Choose my printer for me!

[scraggles]

I'm pretty sure I'm going to aim for the Canon i9900, however, I may have overlooked some other potentials. What printer would you recommend?

[PEACHMAN]

I love my Epson R-800 and I'm contemplating going to their newer wider format R-1800.

[scraggles]

any other suggestions?

[PEACHMAN]

any other suggestions?

Obviously everyone agrees with me!!!YES!!!:D :D ;)

[scraggles]

Haha, I'd at least like an agreement from someone.

[robertwgross]

I think you will find that the vast majority of the forum members use either a Canon or an Epson inkjet printer. In either brand, as long as you stay away from the bottom/cheapest model, you'll probably do OK.

I'm still using one that is over five years old and still hums along fine.

Do not buy a printer on the basis of initial price.

---Bob Gross---

[Skip Souza]

Good call Bob.

[scraggles]

I initially chose the i9900 because I haven't seen any other printers and this one performs like a dream. What other options do I have?

[jgjulio]

If you want really excellent black and white as well as color and you want to print pictures larger than 8.5X11 then the Epson R2400 is the printer to look at closely!

[scraggles]

I do want the option to print large images if possible.

[jgjulio]

Well the Epson R2400 is a spectacular printer. It is optimized for black and white printing. It is expensive but I think it produces stunning photos.

[BillMarks]

I have the R2400 and it is truly a magnificent printer.

[JMHPhotography]

If larger than A4 is what you want to be able to print... I'd get the 9900. As of yesterday, I have the 6600 and I love it. I can't believe the build quality and functionality for under (U.S.) $200.00. But it only prints up to A4 size, which wasn't a problem for me since that is all I'm interested in being able to produce at home. Anything else, I'd just as soon have it done at Mpix or some other online digital lab.

[cosworth]

I have the pixma iP5000 and it rocks. Check out the 9600 dpi specs.

Flawless for me.

[PEACHMAN]

The major reason I chose the Epson, other than print quality and ease of adjusting image control, is the fact that they use pigment based inks (archival) rather than dye based ink...For some reason I want to think that maybe someone would like to see my images 75 years from now....I got tired of seeing photos I gave to someone 3-4 years ago hanging in a frame looking only purple and brown..all other colors faded away....as I may have mentioned, I go to Costa Rica and shoot a lot...Give photos to friends of their families and return the next year to see just a blank frame on the wall...with the epson the photos look as fresh as the day I printed them...The Epson R-1800 uses the same ink and technology but prints larger photos...last time I checked (3-4 months ago they were around $450..........I have no regets on my R800, in fact I will be selling it this winter to buy the larger R1800........ I'm not sure about the Canon's archival ratings..

[delinian]

I have an Epson 2200, and the print quality is outstanding. IF it ever dies, I want a
R2400. "Naked" prints that are at least 2 years old, on premium lustre, still look as good as when printed.

[vjack]

This isn't as current as it could be, but it might be a reasonable starting point: http://www.consumersearch.com/www/computers/inkjet-printers/

[lakiluno]

Sorry to partially butt in, but isn't it more cost effective to have your pictures printed by a lab...Ink costs ridiculous amounts these days?

Leo

[JohnnyG]

Sorry to partially butt in, but isn't it more cost effective to have your pictures printed by a lab...Ink costs ridiculous amounts these days?

Leo

As far as getting printed at a lab versus at home, you're right for sure. I can get 4X6 prints at a lot of labs for 15 cents and I can't do that at home considering the paper and ink costs. But, I definitely have much more control at home than I do with the lab. But, costs are definitely cheaper at the lab.

As far as quality:The prints I produce at home are of a very high quality and the inks will last 100 years or so. The lab prints, I don't know.

If I am going to do a few prints, I do them at home. If I'm going to want 100 4X6's, like pictures of my new granddaughter, I'll go to the lab.

I have the R800 just like Peachman. The R800 produces a print dot of 1.5 microlitres which is of the smallest of any printer available. It has a cartridge called the "Gloss Optimizer" which protects the print and also adds some "punch" to the print. Problem with the R800 is it only prints 8 1/2 " wide so if you want wider, the R1800 or the R2400 would be great!

