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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 19, 2005, 3:31 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 16
Default

I'm getting my 1st digital camera soon.. I know I'm WAY BEHIND the times but can now afford one finally.. I'm either going with a Canon , Nikon , or Kodak I still haven't made up my mind yet.. Anyway my question is that I'm looking for a decent printer so I can print my pictures at home.. I was thinking about getting the HP Photo 8250, Canon Pixma ip8500, or a Kodak Photo Printer.. Bascially I will use the printer for normal documents but also printing photos (normal size) and some 8 x 10 photos.. Are any of the printers I metioned above any good? Which one would be the best? Or do you have a better printer to suggest? .. Any opinions or thoughts would be great..

Thanks, Dx
Dxtra30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 19, 2005, 9:56 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 139
Default

Dear Dextra30,

Congradulations on accumulating the money to buy a digital camera. Since you will now have a need for a good photoprinter, I can only express confidence that any number of printer vendors are lined up to relieve you of any surplus remaining money.

In terms of the Kodak choice, it seems incapable of printing a A4 8x 10 or normal
8.5 x 11 paper output. It seems its only a small size photorpinter according to my read of the Kodak website.

I have to be underwelmed by the hp photo 8250 in terms of economy. Its a six cartridge printer-------the five color cartridges contain anywhere from 3.5 ml to 6 ml of ink for $9.99. The remaining black cartridges contains a whopping? 10 ml of ink for $17.99 list.

Contrast that with any number of Canon printers using the BCI-3 and BCI-6 cartridges.
You get colors containing 15 ml of ink for a Canon list of $12.00 or black containing
30 ml of ink for $14.00. But the real economy in the Canon and Epson printers lies in the consumers ability to obtain very cheap non-oem cartridges or use refilling options that can drastically lower photo printing costs that are rather high compared to just normal printing. Let me put it this way, the consumer report April /05 issue listed the consumable costs for a Canon ip4000 to print an a4 photo at $0.80 at pop. Posters at this and other forums slash that cost to way less than a dime for non-oem cartridges and half that with refilling---------and those that know what they are doing
lose little or no quality over OEM ink.

So if you are going to print alot, look at economy also. If you don't print much it may not matter all that much, but over time it does matter. Lots of really fussy photoprinters at this site, let them weigh in to puff their favorites and get a more diverse view.



Osage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2005, 9:50 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 735
Default

Dxtra30 wrote:
Quote:
I'm getting my 1st digital camera soon.. I know I'm WAY BEHIND the times but can now afford one finally.. I'm either going with a Canon , Nikon , or Kodak I still haven't made up my mind yet.. Anyway my question is that I'm looking for a decent printer so I can print my pictures at home.. I was thinking about getting the HP Photo 8250, Canon Pixma ip8500, or a Kodak Photo Printer.. Bascially I will use the printer for normal documents but also printing photos (normal size) and some 8 x 10 photos.. Are any of the printers I metioned above any good? Which one would be the best? Or do you have a better printer to suggest? .. Any opinions or thoughts would be great..

Thanks, Dx
Both of them are probally pretty good. The best thing you can do is with your camera in hand go to your local retail shop and print off your images on either your favorite paper or the printer reccomended paper.

- toms contrast of the 8450 vs epson r800 vs ip8500
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer...inters-05.html

Nothing really on the 8250, it's a different animal from the 8450. The 8450 doesn't take seperate ink tanks like the 8250 and doesn't offer that dedicated grey ink cartridge. The 8450 might technicaly be an older model but the pricemark is about the same as the 8250. You'd spend more money on ink, those three cartridges are not cheap.

The canon ip8500 doesn't have a dedicated text cartridge like the lesser models. So expect printing text to cost more, not look as good, and the ink not to last as long. In fact the only photo printer from canon I know about that has a dedicated text tank is the MP950.. a 7 tank all in one costing $450, and this model is so new no one can honestly say they output is anygood cause no bugger as seen it. Same deal with the ip6600D. Also lacking the red and green inks of the ip8500 it has a smaller ink drop size and higher resolution, and a lower price mark.

