Photo printer in the $400-$500 range for occasional 8x10 (US letter) prints

[sirhawkeye64]

Looking for a replacement as now my second Canon Pro printer has finally given up (probably a mechanical failure but not wanting to invest anymore time or money into it as it is 2 years old, and was basically free after MIR).

Max price would be $500 as I don't print a lot (maybe 5 prints a month) and mainly I'm just getting started with printing.

The only other brands that come to mind are HP and Epson. I don't need to print huge, 8x10 would be fine, 13x19 would be better, but probably won't really print 13x19 that often, so 8x10 (standard US letter size) is fine.

The only thing I've heard that I don't particularly like about HP printers is the ink expiration dates. I'm not sure if you can still print after these dates (and if they are sort of like expiration dates put on certain foods, which I find a bit bogus in some cases). Haven't heard of Epson doing that but I haven't looked at Epson photo printers that much either. (I just remember the date thing from a cheap HP photo printer I had years ago).

This also makes me wonder if using an inkjet-based printer is better (for image quality especially with glossy papers) over a color laser....

--
(NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread.)

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Looking for a replacement as now my second Canon Pro printer has finally given up (probably a mechanical failure but not wanting to invest anymore time or money into it as it is 2 years old, and was basically free after MIR).

Max price would be $500 as I don't print a lot (maybe 5 prints a month) and mainly I'm just getting started with printing.

The only other brands that come to mind are HP and Epson. I don't need to print huge, 8x10 would be fine, 13x19 would be better, but probably won't really print 13x19 that often, so 8x10 (standard US letter size) is fine.

If you can stretch the budget to $599, the Canon Pro-200 is extremely attractive. If not:

* Canon iP8720, $279, 5 colors of ChromaLife 100+ dye ink (CMYKG, very fade-resistant), prints up to 13x19";

* Epson XP-15000, $350, 6 colors of Claria dye ink (CMYKGR, reasonably fade-resistant but not much as ChromaLife 100+), prints up to 13x19";

* Epson XP-970 all-in-one, $300, 6 colors of Claria dye ink (CcMmYK), prints up to 11x17"; or

* Epson XP-9600 all-in-one, $250, 6 colors of Claria dye ink (CcMmYK), prints up to 8.5x11",

Personally I would not get a Canon G620 because there's considerable evidence that its black ink is the older ChromaLife 100-non + ink, which is much more prone to fade.

In the last decade, HP has not made a real photo printer smaller than the 24" size, currently the Z9+, about $2900.

 

[Gesture]

Expression Photo XP-8600 Small-in-One Printer - Certified ReNew | Products | Epson US

Quickly and easily print your family photos, to-do lists and creative projects with the Expression Photo XP-8600 Small-in-One printer. Delivering lightning-fast 4 x 6 photos in as fast as 10 seconds1 and borderless photos up to 8 x 10, the XP-8600 offers vibrant, versatile printing with 6-color...

epson.com

Also, if one were available, I would get an Epson EcoTank-8500 and not worry about the caliber of Epson ink that the tank printers use. How you display or store prints and your needs are probably more important than trying to decipher the ink names. If you are printing for sale, that's a different story.

The Epson XP-15000 appears from time to time on the clearance center for $250.

I have bought one new Epson printer: Stylus 2200. Everything else has been from the clearance center. Of course, in older days, Epson almost gave the printers away. Pricing is stiffer now. I can't get many of the older ones to give up the ghost: my NX230; WF 600; XP-800 all work fine.

Any of the ones mentioned by N'Awlins will do fine. Just remember anything new, especially Epson, you are limited to OEM cartridges or remanufacturered OEM cartridges.

Enjoy.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Looking for a replacement as now my second Canon Pro printer has finally given up (probably a mechanical failure but not wanting to invest anymore time or money into it as it is 2 years old, and was basically free after MIR).

Max price would be $500 as I don't print a lot (maybe 5 prints a month) and mainly I'm just getting started with printing.

The only other brands that come to mind are HP and Epson. I don't need to print huge, 8x10 would be fine, 13x19 would be better, but probably won't really print 13x19 that often, so 8x10 (standard US letter size) is fine.