One bonus of the R800 that I have is it prints on CD/DVD's too! The R1800 does too!

I love my R800 and I've had it over a year and it just keeps producing outstanding color prints. I have a cheaper Epson for daily printing and I save the R800 for prints and DVD's.;)

[queenbee288]

I have the Canon i9900 and loved it til I tried to print black and white.:cry:

[JohnnyG]

I found this photographer that commercially prints his photography on an Epson 9600 which is a pretty expensive Epson but the point is he chose Epson for his prints.

Look through his info., it might give you some ideas. Just copy and paste the following link into your browser window to go directly there.

http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Print-of-the-month-01.html

[Croasdail]

I have the i9900, use koday professional papers with it and their profiles, and it has been awsome. I also have an Epson r320 for printing DVDs - which I occasionally print 4x6s on. I found dialing in the colors on the Canon a little easier and its speed rocks - easily twice as fast as the epson - of course the r1800 is faster then my epson but still slower then the i9900. I have no complaints with the canon - and day to day operating expenses have been minimal.

[PEACHMAN]

I do the same as JohnnyG...print everyday stuff on the old HP 932 and keepers on the R-800...I'm not much on printing snapshots...I don't like how they look in the reduced size and almost always use the R800 for 8X10's (8 1/2 X11)..If someone wants snap sizes I give them a slide show or data on a CD and let them view it on a monitor (where they look best) or advise them to take it somewhere and have the prints they want made up.

As far as cost for printing, the last time I took a 11X17 in to the labe for printing on archival paper and ink , it cost me $22 ...I can buy quite a bit of paper and ink for that (start loosing ground though if I have to adjust colors for a 2nd or 3rd take:rolleyes:

PS... I always wait for sales and buy my paper at Staples...use either Epson or Fugi with the R800 (be careful subbing paper) and can find it 1/2 price two or three times a year...

[vjack]

From what I've read, the big downside of the Epson printers is that they are prone to clogging unless you use them regularly (i.e., at least weekly). Since I would probably only print once a month or so, I've pretty much ruled out the Epsons.

[PEACHMAN]

absolutly not true with mine ...

[JohnnyG]

From what I've read, the big downside of the Epson printers is that they are prone to clogging unless you use them regularly (i.e., at least weekly). Since I would probably only print once a month or so, I've pretty much ruled out the Epsons.

Not mine either but it sounds like your mind is made up anyway so get the Canon! I'm sure you'll love it...

I guess this has all been an exercise in futility! That reminds me to exercise and not my futility! Ouch....

[Thornfield]

I have the I9950 not sure what model that is in the Northern Hemisphere but it's a great printer. Black and white is not all that great though as it seems to hold a slight colour cast and I'm to lazy to try and get rid of it.

[KinkySmith]

If you want a dye sub, get a dye sub....

If you want an inkjet, get an epson... it is really that simple. No other inkjets can match the epsons(r800 and up) cmyk color gamut, cause of the use of the red and blue inks, the choice of black inks (there are three to choose from if you get the 2400 or above) and the use of a clear ink on non lay down areas(white highlight areas where no ink would normally get laid down).
I always used canon until epson brought ought the ultrachrome inks, and then i switched! It shouldnt be a matter of brand or price(within reason) its a matter of colour reproduction, and the potential for transition from light to dark. Things that in inkjets, epsons just cant be beaten on. Dye subs are a whole different kettle of beans, so it would be futile to compare a dye sub to an inkjet.

Get the epson!!

[JohnnyG]

From what I've read, the big downside of the Epson printers is that they are prone to clogging unless you use them regularly (i.e., at least weekly). Since I would probably only print once a month or so, I've pretty much ruled out the Epsons.

Epson has had that problem in the past and might still have it on their cheaper printers like the C series of inkjets. I have a C86 and it has had that problem when I didn't use it for a while.

But, the good news is that the more expensive printers like the R800, R1800 and others above those don't have that problem for what it's worth.

But, I also agree with others like Kinkysmith and Peachman, if you want inkjet, get the Epson.

