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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 7, 2006, 8:56 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Hey guys,

Wondered what you thought about the current state of photo printers today. How are Canons, HPs and the Epson's these day in termes of relability and performance? Does it vary from model to model within a particular brand? Are the printers from one brand more reliable?

I ask, because I had a bad experience with a older Epson inkjet. The C60. It's not a photo printer by any means. But had an odd quirk. Not sure ifI was just unlucky and picked up a model that was known to be defective or if it was just mine alone. Previously, I always thought Epson's were reliable.

When one of the 2 ink cartridges are closer to empty than the other I end up getting funky color prints. The colors would be off by a mile. I'd get thin horizontal streaks.

Was that just my Epson inkjet? Or are most Epson printers even today like that? I remember with my HP, when the inks were near empty, the colors would just slowly fade till there was no more ink. Colors remained "accurate".

I'm looking at 8-ink photo printers. Canon is on the top of my list. And like every other person here I'm looking for "the best quality". Only interested in a consumer grade printer.

Thanks.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 25, 2006, 12:48 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 22
Default

Hi Dark , Maybe you have got your new printer ? If so what did you choose ? My experience with Epson has been nothing but frustrating , with reliablity and service both leaving much to be desired .

Check this foruim on the R300 etc and see all the problems experienced .

Dave
woodcarver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2006, 1:32 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

woodcarver wrote:
Quote:
Hi Dark , Maybe you have got your new printer ? If so what did you choose ? My experience with Epson has been nothing but frustrating , with reliablity and service both leaving much to be desired .

Check this foruim on the R300 etc and see all the problems experienced .

Dave
Hello Dave,

No, I haven't bought mine yet. Have a few ideas (e.g. Canon's upcoming Pro 9500, Canon's old i9900, HP's 8450...etc.). The Canon Pro 9500 doesn't come till 2007. Should I wait? I don't know. At the moment, I don't really NEED a new photo printer. Just doing my research.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with your Epson printer. Seems we were both unlucky with their inkjet printers. Don't know what happened to them. I remember when dot-matrix printers were king. At that time the Epsons were good and reliable I think. Could be wrong. As this was back in the 80's.

Was hoping to hear from others on how Epson's are doing today. I mean in addition to those that posed commons on your R300.

I might play it "safe" and stick with either Canon or HP. I've never owned a Canon but have heard nothing but praise. And I did have a HP. Good performance. But, I did end up wrecking the carridge some how many years back. And is not worth paying to be fixed.

But I do want a good reliable photo printer with at least 8-inks.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2006, 2:20 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 735
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
woodcarver wrote:
Quote:
Hi Dark , Maybe you have got your new printer ? If so what did you choose ? My experience with Epson has been nothing but frustrating , with reliablity and service both leaving much to be desired .

Check this foruim on the R300 etc and see all the problems experienced .

Dave
Hello Dave,

No, I haven't bought mine yet. Have a few ideas (e.g. Canon's upcoming Pro 9500, Canon's old i9900, HP's 8450...etc.). The Canon Pro 9500 doesn't come till 2007. Should I wait? I don't know. At the moment, I don't really NEED a new photo printer. Just doing my research.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with your Epson printer. Seems we were both unlucky with their inkjet printers. Don't know what happened to them. I remember when dot-matrix printers were king. At that time the Epsons were good and reliable I think. Could be wrong. As this was back in the 80's.

Was hoping to hear from others on how Epson's are doing today. I mean in addition to those that posed commons on your R300.

I might play it "safe" and stick with either Canon or HP. I've never owned a Canon but have heard nothing but praise. And I did have a HP. Good performance. But, I did end up wrecking the carridge some how many years back. And is not worth paying to be fixed.

But I do want a good reliable photo printer with at least 8-inks.
I am critical on some aspects of canon's drivers. For example with CD printing what "I" want is the pigment black for text, and the rest in color. The only way you can have this is with the plain paper setting which you can't select for CD printing. It's the same with everything else, everything is documented oriented and you manualy select what type of document you are printing. Still epson doesn't even have a pigmented black on their dye models.