If you can stretch the budget to $599, the Canon Pro-200 is extremely attractive. If not:

* Canon iP8720, $279, 5 colors of ChromaLife 100+ dye ink (CMYKG, very fade-resistant), prints up to 13x19";

* Epson XP-15000, $350, 6 colors of Claria dye ink (CMYKGR, reasonably fade-resistant but not much as ChromaLife 100+), prints up to 13x19";

* Epson XP-970 all-in-one, $300, 6 colors of Claria dye ink (CcMmYK), prints up to 11x17"; or

* Epson XP-9600 all-in-one, $250, 6 colors of Claria dye ink (CcMmYK), prints up to 8.5x11",

Personally I would not get a Canon G620 because there's considerable evidence that its black ink is the older ChromaLife 100-non + ink, which is much more prone to fade.

In the last decade, HP has not made a real photo printer smaller than the 24" size, currently the Z9+, about $2900.

I looked at the Pro 200... might consider it, but so far my track record with Canon printers is not good. It could be my fault for not printing enough (so far, maybe 1-2 prints per month; and probably needed to do nozzle cleanings every month). About the only saving grace was that both Canon printers today were nearly free so I'm not really out any money worth complaining about (mainly sales tax) but have spent hours dealing with them. I'm a bit bummed that Canon is no longer doing their MIRs on their printers -- which is how I ended up getting the Pro 10 and Pro 100 for almost nothing. Probably should have bought a spare Pro 100 the last time they had the MIR offer about a year ago.

It does look like the PRo 200 is backordered everywhere though.

Epson was second on my list of printers to consider.

 

[PaulWhite]

I've just been having a bit of a play comparing some letter size multi function photo printers that are available to me. I preferred the output of the Epson XP8600 over the Canon TS9060 and Canon TS8360 (equivalent to TS9020 and TS8320 in the States, neither of which are now available there) The Canons both looked slightly washed out in comparison to the Epson. I used Canon PPPGII paper in all of them and also Epson photo glossy paper in the Epson, the Canon paper was better than the Epson paper. Given that Canon no longer sells any 6 ink printers in this class (both the Canons I tested are 6 ink printers) the Epson is clearly ahead. One little issue I have run into with the Epson is the availability of the ink, however I live in New Zealand, so it may not be an issue in other countries.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

https://epson.com/Clearance-Center/...l-in-One-Printer---Refurbished/p/C11CH47201-N

Also, if one were available, I would get an Epson EcoTank-8500 and not worry about the caliber of Epson ink that the tank printers use. How you display or store prints and your needs are probably more important than trying to decipher the ink names. If you are printing for sale, that's a different story.

The Epson XP-15000 appears from time to time on the clearance center for $250.

I have bought one new Epson printer: Stylus 2200. Everything else has been from the clearance center. Of course, in older days, Epson almost gave the printers away. Pricing is stiffer now. I can't get many of the older ones to give up the ghost: my NX230; WF 600; XP-800 all work fine.

Any of the ones mentioned by N'Awlins will do fine. Just remember anything new, especially Epson, you are limited to OEM cartridges or remanufacturered OEM cartridges.

Enjoy.

Thanks, I'll look at the Epson printers. None of my prints will be for sale (when I do, I usually have a pro lab do the printing at that point and let them take care of what is needed for the print in their studio). The prints I will be doing will mostly be for home / office use, nothing paid.

--
(NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread.)

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Looking for a replacement as now my second Canon Pro printer has finally given up (probably a mechanical failure but not wanting to invest anymore time or money into it as it is 2 years old, and was basically free after MIR).

Max price would be $500 as I don't print a lot (maybe 5 prints a month) and mainly I'm just getting started with printing.

The only other brands that come to mind are HP and Epson. I don't need to print huge, 8x10 would be fine, 13x19 would be better, but probably won't really print 13x19 that often, so 8x10 (standard US letter size) is fine.

If you can stretch the budget to $599, the Canon Pro-200 is extremely attractive. If not:

* Canon iP8720, $279, 5 colors of ChromaLife 100+ dye ink (CMYKG, very fade-resistant), prints up to 13x19";

Are the dye inks that Canon uses in the cheaper IP printers similar (in terms of fade resistance and color quality) to that that are used in the Pro series (Pro 100, which is also a dye-based ink)?

Most of my printing is for personal use, so if a print can be framed and lasts 5 years I'd considered that pretty good out of consumer-grade printer, as I'm considering the IP8720 as a short-term solution for personal printing, and then maybe another Pixma Pro when they are back in stock and/or go on sale.