But, in the end, it's your money!;)

[lakiluno]

My only experience with epsons was with a (now quite old) printer that used fixed heads...the only way to replace the heads now is to change the whole printer. The other printers I've used all had in-cartridge heads.

Surely using clear ink is just another excuse to charge people ridicoulous amounts for ink...oh no, my invisible ink has run out!!!


Leo:D

[JohnnyG]

My only experience with epsons was with a (now quite old) printer that used fixed heads...the only way to replace the heads now is to change the whole printer. The other printers I've used all had in-cartridge heads.

Surely using clear ink is just another excuse to charge people ridicoulous amounts for ink...oh no, my invisible ink has run out!!!


Leo:D

Invisible ink?:rolleyes:

[vjack]

Epson has had that problem in the past and might still have it on their cheaper printers like the C series of inkjets. I have a C86 and it has had that problem when I didn't use it for a while.

But, the good news is that the more expensive printers like the R800, R1800 and others above those don't have that problem for what it's worth.

I wish I could remember the forum this thread was on, but the focus was the R800. If memory serves, there were about 14 mosts. 2 People reported no problems at all, and 12 reported problems related to clogging or having to waste lots of ink to prevent clogging. The consensus was that if you weren't going to print at least 1/week, look at something other than Epson. If I can only recall where I saw this, I'll post the thread here.

[lakiluno]

well...clear ink is practically invisible.

Leo

[JohnnyG]

I wish I could remember the forum this thread was on, but the focus was the R800. If memory serves, there were about 14 mosts. 2 People reported no problems at all, and 12 reported problems related to clogging or having to waste lots of ink to prevent clogging. The consensus was that if you weren't going to print at least 1/week, look at something other than Epson. If I can only recall where I saw this, I'll post the thread here.

First of all I hate rumors! Second, it's hard to believe that anyone had that problem with the R800. It's too fine a printer to have those problems.

Third or all: Sounds like somebody don't like Epson!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'm not saying of course that your memory is wrong but I've owned a R800 for over a year and never once had any problem with it. To imagine 12 out of 14 having problems just stretches my imagination....

[KinkySmith]

Well its all very good to sprout propaghanda based on a seemingly brand based purely commercial outlook on the world of home photoprinting. But I speak from my own experience when i say that the problems being talked about as far as epson printers are concerned are just not issues. My camera was in for repairs and canon can tend to take their time, and so it was for me about 10 weeks between prints at one stage. I had no problems... but then if people dont take care of their equipment maybe dont clean the inkheahs, and recalibrate as necessary, then problems will arise no matter which brand you use.

As far as invisible ink is concerned it is definitely another way for a company to make more money, but if canon sold lenses that sounded good but that you couldnt actually use to take photographs, people would get the message pretty quick. Now this invisible ink of epsons has been around for a while now, and it is only gaining in popularity. Why? Because it produces results that really are visibly superior to prints done without such an ink.
Now lets not forget the point. It might not be unwise to disregard a printer because the company seems to have these little schemes to get richer. But it would be if the little "schemes" were actually just improvements in technology resulting in a wider color gamut than any desktop photo printer has ever seeen; thus resulting in superior colour reproduction, better transitions and shadow detail, and constant even reflective values across the whole page thanks to what some cynic (i assume without actually having had the chance to admire the results), labels "invisible ink". Well invisible ink has always been considered to be kind of magic, which is exactly what this stuff is.

Anyway im ranting. The point is we were asked which printers were good, if you believe that you have a good idea about a purchase, then spit it out. I think its kind of a self defeating argument to put down someone elses fine suggestions, without actually coming up with a better one, and explaining why its better. Like i said im only interested in getting the best print technology for my self at home that i can afford. If someone can tell me and explain to me why some other product is beter than the r1800 im currently using, then trust me ill go buy it. But until then a whole thread of anti epson comments arent going to help the enquirer make an informed decision, please if you want to help people tell them dont just tell them what not to get, tell them what to get and why....

Otherwise you just sound like you really dont know what you are talking about.

[robertwgross]

Sorry to partially butt in, but isn't it more cost effective to have your pictures printed by a lab...Ink costs ridiculous amounts these days?

Leo

No, ink does not cost ridiculous amounts unless you are buying it by the liter or quart.