Generally speaking canon is low end on the scale of lightfastness, esp ip8500/6000/5000/4000/3000. The benifits though is a fast dry time and on microporous paper reasonably waterfast.

The HP vivera inks are reported as being better in terms of lightfastness esp on the reccomended paper, but the drytime is slower and the reccomended paper isn't very waterfast at all.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/8450.html

There's also epson. I consider them to be fickle creatures that require cleaning and maintance. But unlike either canon nor hp they use pigmented inks on many of their models. Many people prefer dye, but pigments generally speaking will looks decent on most types of paper and generally are more light fast. The r800 has no fancy features what so ever. No screen, no pictbridge support IIRC, nothing but a couple of buttons and a LED light.















zakezuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2005, 2:48 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 139
Default

I may be putting too much emphasis on economy, Zakezeke raised two questions I glossed over. Namely the feature set of the printers and the permance of the output.
The feature sets are easily compared on websites and well equipped stores.

At this point in time, inkjet technology continues to evolve with the new market of photoprinting giving the market new life. And for that matter affordable color lasers are also coming on strong----with laser photoprinting not yet even close to inkjet appearance from what I read.

But in terms of the permance of inkjet photoprinting, that too is evolving with Canon perhaps trailing both HP and Epson. Even though all makers are introducting new printer lines based on new more permanent ink---conviently for the manufacturer not backwards compatable to their earlier models.

Its certainly valid to ask why bother printing a photo if its not going to look the same
after a year, two years, ten years, or a hundred years? And also begs the question if the acid in the paper itself will not eat the print. And certainly strong light also degrades things so storage and storing the print become factors.

At present, the best recommendation is to make a digital copy stored on cd so the print can be reprinted later.

Someday, better ink technology will come that does allow much better print permance. The question is where will it come from?

From printer manufacturers who introduce whole new printer lines with each small incremental improvement? And hence have no interest in getting it right the first time.

Or from third party ink manufacturers? Who finally get their act together and realize that they have to get both excellent color match and better than OEM permance also. While most non-oem canon cartridges and ink is now somewhat inferior to Canon OEM on permance, I would predict that there is a huge fortune to be made by a non-oem manufacturer who can come up with a really permanent ink usable in inkjets.

Given the huge variety of inks and color matches present now in inkjets, the most profitable area of research for such a non-oem formulator would be in the Canon BCI-6 cartridge line given its huge present base.

Which is why I would recommend you look to something in the slightly lower end canons like the ip4000 or ip5000 which are likely to do as good as a photoprinting job as a super expensive high end model.

When better technology comes along, why be out a pile of bucks you spent on a super expensive printer now?

Osage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2005, 10:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 735
Default

Osage wrote:

Quote:
I may be putting too much emphasis on economy, Zakezeke raised two questions I glossed over. Namely the feature set of the printers and the permance of the output. The feature sets are easily compared on websites and well equipped stores.
Well, feature sets like lightfastness isn't so easy to know in the stores. For example we have the Canon marketing their new inks at being lightfast for 100 years... but the people quoting this future are not spelling out that this is dark storage, in an album, with a plastic sleave, on their premium media.


Quote:
At present, the best recommendation is to make a digital copy stored on cd so the print can be reprinted later.
Provided that your media last this long. CD-R isn't rated for many years unless you buy archival disks, same with DVD, where print if stored properly will last a good long while. Still it's users choice as far as this goes. If you copy your stuff from one disk to another every 5 to 10 years you should be in good shape.

Quote:
When better technology comes along, why be out a pile of bucks you spent on a super expensive printer now?
Important enough point. Totally users choice whther to get a $100 printer, a $200 printer, or a $300+ printer.

Your average $100 photo printer like the epson r200 may last a year, but it won't be too sad if it doesn't last beyond that because it comes with $70 of ink. Slightly more the Canon ip4200, while I don't have personal experence with this new model is more likely to actually work a while.

$200 will get you a very nice HP 8250 or 8450, or a canon ip6600d.

$300+ you start seeing things like the Epson R800, canon ip8500. A good reason to spend $300+ on a printer is because in a copule of years it's stilll going to be a pretty spiffy printer even if it's only on par with the current generation of good printers.





zakezuke 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 12:12 AM.