Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Printers > Wide Carriage Inkjet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 8, 2005, 11:05 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 171
Default

I have to agree with Tony on all of his points. Also, there are many reports already of problems of various natures with the new R1800 - not that it isn't a fine printer, but still has problems that have plagued its Epson siblings for quite a while. Also, as for the panorama issue, I too would have preferred the wider 44", esp. since the black/white HP images are supposedly exquisite. BUT, just how many pano's of that size does the average photog print? Remember, this is their mid-line prosumer "appeal to largest audience of experienced photographers" line. What it does it supposedly does very well to excellent (retail versions don't ship until next week I believe). It was a difficult call, but I ordered the HP as opposed the the R1800. I think the ink cost/cartridge issue has been over-stated (as discussed elsewhere) and that seems to be the main (and often only) focus of criticism of the HP.
flint350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2005, 10:30 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7
Default

Here's is a good review of the Epson R1800.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...00/page_13.htm
rubydia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2005, 12:07 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Yes, I've already read this review and many others as well. As I said, I don't think you'll get anything but exceptional prints from either printer. My concern is not about quality, that's never been an issue for me but ink consumption, head clogging requiredmaintenance and cleaning cyclesetc,ARE an issue for me.

I just feel HP has the better solution. I'm one of those people who like the idea of getting a new head at each cartridge change. I like the idea that HP can use more of it's ink for printing i.e. HP can use pretty much all the ink in the cartridge (if you don'trun out of just one color) because there is no concern with air getting into the head and ruining it. In addition every time you change a cartridge on an Epsonyou must run acleaning cycle because of the possibility of air getting between the cartredge and the print head. btw it runs the cleaning cycle on ALL the heads even if you only replace one. It also runs this cycle every time you turn on the printer. That's a LOT of inkthat won't evenget to the paper. In order to keep them from clogging they must be used regularly whether you want to or not.

Since HP has closed the longevity gap with it's new Vivera inkset and papers thePRIMARYreason for me getting an Epson and having todeal withpigment ink has vanished.

According to Henry Wilhelm, HP has just about the bestINTEGRATED ink/paper techology available. And according to Steve in his review of the 8750, it's output is the equal of the best printers he's ever used. That's good enough for me.

tony


tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2005, 5:16 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 47
Default

Sounds like your convinced that the HP 8750 is the better way to go...and your main argument is it will clog less and use less ink than the Epson.

I dont know how true this really is.

I would also think you would look at th total end to end cost of printing. How much do the ink cartridges cost for the new HP 8750, and how many prints will you get out of them....

Just poo-pooing the Epson because of all the subjective comments about printers other than the R1800 without any real data is doing yourself a dis-service.

Reports on www.dpreview.com today have a real owner of a Epson 2200 and a R1800 telling us that the R1800 is fairing well compared to a E2200. There is also a report that the R1800 is doing very well on Somerset Ehnanced Velvet Fine Art.

With the HP you limited to ONLY 2 HP papers for the archival claims. The prints are NOT water resistant. You can not print longer that 24". The ink is more expensive than Epson when you look at the whole picture....

This said, your HP's will print well. I just hate to see you not really looking at the whole picture!!

Best Wishes
Alex

adydula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2005, 1:02 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Thanks for the input Alex.

Your correct about the limited HP paper choices, butI expect that willchange. As far as seeing the whole picture is concerned, I have spent a prodigious amount of time doing research on printers,preciselyinorder tosee the"whole" picture. btw I'm not poo pooingEpson, I think they make a great product. I looked for as much objective data as I could find.I did not want to base my decision on anecdotal information. You mentioned cost of operation.This is oneof the biggest area'sof confusion. The only sure way to establish that, is to have two printers side by side and use them over an extended period of time. Obviously I can't do that so I'm relying on independant professional reviews and independant research. According to SpencerLab Research, both Canon and Epson spill far more ink in maintenance and cleaning cycles that HP.Using cartridge cost aloneas a referance does not represent true cost of operationwhen more than half of the ink is usedfor head cleaning cycles. According to SpencerLab Research HP gets approx. 80% of the ink to the paper to make prints as opposed to37%-41% for Epson and Canon.If these tests areaccurate (whywould they lie?) this puts a serious crimp in the debate about cartridge cost and overall cost of operation.

Is it really less expensive to pay for individual ink cartridges if your throwing away half the ink? As I've stated before I did not come into this with preconcieved idea's. I'm not an advocate for any product. It took a lot of time to ferrit out this information.

tony
tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2005, 3:18 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 171
Default

Well, to add more fuel to the debate, here is the most recent and semi in-depth (11 pages) review of the HP 8750 I have found. It brings up the ink/paper costs but doesn't really show much useful data to make a real judgment. The bottom line however is very clear - Outstanding in color and b/w photos no matter how you slice it. He also addresses the consumable variables by comparing pro vs. consumer needs. Have a look: http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...smart_8750.php
flint350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2005, 9:37 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 47
Default

This article seems to point out that one of the negatives of this printer is its high ink and paper cost???