The effectiveness of a lab print versus your own print can be summarized on the basis of cost, or on the basis of time. If I were shooting three hundred shots at a wedding, and then I chose the best 100 to be printed, then there would be some practicality in having a good pro lab do the job.

On the other hand, that is not the way I commonly shoot. Most commonly I shoot wildlife to the tune of 50-150 shots in a day. After editing, I might have only thirty "keepers." From those thirty, I may want to print off a few right there at my computer for fast turn-around. Some labs will pick up and deliver, but you pay for that. If I have to drive my files over to someplace and pick them up later, that is my own gasoline and my own time wasted. I save the lab printers for the serious print jobs.

---Bob Gross---

[lakiluno]

I guess printing your own does have its advantages then :D...Reading back on my replies, it seems that I've only really made negative or off topic posts in this thread, and for that I apoligise ;)

Leo

[JohnnyG]

Well its all very good to sprout propaghanda based on a seemingly brand based purely commercial outlook on the world of home photoprinting. But I speak from my own experience when i say that the problems being talked about as far as epson printers are concerned are just not issues. My camera was in for repairs and canon can tend to take their time, and so it was for me about 10 weeks between prints at one stage. I had no problems... but then if people dont take care of their equipment maybe dont clean the inkheahs, and recalibrate as necessary, then problems will arise no matter which brand you use.

As far as invisible ink is concerned it is definitely another way for a company to make more money, but if canon sold lenses that sounded good but that you couldnt actually use to take photographs, people would get the message pretty quick. Now this invisible ink of epsons has been around for a while now, and it is only gaining in popularity. Why? Because it produces results that really are visibly superior to prints done without such an ink.
Now lets not forget the point. It might not be unwise to disregard a printer because the company seems to have these little schemes to get richer. But it would be if the little "schemes" were actually just improvements in technology resulting in a wider color gamut than any desktop photo printer has ever seeen; thus resulting in superior colour reproduction, better transitions and shadow detail, and constant even reflective values across the whole page thanks to what some cynic (i assume without actually having had the chance to admire the results), labels "invisible ink". Well invisible ink has always been considered to be kind of magic, which is exactly what this stuff is.

Anyway im ranting. The point is we were asked which printers were good, if you believe that you have a good idea about a purchase, then spit it out. I think its kind of a self defeating argument to put down someone elses fine suggestions, without actually coming up with a better one, and explaining why its better. Like i said im only interested in getting the best print technology for my self at home that i can afford. If someone can tell me and explain to me why some other product is beter than the r1800 im currently using, then trust me ill go buy it. But until then a whole thread of anti epson comments arent going to help the enquirer make an informed decision, please if you want to help people tell them dont just tell them what not to get, tell them what to get and why....

Otherwise you just sound like you really dont know what you are talking about.

I see one problem here and that's brand loyalty. Some people can't see past that.

I've owned most all printer brands out there including Canon. I have nothing against any of them but there is one brand I favor and that's Epson. I have owned maybe a dozen of their products over the years and I put their quality very high.

About 8 years ago I had an Epson, model I forget, but I would print out over 100 color/black text pages a day for months. That printer was fast, accurate tough. It never failed. It never jammed. It just kept producing. I really liked that printer.

In regards to photo printers, I did a whole lot of research before I dived in. I read everything I could find about all the printers. I finally settled on Epson and bought an R200 which knocked my socks off with the quality. Very slow but good. I was so impressed I took it back and traded it in on the R800 which I've had now over a year and I'm still impressed with it. It's fast and very good. I would call photo printing the best I've ever seen.

Some of the different web sites I used in my research were photgraphers who sold archival copies of their work. Clients wanted excellent copies that would last many years. It has been determined by people that study such things that the prints will last at least 80-100 years under glass. That's good enough for me.

As far as Canon: I believe it's also a very good printer but I've heard here and some other places that black and white prints are an issue. I believe the Epson had that issue too with bronzing but the later models, past the R800, have rectified it.

Bottom line:Follow your gut and buy what you think is the best value for your money and has the best quality for the money too. It's really all up to the person buying. I think all dedicated photo printers above $300 to $400 will be excellent.