The 8-tank canon you can only get in the form of the i9900 right now unless you are lucky and find a ip8500 on closeout, and those are rare. There is NOT a replacement for the ip8500, but there is for the i9900. In other words, if you want a standard letter sized/a3 printer with 8 tanks you are totally out of luck.

I don't see the r300 worth getting over the r200, unless you need the cardslots or the screen. Same with the r220 r320 r340. If you plan on buying OEM ink anyway, you might as well buy the r220. Epson referb store has this for $71 shipped. I'm too lazy to see what the ink costs exactly but this is about the same as the ink it comes with. If it fails, no big deal you only paid for ink. They also have the r800 for $199 shipped.

My canon experence has been more pleasent than my r200 experence. Not like I didn't have my problems, my mp760 is on it's 2nd head, and my ip3000 after a year of use started banding on the black. this is likely due to neglect, I bought a new printer and didn't use the ip3000, and the mp760 I used only for photos and I suspect the pigment black didn't see enough use. Both printers printed 700+ CDs and covers, and given that level of use issues are to be expected.

My HP experence I can't speak about their warranty department as I never had an issue during the warranty period.

All this being said, for a top notch photo printer I would consider the hp8450 or the epson r800 or the i9900/ip8500 (if you can find it). I would lean tward the hp8450 if you need something more multi-purpose, the r800 if printlife is paramount and you don't mind maintance, and the i9900/ip8500 if you a medium between the two.


zakezuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2006, 11:37 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

zakezuke wrote:
Quote:
DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
woodcarver wrote:
Quote:
Hi Dark , Maybe you have got your new printer ? If so what did you choose ? My experience with Epson has been nothing but frustrating , with reliablity and service both leaving much to be desired .

Check this foruim on the R300 etc and see all the problems experienced .

Dave
Hello Dave,

No, I haven't bought mine yet. Have a few ideas (e.g. Canon's upcoming Pro 9500, Canon's old i9900, HP's 8450...etc.). The Canon Pro 9500 doesn't come till 2007. Should I wait? I don't know. At the moment, I don't really NEED a new photo printer. Just doing my research.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with your Epson printer. Seems we were both unlucky with their inkjet printers. Don't know what happened to them. I remember when dot-matrix printers were king. At that time the Epsons were good and reliable I think. Could be wrong. As this was back in the 80's.

Was hoping to hear from others on how Epson's are doing today. I mean in addition to those that posed commons on your R300.

I might play it "safe" and stick with either Canon or HP. I've never owned a Canon but have heard nothing but praise. And I did have a HP. Good performance. But, I did end up wrecking the carridge some how many years back. And is not worth paying to be fixed.

But I do want a good reliable photo printer with at least 8-inks.
I am critical on some aspects of canon's drivers. For example with CD printing what "I" want is the pigment black for text, and the rest in color. The only way you can have this is with the plain paper setting which you can't select for CD printing. It's the same with everything else, everything is documented oriented and you manualy select what type of document you are printing. Still epson doesn't even have a pigmented black on their dye models.

The 8-tank canon you can only get in the form of the i9900 right now unless you are lucky and find a ip8500 on closeout, and those are rare. There is NOT a replacement for the ip8500, but there is for the i9900. In other words, if you want a standard letter sized/a3 printer with 8 tanks you are totally out of luck.

I don't see the r300 worth getting over the r200, unless you need the cardslots or the screen. Same with the r220 r320 r340. If you plan on buying OEM ink anyway, you might as well buy the r220. Epson referb store has this for $71 shipped. I'm too lazy to see what the ink costs exactly but this is about the same as the ink it comes with. If it fails, no big deal you only paid for ink. They also have the r800 for $199 shipped.

