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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 2, 2004, 5:21 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1
Default

Has anyone seen a comparison of the r800 vs. i8500?? I am in the market for a letter-sized photo printer and would like to see some comparisons of the two.

I like the versatility of the r800... but from a pure image quality comparison how do they rank?
grooves12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 3, 2004, 12:13 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 31
Default

I have the R800. Nice printer, but unless someone knows the secret, you can't hook it up to a print server. However, I don't know anything about the Canon printers, at least from personal experience.

The R800 gives me very accurate reproduction. I cannot ask more than that. OH, and if you're in the U.S. and want to print on CD/DVDs, Epson paid the price, so it's available. Canon didn't think we would want that feature. I've done labels and I've printed straight on the CD/DVD. Direct printing is better. Very slick.

On the other hand, you don't have to worry about that photo popping out of the printer before you're ready for it, if you know what I mean. It's no slouch, but the Canon's are purportedly a lot faster.

Cheers,

Eric
erichlund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2004, 6:52 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1
Default

OK, somewhat amazed that this question didn't genearate more response. I am new here, but have been doing some heavy research on quality photo printers recently and I am left with the same question. I've now read 7 reviews of the 8500 and the r800 and not a one seems to take a position as to which is the superior product. In the entire universe of computer accessories, I have rarely seen two products that are more directly competitive; same price point, same market segment, same profile and format, yet no one seems to treat them as competitive products in their reviews. i photo does reference the competition, but then never gives an opinion at the end of the review.

So - what to users think: which is the better device for quality photo printing? Which is best for black and white photos? What are the trade-offs? Is there anything coming down the pike to blow them out of the water?

I notice the previous poster references the ability to print on CDs - from the reviews it appears that both can do this - does anyone know for certain which is the case?

Another feature that is not obvious - can either print on 8 1/2 inch role paper to make larger ie. 11 X 14 or 11 x 20 prints? All the reviews mention 6" role paper but not the larger size.

Thanks for any comments. Am I missing something here?
jsm88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2004, 2:24 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 31
Default

The new epson printers will print CDs. The Canon printers will not unless you are not in the United States (or Canada???). Canon USA did not feel it necessary to pay the patent fees to Phillips for the right to do this.

If you print a lot of B&W, you should SERIOUSLY consider the HP line. I'm not sure which one(s) do this best, but investigate the 84xx and 94xx series. The best alternative to these for B&W is the Epson 2200. The R800 replaced the photo gray with gloss optimizer, so I suspect it's B&W will have the same color cast as most others. Canon's do for certain.

Epson R800 does roll paper up to 8 1/2" wide. I wouldn't bother with 4" roll for 4x6 printing. Too much curl and the cut sheet 4x6 paper is much handier. But it'sgreat for panoramas.

I cannot say anything about Canon photo output because I've not seen it. A comprehensive read of thisand other sites seems to indicate that Canon colors have more POP, but perhaps more than is actually there. Epson's seem to be more conservative, and perhaps more true to life. These are second hand observations, so take them with a grain of salt. Canon's are definitely known for speed. If you require speed, then that's an important consideration. The R800s have pigment ink, which has much more permanence than the dye based inks of other brands and even other Epson's (The 2200 also has pigment ink).
erichlund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2004, 6:10 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

This seems to confirm other reports I've read that both Canon and HP dye based inks have a better color gamut than the Epson pigment based printers. That is for color only. B&W is not Canon's strong suit. HP does the best B&W. He compares prints from the R800 and i9900, which is supposed to have the same technology as the narrow format iP8500.
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/printtest.html


slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2004, 10:30 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 38
Default

Canon is known for speed, quality of prints and the high vibrance seen in pictures. Although the vibrancy (is that even a word?) is not sought out by professionals due to the color inaccuracies, the general public LOVES vibrant photos. Canon's dye ink & nanoporous paper are known for fading (either your photos fade or they don't...it's an on-going debate) so if you want to archive the photos, Canon may not be the best choice. Do note that Canon's are the best for consumable costs as it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to replace cartridges (and they last pretty long too)!

Epsons are known for high quality photos like Canon and their ink/paper allows them to be archived. Epsons aren't as bad as other manufacturers when it comes to the costs of consumables but it's nowhere near Canon.

Hewlett Packards pump out good photos but when you compare them side-by-side with Epson and/or Canon, HP photos aren't that great. However, if you are doing black and white photos, HP has that extra Photo Gray cartridge which is extremely crucial since it contains (if I remember correctly) a thousand+ shades of grey.

Canon can't reproduce accurate B&Ws because there is a magenta cast over all of their photos. That's also why Canon photos come out more vibrant because of the extra red that is outputted and it is extremely difficult to balance that red out from what I've read.

The Epson r800 is the best bang between quality and consumable price. Canon is right behind but the extra tint of magenta and fading issues hold it back from #1. HP are 3rd but they're much farther down the ladder. Lexmark and Brother are just...eh.
Comp625 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2004, 10:35 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Quote:
Although the vibrancy (is that even a word?) is not sought out by professionals due to the color inaccuracies
I don't see the color inaccuracies you are talking about. I have had to do some profiling to get the colors just right using Red River paper and aftermarket inks, but the colors are dead on with Canon ink and Pro paper.

Quote:
The Epson r800 is the best bang between quality and consumable price.
I would put it the other way round unless one is selling prints they want to be sure will not fade. The Canon prints look better and come out several times as fast. I archive my images and don't worry too much about prints. But the new Kodak paper that advertises 100 years with dye based inks would seem to last a pretty long time. I have read there can be pooling problems with papers that swell to encapsulate the dye, but I haven't tried any of the swelling papers – I presume the Kodak paper does that.

The R800 prints do fade. The pigment is suspended in dye. The dye fades like any other dye, but the remaining pigment leaves a good but slightly faded print.

I've had my S9000 for only a couple of years, but in that time fading hasn't been a problem with the prints.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2004, 2:17 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 31
Default

The problem with the published test is that, as far as I can tell, it's an uncalibrated test. If all the printers were calibrated to the monitors before the test, then the prints should look reasonablyidentical, except that the printers may have more or less dynamic range than their competition. As it is, this is no more than an "as out of the box" test, which only tells me which printer(s) may require more tweaking than the others.

As far as longevity, I would hope that ANY of these printers would not show fading within several years, assuming proper care is taken to use the correct paper and correct storage/display regimen. If it were a problem, then I would automatically disqualify that printer. OTOH, call me in 30-40 years to see how my R800 prints are holding up.

I have several prints done on my older DJ1220C. One is still unfaded, while the other two have degraded severely. The other two were done on HP paper, but not the top of the line paper I used with the first, so paper definitely makes a difference as well.

I suppose the real test is to photograph an object that will not change, and for which the light source is controlled. Then print the object from your properly calibrated printer/computer/monitor, and compare the print to the real thing. If you are satisfied with the result, the who really cares if another printer is "better". The only standard you have to meet is your own.

Cheers, Eric
erichlund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2004, 3:17 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1
Default

Hi All,

I registered here with exactly this question.

The ability to print directly on CDs is intriguing. I hadn't considered that before reading this here.

For me, print speed isn't an issue because I won't be printing that many photos.

My priority is image quality, followed closely by variety of print output offered.

Stachel
Stachel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2005, 11:37 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
clem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 158
Default

Hi all,

This is a great websitecomparing both printers, and they do give a conclusion, saying that the R800 is definitely the choice for quality but Canon has a lower running cost that is appealing to most consumers.



Check out http://www6.tomshardware.com/consume...229/index.html
clem 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 8:18 AM.