That's my LONG opinion. Sorry for the verbosity!!!;)

[vjack]

The only reason I posted about problems with the Epsons is that I was strongly considering the R800. Now I'm leaning toward the Pixma 4200. If I was going to print regularly, I would get an Epson without hesitation. It is great to hear that some people are not having problems with Epson printers.

[JohnnyG]

The only reason I posted about problems with the Epsons is that I was strongly considering the R800. Now I'm leaning toward the Pixma 4200. If I was going to print regularly, I would get an Epson without hesitation. It is great to hear that some people are not having problems with Epson printers.

Yes, the Pixma 4200 looks like a wonderful budget printer.

Enjoy your prints!

[vjack]

Yes, the Pixma 4200 looks like a wonderful budget printer.

Enjoy your prints!

Thanks! I just ordered it.

[JohnnyG]

Thanks! I just ordered it.

You're welcome I'm sure!!!

[Atlasman]

I love my Epson R-800 and I'm contemplating going to their newer wider format R-1800.

I'm considering the R800 and 1800—any cons to this printer?

[JohnnyG]

I'm considering the R800 and 1800—any cons to this printer?

No, since it's an Epson!! I love my R800 and have printed hundreds of photos and DVD's on it in the last year and it's the best printer I've ever had the priveledge to use!!!

[Atlasman]

No, since it's an Epson!! I love my R800 and have printed hundreds of photos and DVD's on it in the last year and it's the best printer I've ever had the priveledge to use!!!

Thanks.:)

[Visuals]

You want quality B&W prints as well as superb color prints... Check out HP 8450 and 8750 printers.... The 8450 can be had for $130 the 8750 for $400 or less....

Cheers~

[PEACHMAN]

I'm considering the R800 and 1800—any cons to this printer?The only problem I have is that the local Staples does not carry the ink for it.. I can get it in Portland when I go there (about 1.5 hours away...) Other than that I just love it...the advanced settings are easy to use , and should be used to match your work on the monitor with the color and contrasts that are printed...You need to try samples of paper if you want to use any other than Epson...some papers like HP will turn to a wash , like a watercolors, while Fugi and kadak work great...I always buy paper when it comes on sale at Staples...I can keep a supply at half price that way....No, I would say that there are no other problems that trouble me with it...I would go so far as to say it is my most reliable and satisfying piece of equipment that I own or have owned! And just print the same file on another good printer and hold them side to side .....

[JohnnyG]

You want quality B&W prints as well as superb color prints... Check out HP 8450 and 8750 printers.... The 8450 can be had for $130 the 8750 for $400 or less....

Cheers~

The HP 8750 is in the same class as the Epson R1800 in that they both have 13" wide carriage and will print the larger format.

PCMagazine rates the 8750 lower than the Epson R1800 though so keep that in mind when doing your research.

[Atlasman]

The only problem I have is that the local Staples does not carry the ink for it.. I can get it in Portland when I go there (about 1.5 hours away...) Other than that I just love it...the advanced settings are easy to use , and should be used to match your work on the monitor with the color and contrasts that are printed...You need to try samples of paper if you want to use any other than Epson...some papers like HP will turn to a wash , like a watercolors, while Fugi and kadak work great...I always buy paper when it comes on sale at Staples...I can keep a supply at half price that way....No, I would say that there are no other problems that trouble me with it...I would go so far as to say it is my most reliable and satisfying piece of equipment that I own or have owned! And just print the same file on another good printer and hold them side to side .....

I've got the Epson 1280 (the original, purchased about 4 years ago) and have provided excellent result. The biggest issue is ink consumption and head clogging.

[guitarman3]

I bought the R1800 last weekend. Went out to get the R800 but Compusa had a gift card deal on the R1800 which brought it to within $75 of the R800 price. I figured for $75, why not get the big one.

I haven't printed anything larger than a 4x6 yet but the ones I printed are looking great.

I got some replacement ink cartridges to have on hand at Best Buy. They gave me a 25% discount on the ink if I bought six or more colors. Most cartridges ended up being close to $10 each--not bad.

If I hadn't got the Epson, I'd probably have gotten the Canon ip5200, which was less than 1/3 the price of the R1800. Somehow, I think you get what you pay for.

