2nd March 2003, 10:56 PM
printers to recommend ...
any good printers to recommend for printing digital photos ... since my printer is dying ... thinking of buying something good ...
Prefer Canon or Epson ...
HP doesn't really fasinate me ... but is my last choice ...
1) recommend me a printer
2) recommend me a 3 in 1 ( printer, scanner, copier)
2nd March 2003, 11:00 PM
search "epson printer" and "canon printer". Canon S9000 $799 + free handphone. Good price because just discontinued.
2nd March 2003, 11:03 PM
prefer something less than 600
4th March 2003, 10:54 AM
4th March 2003, 04:04 PM
Or u can wait a few more weeks for the Canon i950 to come out
4th March 2003, 04:30 PM
Assume you will be printing A4 prints, cos anything smaller, it possibly would be cheaper at the lab.
I 'believe' it or not, recommend the Epson 830, unless you are printing A3. cos that's the only difference. Printing speed I'm sure you can live with.
I'm not too sure about canon though with the individual think tanks. Anyone did a analysis of the actual prints per cartridge?
For the Epson, 1 full color tank gives 15-17 borderless A4 glossy photo paper prints. the black seems to last about twice that.
Cost of cartridge is about 26.50 for color. With 20 sheets of pre glossy photo paper at 29.50. Works out to about $4 a sheet of A4 print.....If I remember the economics I did some months back
4th March 2003, 04:49 PM
Can try canon s800 ... saw pricing on sim lim selling at $299
4th March 2003, 05:15 PM
In my opinion, I would either stick with Epson or Canon photo printers. They give excellent results that, in proper hands, can deliver better prints than a 8R from a minilab. They also boast archival inks that some independent websites claim that it last longer than prints from labs. HP is catching up but rarely recommended by pros.
Between Epson and Canon, I would go for Epson as it has print-head that is in the printer and not the cartridge. This alleviates problems with color when you change printer cartridge, that is, you don't need to recalibrate again to avoid nasty surprises. That said, I am at present suffering from my Epson 810 having bad color behaviour. Epson also has good color profiles that work most of the time.
For price and performance, the mentioned 830 should be the best buy. I don't know the current equivalent of Epson 890, but such more expensive class of printers have more robust print heads which might reduce color shift problems in the long run.
If you are rich and loves large print, Epson 1290 would be good. If you are really rich, Epson 2200 (at $1300) would be best with its archival (more than our lifespan) inks and beautiful B/W output with no color cast (it has a light-black ink tank).
Hope my 2 cents help.
4th March 2003, 05:21 PM
I'd advise sticking to Epson if you want prints that can rival labs in both waterfastness and permenance(when properly stored.)
I've used both the Epson Photo 1200, 870 and have been testing my friends HP Photosmart 7150.
Epson has had the best print quality for the past 5 years but HP has managed to catch up with their 7x50 series.
Prints from the 7x50 are very good and are tested by Wilhelm research to have a projected lifespan of 75 years using their new HP paper.
However, when I tested water droplets on the HP prints on Ilford paper, they smudged easily.
My epson 870 prints are practically waterproof when printed on Epson Glossy paper.(even under running tap)
4th March 2003, 08:04 PM
Canon has print heads in the printer. Of course, the difference is that Canon print heads are user replaceable and cheaper to replace (something like $80 vs $130, dunno current prices).
Originally posted by glchua
Between Epson and Canon, I would go for Epson as it has print-head that is in the printer and not the cartridge. This alleviates problems with color when you change printer cartridge
The 830 is a really a budget printer so one would guess plenty of corners cut (otherwise why sell the 890?). If you're going for Epson, seriously consider the 890 (or whatever the replacement - 9xx?) with better print quality (less banding). The 890 isn't simply a faster printer, it prints better as well.
From the number of satisfied users I presume that the Epson print head clogging problem has gone away from recent models?
I chose Canon S800 because my old Epson 750 had clogging problems and Epson ink was expensive while individual ink tanks made more sense (Epson 9xx now has individual tanks?) - if you say, need to print several photos with lots of blue sky, your cartridge will run out very fast even though lots of other colour ink left. Found that the Canon was also a faster and quieter printer - thats just the s800, s900 is even faster.
Also, I prefer Canon Photo Paper Pro to the Epson equivalent.
4th March 2003, 09:23 PM
I'm quite confuse with the printing size.
If we print using our own printer, the size is using "A" e.g. A4, A3, and so on. But if we print in lab, they're using R, eg 4R, 5R etc.
Any co relationship between this?
4th March 2003, 10:29 PM
i550 coming... but no sign of i850
the price of Canon i550 in Singapore is equivalent to i850 in US.
i think i will buy the i550 soon...
5th March 2003, 09:35 AM
OK I agree that the epson 830 is a budget printer, but when I checked with the guys at epson on the higher 890 etc, they said that the only difference will be the printing speed...I did however check the printouts of both and felt that I really couldn't really tell the diff...in any case, the additional cost for the 890/? is for the direct printing mechanism...anyhow my 2 cents.
I might try a canon in my next purchase, as I do agree that if you print a completely blue pic...my cartridge would run our pretty quick....
5th March 2003, 09:41 AM
Have you tried testing the waterfastness of canon prints? Would like to know the results.
5th March 2003, 10:13 AM
Seriously, just wait for the Canon i950 to appear in a few weeks....
After reading Dpreview forums and Cnet user reviews, ITS the one man
6th March 2003, 10:55 AM
I'm hoping too for the quick arrival of the i950.
9th March 2003, 03:58 AM
Using Epson 830. Printouts is very good. extremely happy with it. should suffice for A4 printouts.