* Epson XP-15000, $350, 6 colors of Claria dye ink (CMYKGR, reasonably fade-resistant but not much as ChromaLife 100+), prints up to 13x19";

* Epson XP-970 all-in-one, $300, 6 colors of Claria dye ink (CcMmYK), prints up to 11x17"; or

* Epson XP-9600 all-in-one, $250, 6 colors of Claria dye ink (CcMmYK), prints up to 8.5x11",

Personally I would not get a Canon G620 because there's considerable evidence that its black ink is the older ChromaLife 100-non + ink, which is much more prone to fade.

In the last decade, HP has not made a real photo printer smaller than the 24" size, currently the Z9+, about $2900.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I preferred the output of the Epson XP8600 over the Canon TS9060 and Canon TS8360 (equivalent to TS9020 and TS8320 in the States ....) The Canons both looked slightly washed out in comparison to the Epson. I used Canon PPPGII paper in all of them and also Epson photo glossy paper in the Epson, the Canon paper was better than the Epson paper.

IME if the Canon prints look washed out compared to the Epson prints, then there is almost certainly some setting or other issue causing this differences, not the printers themselves or their respective Canon / Epson inks.

I print photos on both an Epson printer using Claria inks (same inks as the XP-8600) and a Canon printer using ChromaLife 100+ inks (same as, well actually a superset of, the TS9060 / TS9020 and TS8360 / TS8320, except that the TS8360 has the blue ink). There are some differences, usually small, between certain Canon papers and the corresponding Epson papers, which can show in prints. Where I print the same image on both printers, using the exact same paper, using ICC profiles I make myself, the differences are almost always very, very subtle.

With extensive assistance from Keith Cooper, I made some basic comparisons of dye-ink photo printer inks and gamuts; see the original post at:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64999810
with updates at
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65003086

Given that Canon no longer sells any 6 ink printers in this class (both the Canons I tested are 6 ink printers) the Epson is clearly ahead.

Disappointingly IMO, Canon has more-or-less dropped out of the market for all-in-ones with enhanced photo-printing features. The TS8320 / TS8350 / TS8360 was the last such model. And FWIW, before that, these Canons only had five colors of ink even though they had six inks; the sixth ink was a pigment-black used only for plain-paper office-type documents. The corresponding Epsons had and have six colors of dye photo inks.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

If you can stretch the budget to $599, the Canon Pro-200 is extremely attractive. If not:

* Canon iP8720, $279, 5 colors of ChromaLife 100+ dye ink (CMYKG, very fade-resistant), prints up to 13x19";

Are the dye inks that Canon uses in the cheaper IP printers similar (in terms of fade resistance and color quality) to that that are used in the Pro series (Pro 100, which is also a dye-based ink)?

The short answer is that I think so / yes. The long answer is that it's complicated and I have at least some unanswered questions. Canon came out with the original ChromaLife 100 (not 100+) inks around 2005, after the preceding printers had used ChromaPlus inks. Mostly the original ChromaLife 100 were good, but they had a real problem with the black ink fading prematurely. I think it was in late 2009 that Canon introduced the ChromaLife 100+ inks, which are very fade-resistant. So e.g. the Pro-100 makes much more archival prints than the Pro 9000 Mk. II.

I thought that all Canon dye-ink photo-oriented printers introduced since late 2009 or early 2010 used ChromaLife 100+ inks. However, sometimes the branding seems to drop the + designation. And then Canon introduced the G550 / G620 / G650. Unlike previous 'tank' printers, its inks are ChromaLife 100--but there's some indication that its black ink is not ChromaLife 100+. At this point I'm less confident of knowing the situation than I was just a year ago.

Most of my printing is for personal use, so if a print can be framed and lasts 5 years I'd considered that pretty good out of consumer-grade printer, as I'm considering the IP8720 as a short-term solution for personal printing, and then maybe another Pixma Pro when they are back in stock and/or go on sale.

I think that would be fine / a good choice.

 

[PaulWhite]

IME if the Canon prints look washed out compared to the Epson prints, then there is almost certainly some setting or other issue causing this differences, not the printers themselves or their respective Canon / Epson inks.

I suspect that the Epson print looks better because it has greater contrast, but the Canon prints are the more accurate ones. The Canon prints look great if viewed on their own. I was surprised to see no option to select the particular Epson paper I was using in the Epson driver, so had to use the generic glossy photo paper option. This is probably the reason for the difference. I also printed the same photo on my other non-photo printers and they were also closer to the Canon prints than the Epson one.

