Posted by Dennis Newman on August 23, 2006 at 1:02 AM
First, a thanks to everyone who answered my earlier post about places to shoot this fall.
I'm going to buy a new printer, and have tentatively settled in on the Canon i9900 or Epson's R1800.
The price range is about right ($400-600), and both can print tabloid sized photos.
I'm leaning towards the Canon because it's a PC magazine editor's choice (not sure how much that really matters) and because the ink cartridges are less expensive.
Anyway, wondering if anyone has experience with either one of these, what you think of them, or can suggest other printers in my price range.
Thanks again,
Dennis
Posted by Geoff Shapiro on August 23, 2006 at 1:35 AM
Hi Dennis - I have no personal experience with the higher end Epson printers but I do own the Canon i9900. It is a great printer that does not suffer from the clogging that Epson printers have been known to suffer from. However, the one big caveat about the i9900 dye inks is that they are not archival. Sure, if put under UV glass or acrylic the prints may last 25 years or so without fading but that does not compare to the 80 years or so that is publicized for the pigment inks of the Epsons'.
If you have any intentions of selling your photos to the public then I'd opt for the more archival inks of the Epson printers. If the prints are just for yourself and your family and friends, where you can easily just print off another should the original fade, then I'd say the i9900 is a great choice.
Another point... if you like to print panoramics the i9900 is not for you. Canon in their (not so) infinite wisdom decided to limit the max length of paper their drivers for the printer will support to no more than about 24". Epsons do not have that limitation.
I'm sure others will chime in soon with yet additional pros and cons of each printer.
Posted by Randy Hanna on August 23, 2006 at 1:24 PM
Dennis: I sold my i9900 and replaced it with an Epson 2400. The i9900 will produce stunning glossy prints, which is all that I used it for - but they won't last very long. I also used 3rd party inks @ 2.85 per ink color in the Canon. There is no need to change out matt to glossy like the Epson 2400 or 4800 (don't think you have to change out photo or matt on the R1800 - plus I think that printer is on the way out). I now have a Epson 2400 and a 4800. I wish I had bought (for an extra 400.00) the Epson 7800, as I find myself needing wider paper than 17 inches form time to time.
As our world is matt, not glossy, I am ok with printing in matt. I only use MOAB and Crane papers. I have found that the perfect combination for me is Epson 4800, 220ml ink sets, MOAB papers, and good color management for just about all that I do. BTW, I just played with some DAS canvas with so-so results. I now use the Epson 2400 only for 3x5 and 4x6 paper for my greeting cards.
The 4800 is a great entry into the pro level of printing with archival pigmented inks, however it takes some management in the begining to get everything correct. There are some tricks to fooling it if you want to print on any think less than 8x10, but it can be done. The largest print that I have done to date on my Epson 4800 is something like 16.25 x 48 (image size). Killer pano, and sucked up some ink, but what the heck. This print now hangs at a local coffee roasting shop.
Although made, I would not use 3rd party inks in the Epson. Too many negative reviews out that, and it you are using the Epson, you will want the K3 inks anyway.
Randy Hanna
Tacoma
Posted by Doyle Thomas on August 23, 2006 at 7:23 PM
I have uesd Epson printers since the begining and have had experience with both Cannon and HP. In addition to the archival nature of pigments the Epsons have a native resolution as multilpes of 360 dpi vs 300 dpi for the Cannons and HP's. I also think that the Epson print drivers are better. I would go for an Epson.
Discussion
4 repliesI'm going to buy a new printer, and have tentatively settled in on the Canon i9900 or Epson's R1800.
The price range is about right ($400-600), and both can print tabloid sized photos.
I'm leaning towards the Canon because it's a PC magazine editor's choice (not sure how much that really matters) and because the ink cartridges are less expensive.
Anyway, wondering if anyone has experience with either one of these, what you think of them, or can suggest other printers in my price range.
Thanks again,
Dennis
If you have any intentions of selling your photos to the public then I'd opt for the more archival inks of the Epson printers. If the prints are just for yourself and your family and friends, where you can easily just print off another should the original fade, then I'd say the i9900 is a great choice.
Another point... if you like to print panoramics the i9900 is not for you. Canon in their (not so) infinite wisdom decided to limit the max length of paper their drivers for the printer will support to no more than about 24". Epsons do not have that limitation.
I'm sure others will chime in soon with yet additional pros and cons of each printer.
As our world is matt, not glossy, I am ok with printing in matt. I only use MOAB and Crane papers. I have found that the perfect combination for me is Epson 4800, 220ml ink sets, MOAB papers, and good color management for just about all that I do. BTW, I just played with some DAS canvas with so-so results. I now use the Epson 2400 only for 3x5 and 4x6 paper for my greeting cards.
The 4800 is a great entry into the pro level of printing with archival pigmented inks, however it takes some management in the begining to get everything correct. There are some tricks to fooling it if you want to print on any think less than 8x10, but it can be done. The largest print that I have done to date on my Epson 4800 is something like 16.25 x 48 (image size). Killer pano, and sucked up some ink, but what the heck. This print now hangs at a local coffee roasting shop.
Although made, I would not use 3rd party inks in the Epson. Too many negative reviews out that, and it you are using the Epson, you will want the K3 inks anyway.
Randy Hanna
Tacoma