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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 15, 2005, 11:20 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Quote:
The "R" line is the non-professional line, but that shouldn't stop you from considering them. They are quite good.
Epson have a huge amount of printers on offer. The R printers are the best of bunch for home users.

If he wants a printer for less than 500, that pretty much rules out a pro line of printer, wouldn't you think Steve ?
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 8:34 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Yes, I believe it does.... for the newer models.

You might be able to get an old Epson 2200 at that price point (they were $650 before the 2400 came out) and they are really great printers. Just because they have been replaced they should not be ignored. Many professional have sold many pictures printed with that printer.

But their non-pro line is very good as well. Better, in a few ways, than the pro lines.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 9:19 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6
Default

Thank you all for your help!
katiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 9:50 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
VictorEM83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
Default

I agrre with eric if he want Inkjet Epson would be the least expensive, with the best quality. My only problem with Inkjets are the random costs and lack of water resistance.
On the otherhand Inkjets like the Epsons Eric is talking about offer a ton of artistic tools you cant get on a dye subs or other printers. But becuase most my prints are not art rendering but pictures of people the Dye-Sub is my choise but I perfer to use a lab due to you fact your cost is much lower when you break down the cost of the: paper, ink, and any misprints due to human error.
VictorEM83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 5:44 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Eric,

on the 2200 you say

Quote:
Many professional have sold many pictures printed with that printer.
however it is my impression that the 2400 is the replacement of the above ? or not. But then you say
Quote:
But their non-pro line is very good as well. Better, in a few ways, than the pro lines.
not meaning to be annoying here, but this then seems like a contradiction to the first statement? Reading it asI do it seems to imply the 2400 is not proline but the 2200 is?

What exactly are the "pro" line in your opionion ? Please take that the right way, its a genuine question as I dont know. Trying to figure out what is the best out there also.

LB
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 10:14 AM   #16
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I have the R800, and it's a fantastic colour A4 printer.

B&W is ok, but always has a colour cast. Using duotone or quadtone helps, but you can't get rid of it entirely.

I've decided to upgrade to the R2400 at some point because I occasionally would like to print bigger than A4 and I definitely want the B&W capability it has.

I find labs in the UK to be very expensive for A3 sized prints, and although I'm sure that there are many good ones around, I've been hit for £15 for A3 prints that were so poor that they were unusable. Much better to have your own control I think.

I don't think the labs can do better than the quality I've seen from the R800 for colour A4.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 12:56 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I don't mind the question at all. We're a friendly bunch here.

I didn't think I hid that the 2200 was replaced. In fact, to hit his price point, that is why I mentioned it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric s
You might be able to get an old Epson 2200 at that price point (they were $650 before the 2400 came out) and they are really great printers. Just because they have been replaced they should not be ignored.
Don't ignore the clause I put there "in a few ways" the Pro line of printers are much better in many other ways. But if those ways don't effect you then they aren't worth the extra money. I talk about those issues below. (I added this paragraph in a reedit.)

The 2200 was replaced by the 2400 (the R2400, actually.) You are exactly correct.
The 2400 is even more expensive than the 2200 when it came out, so it is clearly way out of their price range (it's $849 from Epson.)

The 2200 (and the 2400 a bit) has some problems with bronzing and out-gassing on glossy papers. This can be reduced by letting your prints dry over night (this is what I do), and there are even better ways to help reduce it by pressing your prints with acid-free paper (epson's web site has more info on this.) But only people who really care are going to go through the extra effort to press their prints. I also know some people who make really large prints who have problems with out-gassing even after doing it all "Right." The worse situations are when you frame it as this traps the gass.

What I said above makes it sound really bad. For most people it isn't. Really big prints with lots of dark areas (i.e. lots of ink) and on the high quality glossy papers (less on semi-glossy and none on matte papers) will have some problems. Leave your prints out over night and you shouldn't have a problem (this is what I do. All prints have a slight color shift as they dry, so they aren't really "done" until they dry any ways.)