[Zepher]

how about one of these?
this is my friends old printer, he got the newer/faster unit a few months ago,
http://www.transamws6.com/pics/carva/soljet.jpg

[SuzyView]

I have the Epson 1280 as well and it has been wonderful, when I have enough money to buy cartridges, and if I don't use it consistently, it dries up. So, right now it's on a table in my office gathering dust. I am looking for a 10 color cartridge printer that is reliable and can truly give me the same results.

SuzyView

[Atlasman]

I have the Epson 1280 as well and it has been wonderful, when I have enough money to buy cartridges, and if I don't use it consistently, it dries up. So, right now it's on a table in my office gathering dust. I am looking for a 10 color cartridge printer that is reliable and can truly give me the same results.

SuzyView

The clogging is my sole motivation for replacing the 1280. But right now I'm torn between the Epson R2400 and the HP DJ 30.

[JohnnyG]

I have the Epson 1280 as well and it has been wonderful, when I have enough money to buy cartridges, and if I don't use it consistently, it dries up. So, right now it's on a table in my office gathering dust. I am looking for a 10 color cartridge printer that is reliable and can truly give me the same results.

SuzyView

I don't know what you mean by "10 color" but I would recommend the Epson R800 or the R1800.

They both have the 8 cartridges and I can speak for the R800, it is truly a fantastic printer. The R1800 will print on wider paper and is basically the same otherwise as the R800.

They both will also print on DVD/CD printable media which is a nice bonus.

[SuzyView]

There is a new printer that has 10 cartridges and a friend of mine said that is the best. I think 8 must be better than what I have. I've been using my Epson CX6400 because I wanted DuraBrite ink. Now I regret it because the pictures turn out dull.

SuzyView

[MikeTrill]

I've been following this thread now for some time. Thanks to everyone who has contributed!

Before I started reading this, I was dead set on a Canon I9950, now I am convienced I want an EPSON (it was the reports about B&W prints that finally made me change my mind..)

Now here is the current problem, I've recently had some A2 prints from a Canon W6400 on a canon open day, what look stunning. I want to get some A2 prints done for personal and friends. My options are :-

1) Buy a 2400, and sent away for A2 prints (About £20/$38 approx) OR
2) Buy a 4000 C4, because the price difference is about the cost of 12 prints (ignoreing ink /paper) cost.

Is the 4000 as good as the 2400 (the 2400 is a newish model, I do not know how old the 4000 is)? I assume it uses the same INK and the resolution would be the same, but that doesn't garauntee the same results...

If anyone as any experince of the 4000 verus a 2400, I would be grateful for any feedback...

[MikeTrill]

Hmm, I've been doing some more digging, and there is a Stylus Pro 4800. But its twice the price of the 4000...

[PEACHMAN]

I have the Canon i9900 and loved it til I tried to print black and white.:cry: The R800 has two different blacks, a gloss black and a matt black ...good for B&W I'm told, although my conversions never come out like I expect in my PP, always a blue tint, not the printer though...It happens where ever I print as well as on the monitor.? ? One thing I never do is print anything smaller than 8X10 on my Epson...I don't like the color , contrast and saturation changes that happen when reducing images in any foremat, monitor or print..and the money savings really don't start happening until you go to 8 1/2 X 11 paper (5 X 7 is almost the same price/ sheet)

[JohnnyG]

The R800 has two different blacks, a gloss black and a matt black ...good for B&W I'm told, although my conversions never come out like I expect in my PP, always a blue tint, not the printer though...It happens where ever I print as well as on the monitor.? ? One thing I never do is print anything smaller than 8X10 on my Epson...I don't like the color , contrast and saturation changes that happen when reducing images in any foremat, monitor or print..and the money savings really don't start happening until you go to 8 1/2 X 11 paper (5 X 7 is almost the same price/ sheet)

That's kind of funny I guess but the main reason I use my R800 is to print photos! The 4X6, 5X7, and 8X10 are absolutely stunning. I'm not sure about cost though but I'm sure it cost more to use the R800 but I love the results. Much better than any lab I've tried!

