Output, final product printers...

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm not sure what forum topic a printer/output question should be posted in.

Faced with the new outstanding digital images that the 10D is capable of,. I no longer have an adaqute method to make prints.

Am I going to be o-kay with a "photo quality" inkjet? Or am I in a new league? (dye sublimation? )

I have allways been an HP owner,. (one really bad piece of junk epson a few years back)

Seems Epson is more up to the task though these days. Are Epsons any better than they usd to be? (meaning will they last a whole year before self destructing! )

The Stylus 900 with its added advantage of printing on CD-R looks tempting, but how is the oputput on these printers?

What about Color laser,.. has that been completely outclassed by "ink" ?

Thanks

[justme_dc]

Well I have a Canon i950 printer and couldn't be happier with it. It prints a 4x6 in 28 sec. and an 8x10 in about 58 sec. The quality is amazing and the price is right. I have a few older Epsons (a 1520 and a Stylus pro5000 w/fiery rip) and I have had lots of break downs, repairs and service issues etc.

For cost and quality I think it comes down to Epson or canon. From there you can make your own choice. I chose Canon and I am happy with the results.

[Longwatcher]

Me, I use a now obsolete Canon S9000 printer with wonderful results. It goes up to 13x19 (12.5x18.5" of print) in about two minutes.

I have never had a Canon printer die on me yet.
Canon BJC600 ( had for 3 years, went to girlfriend before breakup), then BJC5100 ( had for 3 years, went to nephew) and now S9000 (mine, mine, all mine (since September 2002).

Always used Canon OEM ink though.

Just my opinion.

[lziering]

For professional results the best printer is the Epson 2200. There are faster printers and printers that will prodice colors that are a bit more saturated, but no other printer can touch the 2200 in terms of detail in shadows and highlights and longevity of the prints-- IMHO.

[oops]

And, desired print size is always a place to start.

Your 10D will produce print sizes beyond the budget (or desires) of many photographers, so you must be realistic. If 8x10 is large enough for home production, the Canon i950 produces astounding (let me say again) astounding! prints on their own Pro paper. If larger prints are only a "once in a while" occurance, then let the photo labs do those and concider this printer.

If larger prints are a common need, the reviews on the Canon 9000 and Epson 2200 are both very good with the greater edge going to the Epson 2200. If I needed the size, this is the one I would own instead of the i950.

Hope this helps,
Chris

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thanks for all your input. Funny thing here i am on a Canon forum and had not even considered there printers,... I was thinking so "Camera-centric" I forgot they made them!

I will look into both the Canon and Epsons.

Thanks

[lziering]

If you are looking at the Canon pritners ask what an independent testing firm like Wilhelm rates the life of the prints. In my experience ink that is dye based will begin to fade in about 6 months. Pigment based inks will last much, much longer. I believe that Canon printers use the shorter-lived dye based inks. This is why so many professional photographers prefer Epson's pigment based ink jet printers like the 2000, 2200, 7600, and 9600 series printers.

That said, if longevity is not a major concern for you than you might want to buy the Canon because it prints far faster than any Epson printer.

[CyberDyneSystems]

ouch!

I'm pretty sure longevity will far out weigh print speed for me,.. but I was thinking printer longevity!

I have heard that Epson has the "Archival" inks. This is a serious factor.

No decision is ever easy :(

[Andy_Burnton]

I've had an Epson C80 for over a year now and prints are fine as far as I can see. I've never compaired then to anything else though.

It also has the added advantage (to me anyway) that it has four separate inks cartridges as opposed to the normal HP two cartridge system.

I've used an HP 4500 colour laser at work and the output is superb, even on plain paper.

Guess you gets what you pays for !

[Longwatcher]

lziering wrote:
I believe that Canon printers use the shorter-lived dye based inks. This is why so many professional photographers prefer Epson's pigment based ink jet printers like the 2000, 2200, 5700, and 9700 series printers.

That said, if longevity is not a major concern for you than you might want to buy the Canon because it prints far faster than any Epson printer.

Canon claims that the S9000 with Canon OEM inks on Canon Photo Paper have a 25 year lightfast expectancy. [Cost for set of Canon Inks $72 retail, $54 practical on-line cost - paper $12 for 15 sheets - I get 30-40 full color 8x10 per set of color cartridges]

See following link for test results including one
http://www.usa.canon.com/html/conCprSupport.jsp?type=lightfast

one older printer (S800) tested by Wilhelm Imaging Research Inc. Same ink and paper though, which is the important part.

Epson's rate theirs at 90 years with the ultrachrome inks on watercolor paper (which is not necessarily what you want to use for photos)
[cost for set of Epson inks $79.45 (Epson site), $63 practical on-line cost - $25 for 20 sheets of paper - approx 22 sheets full color per color cartridge set]

http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/0/000/019/145/Print%20Permanence%20on%20Epson%20Papers.pdf

Above link gives listing of lightfastness versus various papers.

I concede that based on vendor sites Epson 2200 will outlast Canon S9000, but at twice the cost per page from the looks of it. My S9000 costs enough to print that for professional work I would send it out anyway.

[8.5x11 paper photo print- approx $2-2.5 for print from Canon, $4.25 from Epson]

[Light Chaser]

Printer Tips:

The Canon S9000, a 6 cartridge 13” x 19” printer and it’s little brother model #? The 8” x 11” version are outstanding photo printers. Many reviewers rated them better than Epson for the first time. See reviews (if there still there) at http://luminous-landscape.com/ - Great photography site, I know many of you are familiar with it.

I consider my S9000 to be amazing - $500.00 – the smaller model is $300.00 worth every penny.

In a printer, look for: 6 ink cartridges as a priority for quality.