The Pro line of printers generally have higher quality print heads, better parts so they will last longer, come with better paper profiles, can hold larger stacks of paper, have better raster drivers, print better on matte paper. The non-pro line seems to do better on glossy, but that might be due to the new inks and the glossy optimizer coating. The new Pro Epson printers (like the 2400) use the new inks, I'm not sure if they use the glossy optimizer. Note that the 2200 doesn't have either the new inks or the optimzer. But its still an amazing printer. That is just a list of differences off the top of my head, there may be more.

Which printers I label as Pro is slighty based on not having had to research them recently. So (to me) the non-processional line of epson printers:
R200, R300, R800, R1800, 1280 (this is very close to a Pro printer.)
The Professional (to me) are:
R2400, 4800, 7800, 9800.

Epson doesn't position the R2400 as a professional printer on their web site, but at $849 and the richer features over the R1800, I think it is. I know that it replaced a "professional" printer. I'd like to think it is at least as robust as the 2200.

Does that make things clearer?

What I found with paying others to make prints is this:
You can go really cheap and go to places like Costco and Walmart. They have good equipment and staff that is marginally trained (at best.) You can get really good prints, or complete cr*p. But its dirt cheap and they will reprint mistakes. There are other issues (like if it looks like it is "copyrighted" work, i.e. high quality, then they won't print it.)

Or you can go to a real lab. They cost an arm-and-a-leg (between $25 & $45 USD in my experience) but you get way more. They actually care about your prints. They will call you if there are problems. They offer a variety of papers to print on... they actually talk to you about what you want. But they cost a lot more. Make about 10 prints there and you can start to afford a decent printer. Make 50 and you can buy a really good one.

If you do it yourself you have more to learn, it takes more of your time, and the incedental costs of paper/ink/wear, but you get the quality you want. It is all up to you. This is what I went for, and I got the Epson 4000 (replaced by the recently 4400.) I get stunning prints and I can reprint and test all I want. Some times an image on the screen isn't the same on paper. It isn't just color shifts and such, it's that paper is just inherently different. Paper reflects light, monitors produce it. They are different.

As to profiling devices, the Graytag is the best there is. The Spyder isn't bad, but there is better for not a lot more. I use the Monaco XR and it works well. It can't profile paper, but I use only papers that come with a Profile for the 4000 any ways.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 3:38 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Quote:
Does that make things clearer?

haha, well it makes things as clear as they originally were in my mind, before I became a little confused.

I was under the impression the R2400 was a pro quality printer and why I had bought it in the first place, and at the price and specs of it I'm glad you now conclude also.

Anyway a lot of good information there also Eric,

Cheers...
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 7:33 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

I use photoshop elements 3 for most everything since it will handle RAW files, I like having one program for everything and not having to switch back and forth between two or three programs. They have just came out with elements 4 now, naturally about a month after I upgraded to 3. For a printer if you are not going to be printing anything wider that 8" it would be hard to beat the Epson R800. It uses the same cromatic inks as the R1600, and you can get one for around $500 or less if you do some shopping. The inks are a little expensive, around $100 for the whole set, but you can find them cheaper also.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2005, 11:13 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 117
Default

I spent a fair amount of time researching my printer and didn't want to skimp. I had just spent a small fortune like 10K on camera, 3 lenses, computer, flash, and Eye-one photo. When it came to my printer I wanted great prints up to 13x19", very good black and white, and color that would hold up over time as I will be selling prints. I didn't want to get into a1000+ prof. printer just yet.

It came down to Epson R1800, Canon i9900, and the HP 8750.

I decided against the Canondue to print life issues and seeing the prints.IMHO the color is a bitoversaturated, and the Black and Whites were too warm.

I could have gone with the R1800 or the HP 8750 as far as color and print life went. But the HP's black and white blow the Epson away, again IMHO.

I wasn't concerned with the number of profiled papers available (not many for the HP far more for Epson) since I can profile my own.

I'm very happy with the HP 8750,Fabulous accurate color, I think the best B&W in this price range.

Hope this helps,
Joe


jlacasci 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 5:46 PM.