Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 20, 2004, 3:04 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 414

So I've got my new Digital Rebel that I am really enjoying. Now I want to start making prints. With my F717 I just used an Epson Photo 820 with pretty good results. I am thinking of getting a new Cannon Printer. My question is, what is everyone else doing for prints? Home printers, online processing or Walmart? Thanks in advance.

headhunter66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 20, 2004, 3:22 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 294

I have been using a HiTouch (HiTi) Dyesub printer. Mine only does 4x6's or smaller but most prints thats typical. I got my printer for $179 at a camera store and when you purchase paper for your printer it includes your ribbon as well. (ie. 50 4x6 Prints with Ribbon is $19.99) so roughly .39-.40 cent prints. Not too shabby in my opinion, and the prints are great!

Mine is the HiTi 630PS model (Includes controller).
UniSonBBS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2004, 5:54 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585

I use the HiTi 640ps and the Canon i960. I use the Canon for various size of prints. The Hiti 640 is limited to 4X6.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 2:29 AM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192

I use an Epson R800. I've used a Canon S900 in the past. Both are very good printers. The S900 is of course out of date, and the i990 is the most recent evolution; the i9900 gives a nice large-sizeoption. I bought the R800 because (it's pretty good and) the i9900 wasn't going to be released until a few months later at that time. If it had been available, I would probably have bought it instead for the larger size, trading off the longevity of the prints and the nice colour profiles out of the box.

See here for detailed reviews on many printers:


Let's start another format war! I see a lot of usage of 4x6, but don't quite see the point any more. It made sense when you had to print everything in order to see the results, and when you had to pay lab fees for that, and for the lab to not show you all the details / flaws in your pictures. But with digital sources, we can proof quite well on-screen, and need only print the keepers. For that, shouldn't we just go to A4 / 8.5x11 / 8x10? Don't your camera (and lenses, etc.) deserve the size?

Mathematically, you don't even need a 6MP DSLR for 4x6's -- 2-3 MP should be enough.

Of course, it costs a lot more to print 8.5x11 than 4x6, but assuming that you don't print most of your pictures, then the cost isn't so great.There should be little doubt that the impact of large pictures is greater. (Although you might not want the full impact of Aunt Martha's or Uncle Henry's image, or even the technical flaws in your own images.)
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 10:45 AM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

I think its also a question of space. The smaller pictures are easier to frame and take less space on the desktop/wall. And their easier to send and give to people.

Of course, you can always print 2 smaller pictures on one larger sheet, so the larger printer makes sense to me.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2004, 10:47 AM   #6
Senior Member
Setiprime's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484

Hey MADWAND- Start a new thread and I'm sure you will get many folks to rise to the bait !!

I might even contribute a few facts, opinions etc. (Completely close minded and narrow sighted of course).
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2004, 12:15 AM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577

I bought a Canon i960. It makes stunning pictures, up to 8.5x11.

However, one thing I didn't realize until after I bought the printer is that a dye based printer, like my Canon, doesn't produce prints with great print life expectancy. 5-10 years if you're lucky. A pigment based printer, like the Epson 2200, produces prints with a print life of 80+ years (given the right paper of course).


barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2004, 1:24 PM   #8
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9

I've been printing my photos at Walgreens and have been exeedingly happy with the results. It's cheap ($0.29/4x6). It's great quality. I don't have to mess with paper and toner. And I get them in an hour.
enkydu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2004, 12:43 PM   #9
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1

I am interested in purchasing one of these printer and are interested in the 4x6 results. Which of the 2 printers has better quality at the smaller size?
lazbett is offline   Reply With Quote

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 7:46 AM.