Save money by skipping bells and whistles – like print from camera or directly from CF card functions (the latest gimmicks). Some manufactures offer the exact same printer (heads and so on) but one with bells and one without. Are you really going to print directly from a CF card or your 10D? Why, just because it does doesn’t mean you should? And even if you do the images still have to be input into a computer at some point to archive and clear the CF card.

Once you have a decent printer the secret of great prints is in the paper. Some of the top line “photo paper” sucks. I do this: A store near me puts this really crummy photo paper on sale for $2.00 for 25 sheets; I buy a lot of it. I use that for my test prints, then I use the Pro Paper for my final prints, not wasting any of it. The difference in the look and quality of prints varies so much from one paper to the next it’s astounding. Find the paper you like the best and stick with it to save money because you will learn its characteristics and through away fewer prints.

My personal favorites are:
Canon Photo Paper Pro – for glossy
Epson Professional Media – Premium Luster Photo Paper – Luster “E” Surface (yes, even in my Canon printer). This is a true RC based paper, it is beautiful.

Steve

[fredlord]

I have an Epson 1270 which I have had for over two years with no problems. A good friend has two of them with no problems. We both find them adequate for what we do which is print both very colorful graphics and photos for ourselves and our customers.

Practically speaking, I think the difference boils down to two factors. The Canon printers, in general, are much, much faster printers than the Epsons. The Epson printers are slower but can print long format prints up to 44" in length. Otherwise they are both fine printers. Some Epsons have both color and B&W custom inks available in bulk setups which can be a factor if you print a lot or wish to do a lot of black and white prints. The Epson 2200 is a 7-color printer. I have not seen output from the 2200 so I cannot make a recommendation either way. As far as suitable papers, they are mutually available from many sources for both printer brands.

Color and print quality is your call and you should definitely try to find a place that will print something of yours for you so that you can compare the two printers directly. There is no other way you can tell which appeals to you more. Keep in mind that this is a very subjective and highly variable factor and may not help you at all. Probably both brands of printer will deliver the quality you find necessary for your photos.

I probably haven't helped you but I wish you the best of luck.
Fred Lord

[justme_dc]

here's a list of the reviews I used to make my decision to go with the Canon i950.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i950.html

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/canon_s9000.html

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/epson_2200.html

I decided against the 13x19 printer because with the cost of those printers versus the number of large prints I was likely to make made it seem like a waste of money and space.

The only thing I see the Epson has going for it is the archival inks but really, I don't think that is work the extra dough and my previous experience with Epson has been far less than stellar. 25 years is plenty enough for me. I don't care if my prints last for 90 years. Besides, they're guessing anyway.

I gotta say again, the prints out of the canon on canon paper and with canon inks are amazing!

Oh yeah!
my connection for the cheapest Canon printers, inks and media on the web or in person is http://www.canogacamera.com/

If you call, ask for Josh and tell'em D.C. sent you, he'll get you a great deal.

[Dan_mobile]

I purchased the Canon S9000 a few months ago. I do more 13X19 than originally considered just because the size is so dramatic. Getting used to waiting for 30 minutes or so for the color to stabilize is a different experience for sure. But the color and details are excellent for a $450 wide format printer. It’s a digital world and I’m not concerned with ink longevity. I’m convinced that in 10 years or so printer technology will far surpass anything we use today. So when these new future printers hit the market, I’ll just reprint the images I want from my digital files. The “permanence” are “ones-and-zeros” on my hard disk and backup media … not ink and paper…..just my thoughts….Dan (on the road).
http://www.pettusphoto.com

[lluscombe]

I think the advic above is very good. I own a Canon i950 printer, and could not be happier with a printer. The output is better than the prints from the professional photolab in the nearest large city.

The Epson 2200 is probably the ultimate desktop printer, but at about 3 times the price of the Canon, last time I checked. Sure, the ink lasts longer, but as the previous reviewer stated, it is a digital world.

In the end, I am perfectly satisfied with the Canon i950, but if I were actually making money from this, or if I were insanely rich, I would not think twice about purchasing the Epson. Right now I may wish to use the cash for another "L" lens...

I would not be surprised if I end up with a used Epson in a few years, once its capabilities have been eclipsed and they are available used for about what I paid for the Canon.....

Hope that helps.

[Rudi]

oops wrote:
And, desired print size is always a place to start.

Your 10D will produce print sizes beyond the budget (or desires) of many photographers, so you must be realistic. If 8x10 is large enough for home production, the Canon i950 produces astounding (let me say again) astounding! prints on their own Pro paper. If larger prints are only a "once in a while" occurance, then let the photo labs do those and concider this printer.

If larger prints are a common need, the reviews on the Canon 9000 and Epson 2200 are both very good with the greater edge going to the Epson 2200. If I needed the size, this is the one I would own instead of the i950.

Hope this helps,
Chris

Chris,

You're obviously very happy with your printer. Ever seen any banding in your prints? (You might remember that a friend of mine had, and still has, terrible problems with several Canon S9000 printers that Canon have been unable to fix).

[soumya63]

Both Canon and Epson has merits and demerits. I have three printers
Epson 2200, Canon i950 and Canon S800

My primary reasons for buying Epson are
1.) Archival quality Print
2.) Does not wash out with water
3.) Wider color gamut with 7 color cartridges.

And my reasons to keep my Canons are
1.) Super fast printing.
2.) Excellent Glossy printing
3.) Able to use 3rd Party ink to reduce print cost

The real downside of Epson is its speed. To print a 13x19 photograph it takes 16 minutes. I believe in Canon S9000 or S9100, the same print may take not more than 3 minutes.

But again, I have seen many Canon prints get spoiled by tiny flying spittle, coming out from an excited clients mouth!

Till now, we do not have a perfect Photo printer which can print fast beautiful color fast archival prints. We may have to wait another two years.


www.mitraphoto.com