My canon experence has been more pleasent than my r200 experence. Not like I didn't have my problems, my mp760 is on it's 2nd head, and my ip3000 after a year of use started banding on the black. this is likely due to neglect, I bought a new printer and didn't use the ip3000, and the mp760 I used only for photos and I suspect the pigment black didn't see enough use. Both printers printed 700+ CDs and covers, and given that level of use issues are to be expected.

My HP experence I can't speak about their warranty department as I never had an issue during the warranty period.

All this being said, for a top notch photo printer I would consider the hp8450 or the epson r800 or the i9900/ip8500 (if you can find it). I would lean tward the hp8450 if you need something more multi-purpose, the r800 if printlife is paramount and you don't mind maintance, and the i9900/ip8500 if you a medium between the two.

Hello Zakesuke,

Thanks for posting.

I thought all consumer grade Canon photo printers are dye ink based. How is it you're able to find or even use a pigment based black? Do you just get 3rd party pigment based black ink put in the black cart when it's empty? And, you can mix pigment and dye inks in the same printer?

That's the first time I've heard this. Then again, I'm not all that experienced with photo inkjet printers. I've only owned 2 inkjets. 1 HP and 1 Epson.

And according to you Canon's aren't bullet proof either. Even if it was that one model. On the other hand, from what I've heard from every one else who's owned or still owns a Canon...they're all happy. No complaints.

As for HP's, I've owned one inkjet and was happy with it's performance till I wrecked it. So, perhaps I might just pickup the 8450. Good price and I think good performer. At least from what I saw in comparison prints on a 2004 "hi-end printer shootout" done by Tom's Hardware. According to them, the only negatives were that it uses ink like there's no tomorrow and that it's overall performance was "mediocore". Here's the article if you're interested:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/12/...igh/index.html

According to that article the Epson R800 would be the one to get based on photo quality. Came out as being the most accurate of the three. Followed by the Canon ip8500. But, again, I'm just not sure I should take a chance with another Epson. Based on my own experience, woodcarver's, and yours (and the many other R300 owners in that thread woodcarver mentioned...etc.). Not sure I should completely write off all Epson's. Do I take a chance with the R800? A great printer with questionable relability? That I might have to deal with Epson's 2nd rate tech support department? Shrug.

But like I said. I'm in no hurry. So, I guess I'll just keep reading up on 8-ink (or more) printers.

Later.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2006, 2:07 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 735
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Hello Zakesuke,

Thanks for posting.

I thought all consumer grade Canon photo printers are dye ink based. How is it you're able to find or even use a pigment based black? Do you just get 3rd party pigment based black ink put in the black cart when it's empty? And, you can mix pigment and dye inks in the same printer?

That's the first time I've heard this. Then again, I'm not all that experienced with photo inkjet printers. I've only owned 2 inkjets. 1 HP and 1 Epson.

And according to you Canon's aren't bullet proof either. Even if it was that one model. On the other hand, from what I've heard from every one else who's owned or still owns a Canon...they're all happy. No complaints.

As for HP's, I've owned one inkjet and was happy with it's performance till I wrecked it. So, p's overall performance was "mediocore". Here's the article if you're interested:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/12/...igh/index.html

According to that article the Epson R800 would be the one to get based on photo quality. Came out as being the most accurate of the three. Followed by the Canon ip8500. But, again, I'm just not sure I should take a chance with another Epson. Based on my own experience, woodcarver's, and yours (and the many other R300 owners in that thread woodcarver mentioned...etc.). Not sure I should completely write off all Epson's. Do I take a chance with the R800? A great printer with questionable relability? That I might have to deal with Epson's 2nd rate tech support department? Shrug.

But like I said. I'm in no hurry. So, I guess I'll just keep reading up on 8-ink (or more) printers.

Later.
No 8 tank canon printer yet uses pigmented inks, their multi-purpose consumer models offer 5 tanks, one pigment black for text, the rest dye black, with the exception of the ip7500 in japan which has 7 tanks, and the mp900/950 which also has 7 tanks. All these have two blacks, one for photos, one for text.

