large pring vs. small

[metic]

I'm in the process of purchasing a new printer and I've been looking into the large format HP, Canon, and Epson. A repeated pattern seems to be that once you get to the large format printing, you start to loose cost effectiveness because the inks either run out fast or are too expensive to replace.

So I'm back to the 8.5x11 search. What are your opinions on:
1) my assessment on large format printing? and
2) what would be the best 8.5x11 printer below $600?

Your help is greatly appreciated...

metic

 

[Phil Rose]

I'm in the process of purchasing a new printer and I've been
looking into the large format HP, Canon, and Epson. A repeated
pattern seems to be that once you get to the large format printing,
you start to loose cost effectiveness because the inks either run
out fast or are too expensive to replace.

I'm mystified by your "pattern" analysis. Do you desire and/or require large-format prints...or you do not? Yes/no? It's not clear what "cost-effectiveness" has to do with that. So if you have very little (or no) need for large-format prints, of course it makes little sense to have a large-format printer doing the job that a less-expensive printer might do just as well.

However using a large format printer to do both large and small prints does not, IMHO, necessarily reduce "cost effectiveness". When you use the large-format printer to print small (8.5x11 or less) prints, it should not use significantly more ink to do them than a small-format printer uses; and the ink cost for the larger printer, if anything, might actually be a little less expensive, ounce for ounce. If you print large prints, yes, of course you will use more ink than a small print requires! But we're back to the first question: do you need large format prints...or not?! IMO, large-printer inks should be no more "expensive to replace" than small-printer inks, since the important variable is cost per ounce of ink--not the price for the cartridge. Of course you need to compare "apples-to-apples" (Epson to Epson, Canon to Canon, etc.).

So I'm back to the 8.5x11 search. What are your opinions on:
1) my assessment on large format printing?

see above

 

[metic]

thanks Phil, and you're point clairfies a lot... yes, I would like to print larger than 8x10s, but no, I don't have a need to do so at this time (perhaps down the road). And I don't blame you for being mystified by my analysis, since it was not the least bit scientific, it is/was only based on reading magzine reviews and comments made in this forum; I could not understand why so many repeated the issue of their inks running out quickly. I just wanted more info and you're points clarify this.

Now I need to figure out between Epson and Cannon, b/c I don't necessarily like the 3-in-1 ink tanks that HP provides. Any suggestions? am I also making a mistake ruling out HP? I hope my questions are not so basic that they wouldn't warrant a response, because everyone in this forum seems to know a great deal and I really appreciate the help...
thanks.

I'm in the process of purchasing a new printer and I've been
looking into the large format HP, Canon, and Epson. A repeated
pattern seems to be that once you get to the large format printing,
you start to loose cost effectiveness because the inks either run
out fast or are too expensive to replace.

I'm mystified by your "pattern" analysis. Do you desire and/or
require large-format prints...or you do not? Yes/no? It's not
clear what "cost-effectiveness" has to do with that. So if you have
very little (or no) need for large-format prints, of course it
makes little sense to have a large-format printer doing the job
that a less-expensive printer might do just as well.

However using a large format printer to do both large and small
prints does not, IMHO, necessarily reduce "cost effectiveness".
When you use the large-format printer to print small (8.5x11 or
less) prints, it should not use significantly more ink to do them
than a small-format printer uses; and the ink cost for the larger
printer, if anything, might actually be a little less expensive,
ounce for ounce. If you print large prints, yes, of course you will
use more ink than a small print requires! But we're back to the
first question: do you need large format prints...or not?! IMO,
large-printer inks should be no more "expensive to replace" than
small-printer inks, since the important variable is cost per ounce
of ink--not the price for the cartridge. Of course you need to
compare "apples-to-apples" (Epson to Epson, Canon to Canon, etc.).

So I'm back to the 8.5x11 search. What are your opinions on:
1) my assessment on large format printing?

see above

 

[Steve Deutsch]

once you do, You'll need them NOW!

hahahahaha

I can heartily recommend the i9900 if you only want to do photographs. If you also want to do 'fine arts' stuff (like print on watercolor paper) - the 2200 (with pigment inks) is the right choice (but is fussier and get ready to pick up a second hobby: color calibration technologist).

Now I need to figure out between Epson and Cannon, b/c I don't
necessarily like the 3-in-1 ink tanks that HP provides. Any
suggestions? am I also making a mistake ruling out HP? I hope my
questions are not so basic that they wouldn't warrant a response,
because everyone in this forum seems to know a great deal and I
really appreciate the help...
thanks.

I'm in the process of purchasing a new printer and I've been
looking into the large format HP, Canon, and Epson. A repeated
pattern seems to be that once you get to the large format printing,
you start to loose cost effectiveness because the inks either run
out fast or are too expensive to replace.

I'm mystified by your "pattern" analysis. Do you desire and/or
require large-format prints...or you do not? Yes/no? It's not
clear what "cost-effectiveness" has to do with that. So if you have
very little (or no) need for large-format prints, of course it
makes little sense to have a large-format printer doing the job
that a less-expensive printer might do just as well.

However using a large format printer to do both large and small
prints does not, IMHO, necessarily reduce "cost effectiveness".
When you use the large-format printer to print small (8.5x11 or
less) prints, it should not use significantly more ink to do them
than a small-format printer uses; and the ink cost for the larger
printer, if anything, might actually be a little less expensive,
ounce for ounce. If you print large prints, yes, of course you will
use more ink than a small print requires! But we're back to the
first question: do you need large format prints...or not?! IMO,
large-printer inks should be no more "expensive to replace" than
small-printer inks, since the important variable is cost per ounce
of ink--not the price for the cartridge. Of course you need to
compare "apples-to-apples" (Epson to Epson, Canon to Canon, etc.).

So I'm back to the 8.5x11 search. What are your opinions on:
1) my assessment on large format printing?

see above

 

[ewencameron]

I'd echo steve's comments. Printing A4's on an A3+ printer costs no more than on an A4 printer. Period.

As for the HP thing, I have no desire to start a flame war on makes here - I buy and use dozens of HP's each year for my business (mono office lasers) and wouldn't come away from them. For photo/inkjet use, my perception of HP's is one of high running cost and limited ability - more consumer end. The race is down to Canon or Epson.

I personally have a pair of Epson's (2100 and 890), plus much older 760's and 600's on my kids' machines on the home network and am very happy with them, but I am sure Canon's are fine machines too - there is a lot of discussion here about the relative merits/demerits of each. I can only comment on the Epson range, but the 2100 (US 2200) produces superb prints, but, as Steve comments, probably has a higher learning curve than Canon. Go figure - I studiously try and avoid the same arguments about cameras (ours are Nikons) - once again, I am sure Canon's are wonderful too. We just had a stack of Nikon glass, or, in printer terms, a legacy of (largely good) Epson experience. They can be bitchy, but reward at the end.

Regards

Ewen Cameron
Kent. UK

 

[nero2]

As Steve and Ewen said, A3+ printers don't cost anymore in ink to print A4/Letter sizes.

If you really want to keep your costs down, buy a dye-based ink printer from either Epson or Canon and get a set of bulk refills. You'll get OEM quality prints, for a fraction of OEM inks, and no more than using cheap generic pre-filled carts (whose colors are rarely matched to the printer). Pick up a used i9100 off eBay for $210, and a 4oz starter kit from Inkgetgoodies or MIS for ~$75 and go nuts . My only reservation here is that 4oz is a lot of ink, almost too much ink unless you're cranking out half a dozen or more 13x19s every week. If you go this route, know that paper becomes you most expensive consumable.