But there are lots to like about this printer...its really about the quality of the prints to me and how they will last under a variety of conditions....cost is important but not if they will fade easily, or your limited to only 2 papers or your showig your family prints and someones moist fingers smears a print....i have seen this happen.

If the HP guys could get this water resistance fixed and would have allowed the print driver to go beyond 24 " in length the I most likely would have one of those instead on my R1800. :>)

Alex
adydula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2005, 9:35 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

I think eventhe peoplewho review these products are influenced by the "initial cost" of cartridges as opposed to running comparison tests on ink use and waste which a research organization such as SpencerLab Research doe's.

I can't speak to the paper cost issue but in terms of ink use and ink cost, I think of it tihs way:

You spend approx $35.00 for an HP ink cartridge which contains three seperate inks and a new print head. Hp uses approx 80% of it's ink for printing.

You spend approx $15.00 per separate ink cartridge on an Epson or Canon.

Three color cartridges,times $15.00equals $45.00, which is $10.00 more than the HP Tri-color cartridge and that's not even considering the new print head and the fact that about half of the purchased ink on a Canon or Epson will be wasted in cleaning and maintenance cycles.

It's true that if you must replace an HP cartridge before all the inks are used, your wasting that ink, but the degree of that problem has been overestimated according the the research done at SpencerLab Research. I think there is more to cost of operation than meets the eye.

tony
tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2005, 12:18 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 171
Default

Alex,
I, for one, am not trying to convince you that you made a bad choice with Epson. I think it is an excellent choice. I also think the HP is an excellent choice for me. My only point about his mention of the ink/paper costs in that review was that - if you read how he came to that conclusion - it was based on his printing a small number of prints and drawing generalized conclusions. It seems to fall more in line with the familiar "hp costs more simply bcz it uses 3-ink carts vs. single," not real science or comparison over many prints and long term. Quite simply, while his review was pretty good and thorough, his ink cost generalization was not very scientifically arrived at.

As for the water resistance, that may well be an issue as I have not personally touched prints using the new Vivera inks from an HP 8750 - it is simply not available yet. I will grant that this could be an issue. But it is as easily solved (or more so) as the many issues with the Epson line, from metamerizing to bronzing to clogging, etc. I think a simple spray with Krylon Preseve It or similar will solve the water issue. The Epson issues are far more permanent (for me) or problematic (for me) vs. the benefits (for me) of the HP.

I agree with you that the HP would be better if it could inherently overcome the water issue (remember Epson and the Gloss Optimizer - they sell it as a feature but let's face it, it was really a corrective/preventive measure for a problem - and still has issues of its own in coverage area, etc). So rather than a half-baked internal solution, I'll try the spray method untill HP can make those inks more instant dry. Remember too, a fine art painting took time to dry and wet chem photos needed to dry - no one called that a big problem. Granted, the folks we may sell these photos to will be less careful - hence the spray, until HP can improve the inks. It's all trade-offs and matters of choice.
flint350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2005, 7:43 PM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 47
Default

flint350....

No problem, I take no offense...I understand your reasoning and just enjoy debating from all perspectives.

Its part of the fun and we all benefit from the light hearted banter and hopefully others will be able to make informed decisons based on facts not emotions etc...

I have owned 3 Canons and thought for the most part they were awesome, the I950, I960 series still is a great printer...but when I saw some 13 x 44 panoramics I was in love with this format and when I asked the photographer what they were printed on he said an Epson 2200. After many sessions with owners and printers of this printer it became obvious that this printer was awesome as well...on fine art papes is really is drop dead gorgeous, I have many 13 x44 inch panos hanging up above my head as we type..

I also have several 13 x 19 balck and whites on Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper that are museum quality and are again works of art....

Throwing out costs I really wanted to do this type of printing but the metamersism stuff and lousy glossies was a reality..

When Epson announced the R800 with the gloss optimizer, I was drooling over it but it did not do the panos I like to do or 13 x 19....

So these new R1800 and HP 8750 and the higher end Designjets really casught my eye...but like we all they all have compromises depending on what we individually want, like and need.

Like I said in an early post I came very close to buying the HP but I talked to the HP reps and when I found out it had a hard 24" length limitation I was dismayed on how close HP got with this one and they let it go...why I can not understand...you can buy a Desighjet and do almost relatively endless prints, but you dont get those wondeful grey inks like the 8750..go figure.

With the Epson they could have included the light grey ink cartridge and it would be the closest to 'perfect' 13 x 19 printer there is but nope...go figure again.

There is the story that a pro with a Desginjet selling an artsy print when the customer inadvertenly sneezed and ruined the print and lost the sale....funny but not funny.

So in the end we all makes our choices and pays the piper..I sincerely hope you enjoy your Hp8750 and well as I have enjoyed my R1800...who knows what the technology will bring us in the next few years. I am sure we will have more fun comparing and examining this technology...

I hope the OEM manufacturers are really listening to what we all want...and of course that is the best quality on a wide variety of papers and sizes as affordable as possible!!

Best Wishes !
Alex

PS: I have not experienced any gloss optimizer issues or dark prints. I use a fully calibrated color flow and prints match exactly (but this was not always so!).
adydula 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 9:01 PM.