HP has done this as well, have a seperate pigmented black tank, but near as i'm aware it doesn't use them both at the same time, as in if you are using photo paper it uses dye only. Lexmark I think had one printer which used both dye and pigment at the same time and it didn't look very good. The old ip3000 and some older canons mixed the colors to make a dye black, which tended to make matte paper very well but was fine on photo papers.

The ip8450 offers you the choice between using the pigmented black tank, or a photo grey tank. The dye black I believe is in the photo tank, so if you are using the pigmented black it pulls dye black from the photo cartridge.

Keep in mind that toms review are opinions, not facts. Their testing was limited though I would agree that the r800 is a top notch photo printer with excelent color accuracy. It is pigment based ink which tends to not do so well on glossy paper, and the dry time is high. The hp8450 tends to do better on swellable polymer photo paper which is slow to dry and not so water proof. The Canon tends to do best on quick dry papers, the microporous type.

But yes, the hp8450, good printer. Nice features, low price, with ethernet and a screen. One wouldn't be foolish buying one. The ink will cost a pretty penny, but beatutiful output and one of the few photo printers which whill take a pigment huge black if needed.

zakezuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2006, 11:53 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

zakezuke wrote:
Quote:
DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Hello Zakesuke,

Thanks for posting.

I thought all consumer grade Canon photo printers are dye ink based. How is it you're able to find or even use a pigment based black? Do you just get 3rd party pigment based black ink put in the black cart when it's empty? And, you can mix pigment and dye inks in the same printer?

That's the first time I've heard this. Then again, I'm not all that experienced with photo inkjet printers. I've only owned 2 inkjets. 1 HP and 1 Epson.

And according to you Canon's aren't bullet proof either. Even if it was that one model. On the other hand, from what I've heard from every one else who's owned or still owns a Canon...they're all happy. No complaints.

As for HP's, I've owned one inkjet and was happy with it's performance till I wrecked it. So, p's overall performance was "mediocore". Here's the article if you're interested:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/12/...igh/index.html

According to that article the Epson R800 would be the one to get based on photo quality. Came out as being the most accurate of the three. Followed by the Canon ip8500. But, again, I'm just not sure I should take a chance with another Epson. Based on my own experience, woodcarver's, and yours (and the many other R300 owners in that thread woodcarver mentioned...etc.). Not sure I should completely write off all Epson's. Do I take a chance with the R800? A great printer with questionable relability? That I might have to deal with Epson's 2nd rate tech support department? Shrug.

But like I said. I'm in no hurry. So, I guess I'll just keep reading up on 8-ink (or more) printers.

Later.
No 8 tank canon printer yet uses pigmented inks, their multi-purpose consumer models offer 5 tanks, one pigment black for text, the rest dye black, with the exception of the ip7500 in japan which has 7 tanks, and the mp900/950 which also has 7 tanks. All these have two blacks, one for photos, one for text.

HP has done this as well, have a seperate pigmented black tank, but near as i'm aware it doesn't use them both at the same time, as in if you are using photo paper it uses dye only. Lexmark I think had one printer which used both dye and pigment at the same time and it didn't look very good. The old ip3000 and some older canons mixed the colors to make a dye black, which tended to make matte paper very well but was fine on photo papers.

The ip8450 offers you the choice between using the pigmented black tank, or a photo grey tank. The dye black I believe is in the photo tank, so if you are using the pigmented black it pulls dye black from the photo cartridge.

Keep in mind that toms review are opinions, not facts. Their testing was limited though I would agree that the r800 is a top notch photo printer with excelent color accuracy. It is pigment based ink which tends to not do so well on glossy paper, and the dry time is high. The hp8450 tends to do better on swellable polymer photo paper which is slow to dry and not so water proof. The Canon tends to do best on quick dry papers, the microporous type.