I do very little b/w but they match my screen. It's just that I'm not very good at boosting the b/w like some people I seen on here.

Oh, I have both blacks too and a true Red and a Blue amongst others.

[pcDigiMan]

I was looking at a Epson R1800 which appears to be a very good printer and then I look into the R2400 and see that the R1800 is better for color and the R2400 is better for B&W – the customer should be getting pissed off at Epson for this. Also hear that the Epson R1800 waste a lot of ink when you clean the nozzle, sounds like it is typical that a Epson will need cleanings if you let it sit a couple of weeks. I believe a cleaning will use 8% of all of your ink - $$$. If you change one cartridge in a R1800 then all cartridges run through a cleaning using 8% of all of your ink – the top end Epson’s only clean the cartridge that is replaced. See a lot of people bitching about Epson and all the ink wasted in cleaning cycles. The Epson R1900 has the adapter to print on CD’s. The Epson has more paper choices. Sounds like from what I read that it is almost criminal of the ink Epson waste ($$$) when replacing cartridges or cleaning required after days of inactivity.

The Canon i9900 I looked at a bit has a slightly better color range. I don’t see complaints of wasted ink or issues that the printer needs to be cleaned after a couple of weeks of inactivity. Canon has less paper options than Epson. I think Canon archival time is estimated to be in the range of chemically developed prints (?? 40 years I don’t know) and Epson is many times more.

Non Canon or Non Epson ink. Saw a few references about people claiming they were using ink from other sources and they said this is the same ink Epson / Canon uses…. Then I liked at those sites and I am coming to the conclusion that this is not the case. I am still investigating…. I was an inch away from getting a R1800 and now I am on hold for a new printer.

[Ducar]

Hmm, I've been doing some more digging, and there is a Stylus Pro 4800. But its twice the price of the 4000...

I have both the R800 and Stylus Pro 4800 and both are absolutely wonderful printers. Not one problem with either and as indicated elsewhere, produce great B&W prints.

[CTYankee2]

CNET's review stated:
"In CNET Labs' tests (http://google2-cnet.com.com/Labs/4520-6603_7-5108722-1.html?tag=txt), the R1800 was noticeably faster than the R800--conceivably the result of testing with different versions of the printer driver--and thus far ranks as the fastest for printing text among the medium-format photo printers. It can't quite keep up with Canon for photo-printing speed, but it clearly outpaces the HP Photosmart 8750. It printed our 8x10-inch test photo (on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper using the Best quality option) in two minutes flat.

In nearly 90 days of use, the printer operated flawlessly except for one incident. After several idle days, it nearly stopped printing red tones. Nozzle Check revealed that about 90 percent of the red nozzles were blocked, but running Head Cleaning twice fixed the problem. Unfortunately, Epson's printheads have a reputation for this type of behavior, as we noted in the review for the R800. You should make it a habit to run Nozzle Check after several days of printer inactivity.

Like its little brother, the R800, the Epson Stylus Photo R1800 produces very good color photos, and if you're willing to put up with some finicky nozzles and imperfect black-and-white prints in exchange for speed and media flexibility, you'll find it a very solid choice. "

[tmigraphics]

Great post guys...thank you so much. Very informative. My wife and I have just started a family portraiture business and have done lots of reading on equipment. One of the pieces we havent bought yet is the photo printer. Like others, we will want to be able to print certain photos at home, but in addition, we want a printer that we can take on location with us to various events (reunions, cocktail parties, etc) and print photos for clients on demand (for a fee).

We also want to be able to set up a screen...either TV or Computer monitor, with a rolling slideshow of the prints. I have read this thread completely and have lots of good info. I suspect we will be mostly printing 4x6 and 5x7's on location. Any suggestions on which printer makes sense?

I read with interest about the Canon Selphy DS700, that it can be connected directly to a TV. Any thoughts on the best machine for this use?

Looking forward to your reply!

[tmigraphics]

Refreshing....

Any suggestions, anyone?

[PEACHMAN]

my only thoughts are that if you are doing prints on location for a fee (probably more than $1..) then the clients would probably want an 8X10 to have it worth it to them, and like wise for you...but I don't know this business and may be way off the mark...good luck with it..