Epson R800 or Pixma 8500?

[Pelao]

Hi
Do any of you know these printers, or have strong opinions on either?

Both have received good reviews for text printing, so that's OK, and is not my main focus anyway.

It seems a major difference is that the Epson uses the pigment ink, which lasts longer. Any idea how important this is?

I would like to have the best possible photo quality with the greatest ease of use.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Can't speak for the Pixma, but I have the R800 with which I am delighted. The quality is great - everyone I show prints to is amazed. The inks are expensive, but bearable if you're not doing production runs.

Using the Ultrachome inks with suitable Epson and third-party papers means your prints will last for years (in normal viewing conditions) without the colour fading.

Regards,

[IanD]

I picked up a Pixma 8500 a couple of weeks ago and have been amazed at the photos it outputs. Even the lab where I "hangout" is amazed. There are a couple of my prints hanging around there and folks cannot tell the difference between a film print and the Pixma print. As for how long they will last, who knows? Under the right storage conditions and printed on the right paper, we are told that inkjet prints will last anywhere from 25-70 years. Will they really last that long or are we being told a story? In reality, no one really knows cause no one has left a properly mounted inkjet print out to the elements for 25 years, have they? Hell, most of us will not be here in 25 years.
As to cost of opertion betwen Canon and Epson, Canon is definately cheaper and there are some great deals to be had on genuine Canon cartridges.

[mikesd]

Agree with Ian, who knows. I cannot speak on the Epsons since I have never had one but I do have a Pixma 6000, i960 and a i9100 and have absolutley no complaints. The quality is amazing. I also like Canon's clear ink cartridges, at least you know you are not throwing good ink away!

[Pelao]

Thank you.

There are quite a few reviews of the R800 out there, but not too many of the 8500. I read one of the 8500 in which the reviewer had quite a struggle getting some of the flesh tones to be reasonable for his eye, whereas the R800 seems to have been simpler out of the box.

[IanD]

Thank you.

There are quite a few reviews of the R800 out there, but not too many of the 8500. I read one of the 8500 in which the reviewer had quite a struggle getting some of the flesh tones to be reasonable for his eye, whereas the R800 seems to have been simpler out of the box. I read a few reviews too about the so called flesh tone problem. It doesn't exsist, or at least not in my outputs. Not saying that the reviewers didn't set up the printer properly but there is a proper way to configure PS and the Canon printer driver. Once properly set up, and it is very easy, flesh tones are very natural. If you decide to go with the Cnon, I'd be happy to send you the setting and config that I use.

[Pelao]

IanD
Thanks for your input, and thank you very much for the profile offer.

I have worked with Epsons and we currently have 2 at home, the CX6400 (used by my teenage daughter) and a PictureMate. The PictureMate is nice, but I find the software with the CX6400 a bit clunky and unintuitive. Of coursd, it could be the user that is clunky and without intuition..

I hear a lot of good about the Canon software, so currently that's my favourite.

[paulhillion]

there is a proper way to configure PS and the Canon printer driver. Once properly set up, and it is very easy, flesh tones are very natural. If you decide to go with the Cnon, I'd be happy to send you the setting and config that I use.
I've just purchased the Canon 8500 and looking at the few photo's I've printed out today the results are excellent, highly recommended printer! It's also nice having a 2nd paper tray.

IanD, I hope you don't mind but I was wondering if I could take you up on your offer? If it's ok I'll send you my email details via a PM.

Thanks,

Paul.

[IanD]

I've just purchased the Canon 8500 and looking at the few photo's I've printed out today the results are excellent, highly recommended printer! It's also nice having a 2nd paper tray.

IanD, I hope you don't mind but I was wondering if I could take you up on your offer? If it's ok I'll send you my email details via a PM.

Thanks,

Paul. Paul,
Fire it off to me and I'll send you the info.

[kevinma]

I bought an R800 and didn't like it; couldn't get the colors right despite playing with various profiles. Took it back and bought an 8500 and have been very pleased with it. I highly recommend it.
Kevin.

[scott stokes]

I have had my R800 for 3 weeks and love it,the color is great,and printed 75 photos with it.

[FlashGordon]

there is a proper way to configure PS and the Canon printer driver. Once properly set up, and it is very easy, flesh tones are very natural. If you decide to go with the Cnon, I'd be happy to send you the setting and config that I use.
Hi Ian. Just joined this forum which seems to be great. I recently bought a Pixma 8500 and it leaves my previous dated Epson in the dust. That said I am faced with the age old problem of configuring PS (I have Elements2) and the driver. I just can't seem to get it right.

I am relatively new to digital photography, having only really become consumed by it in the last 12 months so I suspect a lack of knowledge of exactly what I'm doing may play a reasonable part in hindering my progress to get the optimum prints from my pictures.

Could I ask for the setting and config you used?

I don't know if any other members out there would be able to advise me on how best to match what I see on my monitor and what I get from the printer? :confused:

Thanks,
Gordon

[kb244]

The issue I see with the R800, is the colors dont ever seem to be as vibrant as they can be on the 8500. I've printed off both, and the same images always seem to be much more vibrant off the i9900/iP8500, versus the 2200/R800. I think has something to do with the fact that Epson using the ultrachrome ink, garantees 100year fade reistance and water reistance, had to sacrifice the vibrancy of the ink to get it to work. Where as Canon (no water resitance garanteed), only state about 30 years on their own paper, but can deliver a much faster print, as well as a much more vibrant print. Guess it comes down to wheter or not you are going to sell your images, or you just want the best quality/vibrance out of your printer.