Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Printers > Photo Inkjet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 11, 2003, 11:45 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4
Default Canon i9100 or Epson 2200?

I am re-equipping - completely. I am buying either the E20 Olympus ot the Fuji S7000 (the jury's out - awaiting reviews of the latter - all comments welcome) and then a new printer. I have an old HP 990CXI at the present, but since everything is to be dedicated to photography I am looking for guidance from people who have experience of either.

Hoping you can help out there!
digibug is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 11, 2003, 9:30 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6
Default Unhappy with Canon

I bought a Canon i950 after reading the Canon printer reviews on this site. The prints produced are dull, almost like a film or haze over the print. I posted a message about this and someone suggested waiting for the prints to dry a day. That doesn't do anything. I have not been happy with HP or Epson, but the quality of the Epson printers is better. I have not tried a higher end Epson, that's probably next for me. The same message to me suggested the DPreview printer forum. That is a place to go to learn of others experiences. It may confuse you more, but it will provide useful information. Good luck in your printer adventure.

Mike Tichon
mtichon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2003, 1:44 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 506
Default

Well the canon isn't bad does a great job on prints and just about every review of the i950 has been good-excellent. Epson is probably still the market leader in terms of overall quality/longetivity. Although Hp and canon have made large strides in both of these departments over the last couple of years.

Canon has the ability that it reproduces very close to what the epson does and at the same time prints in about half the time.

The places you will lose quality will be in the overall depth of field that the picture holds. For example if you take a picture of a castle and you get two walls one close and one farther but both of them are in very good focus on a direct comparison you will set the depth ability differences between the two printers. Colors may also hold to be slightly off in comparision with the 2200 as the 2200 is capable of producing more colors than the current Canon printers do.
Gregersonsalvage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2003, 8:10 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 166
Default

I bought the Canon I9100 right after reading Steve's review. The printer is great. It is fast, quiet, prints great detail at any size (5mp), the prints are viberant, and appears to be efficent on ink. I have printed images from my old 2mp and my new 5mp camera, and they both look great. I purchased this as a dedicated photo printer, and have been very happy with it. I am still amazed at how quickly it prints a 13x19 borderless image, at about 5 minutes. They are also tack sharp at all sizes. So for, I have not seen any photo fade like others have mentioned.

It also might depend on what type of paper you like to print on, as I know the Epson 2200 is better on matte paper do to the matte ink tank. The I9100 does a good job on matte, but is much better on glossy paper.

Hope this helps
Bill
Speedie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2003, 10:29 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
dcrawley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 392
Default

I has ordered my i9100 before Steve's review came out but I am glad I kept my order.

Like Speedie said, it's fast. In the three weeks that I have had my i9100, I have printed 3 13x19's, 2 12x12 (for my wife's scrapbooks), 45 4x6, and 15 8x10; my low ink indicator is just now showing that I am running low on the Photo Magenta.

I tested the water resistence of the ink again and am completely impressed. I printed a 4x6 and let it dry for about 15 minutes. Then I put the paper in my bathroom sink full of water and let it sit for 30 seconds. Not on bit of ink came off of the paper (which was the Photo Paper Pro).

I have also used the Canon Matte paper and am very impressed with it. For my wife's 12x12 paper, I did notice some banding initially (the printer was set for plain paper), but as the paper dried over a 24-hour period you do not see it unless you are really looking for it.
dcrawley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2003, 3:02 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4
Default

Wow! Thank you all for such in depth replies. I too am now ordering the Canon after your comments, and will see how it does with my old steam powered Nikon 880! Can't wait till I see Steve's review of the Fuji so I can upgrade my camera!

Good photograhy all
digibug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2003, 12:08 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcrawley
I has ordered my i9100 before Steve's review came out but I am glad I kept my order.



I tested the water resistence of the ink again and am completely impressed. I printed a 4x6 and let it dry for about 15 minutes. Then I put the paper in my bathroom sink full of water and let it sit for 30 seconds. Not on bit of ink came off of the paper (which was the Photo Paper Pro).

.
Rub it. Because I can do the same thing with an HP printer till I rub it.
Gregersonsalvage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2003, 8:31 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
dcrawley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 392
Default

I forgot to mention the fact that when I did rub it, nothing came off on my fingers. Nothing! Even if I lick my thumb and try to rub a freshly printed photo, I have not been able to get the ink to rub off. I cannot say as much for HP, though.
dcrawley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2003, 3:37 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 220
Default

Only thing I can add is about the Olympus E20, it takes great photos, handles beautifully with the (very overpriced) grip BUT it's very slow

Even using jpg's it's just so slow, I was averaging about 6 to 8 seconds between shots, in raw mode it's terrible. Switched to a Minolta 7Hi and am now a lot happier
phaedra1106 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2003, 5:24 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

the only thing i can add is that the 2200 produces a considerably better color print. it has a wider color gamut and produces superior black and white images too. it may be a little slower but what it pumps out puts all others to shame. its used as a proofing printer by more pros then any other. i walked into a friends house the other day. he is a photographer for a popular clothing catalog house (JC). low and behold in 2 boxes were a brand spankin new 2200 printer and a 3200 scanner. i have had mine for about 3 months now and you couldn't compare the prints to what i had used previously. epsons papers are excellent too. the lustre and matte are outstanding. before you jump i'd see one in action.

as far as the water resistance i would hope that all are now. my daughters epson 860, 2 years old, images could take a dunking back then. even to day epson is still improving the ink product. the durabrite inks even are getting near as long lasting as the pigments.

which ever one you go with my only advice is stick with original ink. i have found more printers disabled by bargain brand inks then any other type of fault.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 AM.