But yes, the hp8450, good printer. Nice features, low price, with ethernet and a screen. One wouldn't be foolish buying one. The ink will cost a pretty penny, but beatutiful output and one of the few photo printers which whill take a pigment huge black if needed.
Hello Zakezuke,

I didn't know that about photo printers. I assumed if the company websites said they were "dye printers" that it would use ONLY dye based inks. Not one pigment black. Interesting.

As for the Epson R800...I'm not sure where I stand. While that one article on Tom's Hardware did prove that it produced the most accurate colors of the 3 it didn't mention any of the potential pitfalls of owning a R800 (e.g. clogging of the print heads).

As for pigment based printers...Canon's upcoming Pixma Pro 9500 will be pigment based. But isn't to hit the market till "some time in 2007". And will be a 10-ink printer. Then there's Canon's 12-color "archival pigment ink system" ImagePROGRAF iPF5000 which cost how much I forget. But what I do recall was that each of the 12 inks run $90.00 CAD!!! Multiply that by 12!! YIKES!!! Though, that one is more for the "professional".

If I end up not waiting for the Pro9500 I could get a Canon i9900 or the HP 8450. Shrug.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2006, 3:03 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 735
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:

Hello Zakezuke,

I didn't know that about photo printers. I assumed if the company websites said they were "dye printers" that it would use ONLY dye based inks. Not one pigment black. Interesting.

As for the Epson R800...I'm not sure where I stand. While that one article on Tom's Hardware did prove that it produced the most accurate colors of the 3 it didn't mention any of the potential pitfalls of owning a R800 (e.g. clogging of the print heads).

As for pigment based printers...Canon's upcoming Pixma Pro 9500 will be pigment based. But isn't to hit the market till "some time in 2007". And will be a 10-ink printer. Then there's Canon's 12-color "archival pigment ink system" ImagePROGRAF iPF5000 which cost how much I forget. But what I do recall was that each of the 12 inks run $90.00 CAD!!! Multiply that by 12!! YIKES!!! Though, that one is more for the "professional".

If I end up not waiting for the Pro9500 I could get a Canon i9900 or the HP 8450. Shrug.
The iPF5000 is reasonably priced given what it is. I'm not 100% aware of all of canon's wide models but I think the iPF5000 represents the first in the a2 size, where in the past you pretty much had to go a4, a3, a1 or larger. It will fit on a desk, rather than be a desk, well a large desk. The ink is priced at a fair price given what it is, 130ml cartridges rather than 13 in the consumer models. From my understanding the Canadians pay a tad more for ink than americans, like CDN$18 per for the older series. So assuming the iPF5000 comes with a full set of ink it represents about CDN$2160 of smaller cartridges, for a printer which has a sticker tag of CND$2,500.00. Further at $90 a cartridge that's only $1080 for a set, less than half of the consumer models.

If you plan to make more than 500 prints in a year and buy OEM ink you can see where shelling out $2000 for a printer which saves you over 50% on ink would be reasonable.



zakezuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2006, 5:15 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

zakezuke wrote:
Quote:
DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:

Hello Zakezuke,

I didn't know that about photo printers. I assumed if the company websites said they were "dye printers" that it would use ONLY dye based inks. Not one pigment black. Interesting.

As for the Epson R800...I'm not sure where I stand. While that one article on Tom's Hardware did prove that it produced the most accurate colors of the 3 it didn't mention any of the potential pitfalls of owning a R800 (e.g. clogging of the print heads).

As for pigment based printers...Canon's upcoming Pixma Pro 9500 will be pigment based. But isn't to hit the market till "some time in 2007". And will be a 10-ink printer. Then there's Canon's 12-color "archival pigment ink system" ImagePROGRAF iPF5000 which cost how much I forget. But what I do recall was that each of the 12 inks run $90.00 CAD!!! Multiply that by 12!! YIKES!!! Though, that one is more for the "professional".