Disappointingly IMO, Canon has more-or-less dropped out of the market for all-in-ones with enhanced photo-printing features. The TS8320 / TS8350 / TS8360 was the last such model. And FWIW, before that, these Canons only had five colors of ink even though they had six inks; the sixth ink was a pigment-black used only for plain-paper office-type documents. The corresponding Epsons had and have six colors of dye photo inks.

The TS8360 is still available in New Zealand, so realizing that this was the last of the breed I snapped one up when it was on special. I also grabbed the XP8600 (also on special) because of fond memories of my old Stylus photo 700 which was also a 6 color. I'm going to enjoy playing with my printers to see where each of their particular strengths are - for example the grey ink of the TS9060 should be well suited for b/w photos.

 

[Gesture]

Good snags. Enjoy the printers.

Be interesting the B&W tests. I am amazed at how good my MG6220 does black and white with 5 dye ink. I was never thrilled with older Epsons doing black and white (XP-950; even 1430) but I think it has gotten better. You notice in recent years Epson is adding in grey inks a la XP-15000 and ET-8500/8550.

In the States, Epson used to almost give away printers on the USA Clearance Site. One reason I have so many printers. Don't know about other nations.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

IME if the Canon prints look washed out compared to the Epson prints, then there is almost certainly some setting or other issue causing this differences, not the printers themselves or their respective Canon / Epson inks.

I suspect that the Epson print looks better because it has greater contrast, but the Canon prints are the more accurate ones.

Any overall contrast difference among these Epsons and Canons is almost certainly due mostly to not using a fully color-managed workflow, instead of real differences among what the printers / inks / papers can produce. Maximum-black tested out just slightly darker with Epson Claria ink instead of Canon ChromaLife 100+ ink, but the differences were always relatively subtle (and with the new Canon Pro-200, border on not visible).

Disappointingly IMO, Canon has more-or-less dropped out of the market for all-in-ones with enhanced photo-printing features. The TS8320 / TS8350 / TS8360 was the last such model. And FWIW, before that, these Canons only had five colors of ink even though they had six inks; the sixth ink was a pigment-black used only for plain-paper office-type documents. The corresponding Epsons had and have six colors of dye photo inks.

The TS8360 is still available in New Zealand, so realizing that this was the last of the breed I snapped one up when it was on special. I also grabbed the XP8600 (also on special) because of fond memories of my old Stylus photo 700 which was also a 6 color. I'm going to enjoy playing with my printers to see where each of their particular strengths are - for example the grey ink of the TS9060 should be well suited for b/w photos.

Sounds like a good setup to run some comparisons--my kind of dorky fun!

 

[Dweeble]

I'd say one big thing is to look at the papers you use and see if there is a ready made icc profile for the on that machine.

 

[PaulWhite]

I'd say one big thing is to look at the papers you use and see if there is a ready made icc profile for the on that machine.

Will give that a go. One limiting factor for my experimenting is that brands like Canson only seem to be available in A4 and rolls here (yes I do know I can cut them to size). I might try some Ilford - they are available in 6x4.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I'd say one big thing is to look at the papers you use and see if there is a ready made icc profile for the on that machine.

That is true. For newer photo printers, canned profiles are usually available, and are often good.

On the other hand, the quality of canned profiles varies widely, and especially those of us with older printers are less-well served by canned profiles. For our printers they are less likely to be available, more likely to be of lower quality, and/or are not correct relative to the drift our printers have experienced over time. One of the happier purchases I've made was of a used X-Rite ColorMunki Photo spectrophotometer, for IIRC about $125 - %150, which really opens up the world of paper to my older printer.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I'd say one big thing is to look at the papers you use and see if there is a ready made icc profile for the on that machine.

Will give that a go. One limiting factor for my experimenting is that brands like Canson only seem to be available in A4 and rolls here (yes I do know I can cut them to size). I might try some Ilford - they are available in 6x4.

IMO you don't often really want to print on 4x6" paper anyway. The better / my usual approach is to lay out 3, 4x6" images or 2, 5x7" images and print them on 1 letter-size (8.5x11") sheet. Actually, I make them 4.1x6.1" or 5.1x7.1" to give a little extra. Then I cut them out / down to size with a rotary trimmer.

Why? Printing borderless is both lower-quality, because the printer cannot really securely handle and guide the paper as it reaches the end, and worse for the printer, because the overspray necessary to print borderless means some ink gets sprayed off the paper and into the printer's guts.

