem in this area, so I decided to pass them by at this point. That was when I bought the HP1000. When that didn't work out well, I looked around once again.
The Canon 8200 had the best output of any of the low-cost inkjet printers. The only drawback I had with it was that it seemed to require the use of glossy paper, and I like to use matte paper (always have, even in the darkroom). I did like the individual ink tank design, where I didn't have to change the printhead all the time. Plus, I can change out only the color that's low. Nice.
Well, I bought it a month ago. Heck, it was only $300, so it's really not that much lost if it doesn't work out. Well, I've been really pleased with it. It seems to run forever on one ink load (50+ 8x10's at the max quality - the only way I print with it). At least when compared to the HP.
I also found that it works well with Ilford Semi-Matte Inkjet Paper - just set the printer up like it was using the Canon Pro Glossy paper. No problem at all. It doesn't work so well with the leftover HP Matte paper I have. Oh, well. I gave the HP printer and supplies to my wife to use with her Olympus D620L!
Only time will tell about the print longevity of the 8200. Personally, I'm not concerned about the idea that I'll have to replace the prints in 6 months. No problem. I still have the digital image stored safely away. Perhaps there will be a different ink formulation from someone that will allow the prints to last longer.
I think that this will be an issue with any inkjet printer, anyway. If I were wanting a print that lasted many years, I'd be printing on a Kodak 8670 Dye Sub with the transparent overlay. The Canon is really just an interim step until I get a dye sub, anyway. You know that the market will explode in that direction sooner or later (and I'm betting on sooner).
I may still pick up an Epson of some sort, though. There are six color B+W printing systems that are based on an Epson. I still like to do B+W, and the idea of a specific B+W printing system is appealing to me.
Stan
I visited my local computer store last night and looked at the Canon
8200. Unfortunately, I couldn't print a sample from my own file, but the
provided sample book photos were amazing. They really seemed superior to
both the HP 900/1000 printers and the Epson 870/1270. Now, all of these
printers can produce photographic results. But, being quite nearsighted,
I can generally see incredible detail at very close range without
glasses. Visible dots were virtually non-existent. On the HP, I see them
clearly and they are smaller on the Epsons, but on this printer, they
simply were NOT there.
Color was, as expected from Canon, excellent. Other characteristics were
consistent with what we expect from printers today. Even though I refill
my inks, I was impressed with the 6-color system that requires you to
only replace (or refill) individual colors as they become empty. The
driver, as depicted on the box, seems to be impressive at guaging
contents.
Why is this printer so little talked about? I have NO experience with
Canon printers. Is there something I don't know? They did not have an
8500 model. Is this a wide-format version?
Your input is appreciated
Dale
