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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 9, 2004, 12:55 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Hmmmm, I think I must be missing something totally here. I have read reviews on the Epson 300 and the Epson 200 - one professional photography editor gave the 300 a 4 out of 5 but the 200 a 3 out of 5!

(scratching head and perplexed)... they're the same printer right? Same engine, inks, etc. I mean the comparison at the Epson website is identical...

Oh yeah (still scratching head), but the 300 you can hook up a digi camera direct, and thats different right? And bluetooth compatible.... the professional photography editor thinks that makes the 300 a "better printer"?

My friends here - when would I do this? Like am I supposed to betaking the 300 with me on my trip to Disney to print photos right there at Disney or maybe in the woods I might want to print direct? Actually I would need a power source wouldn't I? Are printers movement friendly? Can you carry them with you easily, like in a backpack when I go hiking?

Hmmmm, this is me. I takea picture (or 50-100 at a time), downlaod them onto my computer - crop them in Photoshop, enhance them, edit out problems, print maybe 2 or 3 of them, maybe none at that moment.

BUTTTTTT... all these new more expensive printers (rated higher on a scale of 1 to 5)only give you the ability to take one picture at a time from your camera, edit it on a small screen with some goofy software, crop it in a little tiny 2x3 medium quality screen and then... print that picture! Amazing?! Sort of... Is that worth $60 more? Will you ever do that?

The 200 is the same printer, I guess it doesrequire meto use my computer to edit. Are there a lot of you out there not using your computer and Photoshop to enhance, crop, etc. Cuz if you're not and you're just doing it on these silly little monitors on your printer, I know you paid more than me, but INEED to give you some advice - your computer is an absolutely integral part of good digital photography and to not use it or simply to use a printer for editting is goofy.

Really, could anybody really buy these more expensive printers cuz they really think printing direct to a printer is an asset?... Do the reviewers think the ability to reduce the quality of your final product really make it a better printer?
Trevortoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 9, 2004, 2:25 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 26
Default

Yeah, that's is strange, I for one do use the computer most of the time to do proper crops and maybe brighten or darken the pics. I rarely use the direct printing from the camera.

It's funny but I did get the R300 instead of the R200. This is because both are about the same price after the Epson rebates. There is a $50 (for buying a camera and R300 combine) and another $30 (for buying a R300) = $80 US. Valid till the end of Jan.31,2005

So if the two are about the same price go for the R300 because it's USB 2.0 and has a free multi-memory card reader!
Jobbie 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 5:24 PM.