 

[Gesture]

Absolutely. Great suggestions.

 

[PaulWhite]

IMO you don't often really want to print on 4x6" paper anyway. The better / my usual approach is to lay out 3, 4x6" images or 2, 5x7" images and print them on 1 letter-size (8.5x11") sheet. Actually, I make them 4.1x6.1" or 5.1x7.1" to give a little extra. Then I cut them out / down to size with a rotary trimmer.

Why? Printing borderless is both lower-quality, because the printer cannot really securely handle and guide the paper as it reaches the end, and worse for the printer, because the overspray necessary to print borderless means some ink gets sprayed off the paper and into the printer's guts.

Thank you, I really appreciate this advice.

 

[PaulWhite]

I'd say one big thing is to look at the papers you use and see if there is a ready made icc profile for the on that machine.

That is true. For newer photo printers, canned profiles are usually available, and are often good.

On the other hand, the quality of canned profiles varies widely, and especially those of us with older printers are less-well served by canned profiles. For our printers they are less likely to be available, more likely to be of lower quality, and/or are not correct relative to the drift our printers have experienced over time. One of the happier purchases I've made was of a used X-Rite ColorMunki Photo spectrophotometer, for IIRC about $125 - %150, which really opens up the world of paper to my older printer.

Been having a closer look into this situation for me. Unfortunately canned profiles for third party papers don't seem to be readily available for printers in the XP-8600 and TS8300 class, the only ones I could find were Red River, which isn't available in my country-I would have to import them. Spectrophotometers for hire or secondhand are also not readily available here and looking at new prices for equipment to get into color management, for example the Datacolor SpyderX Studio I would be looking at Pixma Pro 200 sort of money. Even sending a print to someone to create a custom profile has issues. A google search didn't show anyone here offering this service, the nearest I could find was Australia, and the cost for 1 print was about what I paid for one of my printers! It would be cheaper to send prints to the USA.

I think at this stage for me color management is in the category of nice to have, but outside my current hobby budget. Probably best just to stay with the printer manufacturer's own paper where the profiles are built into the driver.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I'd say one big thing is to look at the papers you use and see if there is a ready made icc profile for the on that machine.

That is true. For newer photo printers, canned profiles are usually available, and are often good.

On the other hand, the quality of canned profiles varies widely, and especially those of us with older printers are less-well served by canned profiles. For our printers they are less likely to be available, more likely to be of lower quality, and/or are not correct relative to the drift our printers have experienced over time. One of the happier purchases I've made was of a used X-Rite ColorMunki Photo spectrophotometer, for IIRC about $125 - %150, which really opens up the world of paper to my older printer.

Been having a closer look into this situation for me. Unfortunately canned profiles for third party papers don't seem to be readily available for printers in the XP-8600 and TS8300 class, the only ones I could find were Red River, which isn't available in my country-I would have to import them.

Yes, the the third-party photo paper companies typically provide ICC profiles for photo printers (e.g. Pro-200, XP-15000, and above), but not all-in-ones with enhanced photo-printing capability (e.g. XP-8600 and TS8360).

If you are happy using standard Epson photo papers in your Epson, and standard Canon photo papers in your Canon, the the ICC profiles will probably install with the driver. By standard photo papers, I mean the regular glossy types, semigloss, luster, and photo matte.

If you want to use third-party papers in your XP-8600, TS8360, or similar:

Spectrophotometers for hire or secondhand are also not readily available here and looking at new prices for equipment to get into color management, for example the Datacolor SpyderX Studio I would be looking at Pixma Pro 200 sort of money. Even sending a print to someone to create a custom profile has issues. A google search didn't show anyone here offering this service, the nearest I could find was Australia, and the cost for 1 print was about what I paid for one of my printers! It would be cheaper to send prints to the USA.

I think at this stage for me color management is in the category of nice to have, but outside my current hobby budget. Probably best just to stay with the printer manufacturer's own paper where the profiles are built into the driver.

I'm trying to remember: you're in New Zealand? If so, I realize there's an issue from your country having about the same population as my state (Louisiana). But look on eBay for e.g. a ColorMunki Photo, even one from the U.S. or Japan.

Also: there are no true ICC profiles built into the printer driver. Those are media types. You can't use them to soft-proof or precisely control the output color. Now you may be fairly happy with 'printer manages color', but the degree of precision there is less.