If I end up not waiting for the Pro9500 I could get a Canon i9900 or the HP 8450. Shrug.
The iPF5000 is reasonably priced given what it is. I'm not 100% aware of all of canon's wide models but I think the iPF5000 represents the first in the a2 size, where in the past you pretty much had to go a4, a3, a1 or larger. It will fit on a desk, rather than be a desk, well a large desk. The ink is priced at a fair price given what it is, 130ml cartridges rather than 13 in the consumer models. From my understanding the Canadians pay a tad more for ink than americans, like CDN$18 per for the older series. So assuming the iPF5000 comes with a full set of ink it represents about CDN$2160 of smaller cartridges, for a printer which has a sticker tag of CND$2,500.00. Further at $90 a cartridge that's only $1080 for a set, less than half of the consumer models.

If you plan to make more than 500 prints in a year and buy OEM ink you can see where shelling out $2000 for a printer which saves you over 50% on ink would be reasonable.


Yes, I was doing some further research on the iPF5000. And for what it has to offer the pricing isn't as scary as it looked on the surface. According to one reviewer on www.luminouslandscapes.com the iPF5000 should be able to do 2400 A3 sized prints. Or if you do 100 prints per month the inks should last you roughly 2 years. Not bad!!

But in the end this is not a cheap printer at $2500.00 CAD. Plus $1080.00 for a set of new inks. I heard the iPF5000 comes with cartridges that are only half-full. Which isn't that bad to start you off with I guess.

And this would be my first photo printer. So spending $3500.00 CAD is out of the question at this point.

Plus, I can tell you that I won't be printing that often. Maybe going a few months without making a single print.

I'm just looking for a printer who's print heads will not clog if I leave it for a few months. Print maybe 3-5 prints. Leave it for a month. Print maybe 20 prints...etc. But, give me accurate colors and highly detailed output.

Hence my current choices: Canon i9900, Canon Pro9000/9500 (Oct 2006/2007), HP 8750 or 8450.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2006, 3:17 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 735
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I was doing some further research on the iPF5000. And for what it has to offer the pricing isn't as scary as it looked on the surface. According to one reviewer on http://www.luminouslandscapes.com the iPF5000 should be able to do 2400 A3 sized prints. Or if you do 100 prints per month the inks should last you roughly 2 years. Not bad!!

But in the end this is not a cheap printer at $2500.00 CAD. Plus $1080.00 for a set of new inks. I heard the iPF5000 comes with cartridges that are only half-full. Which isn't that bad to start you off with I guess.

And this would be my first photo printer. So spending $3500.00 CAD is out of the question at this point.

Plus, I can tell you that I won't be printing that often. Maybe going a few months without making a single print.

I'm just looking for a printer who's print heads will not clog if I leave it for a few months. Print maybe 3-5 prints. Leave it for a month. Print maybe 20 prints...etc. But, give me accurate colors and highly detailed output.

Hence my current choices: Canon i9900, Canon Pro9000/9500 (Oct 2006/2007), HP 8750 or 8450.
Going months without printing would be troublesome for any of the above. I think one of my canons had issues because I didn't print enough in the way of text documents, but as we are talking 100% dye models , less of an issue. Still I would print "something" once a month at least. Doesn't have to be much, a nozzle check would do just fine. I would guess the HP would be better in this regard, as the 8750/8450 do take intragrated head on the cartridges. In all fairness to canon it does have smaller nozzles. You can get a free printhead if it fails during the warranty period, so you don't have to worry for a year at all.

The HP if you ignore it too long, your out ink which you can replace. Canon your out a printhead which doesn't come with ink. Both you can take the ink and or head and put in long term storage in a ziplock bag i'd imagine.

Not having met the pixma pro 9000, I can't say if it's an improvement over the i9900, but the specs are identical so I suspect it's similar enough to not worry about it too much.



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 12:49 PM.