Canon I9900 or Epson 2200

[Mills]

I want to upgrade from the Canon I950. Which one should I choose? They both sound like great products. I feel that I can get the best idea from all of you based on your vast experience.

[Barb42]

I heard the 2200 is difficult to get in stock right now. If you want that, I would hurry. The Canon is dye and the color more vivid and bright - but has a shorter image life; the Epson is pigment - longer life but less vivid. If you are not marketing your prints, Canon is great! If you sell your prints you might want to take the 2200 or wait for whatever Epson is coming out with next. I have a Canon S9000, which I love, but I am considering the Epson 4000 but keeping the S9000. I don't care for the Epson for B-W, and would never use it for that purpose. Canon does a nice job on B-W. (I like the HP for B-W also.) Its all about what you want to produce and why. However, as for image life, if you stay with Canon inks and are careful not to get counterfeits, and stay with quality paper, Canon will last long enough. Most people will not end up having their images collected and the average use of an image used to decorate is about 15-20 years (if not less) - which is quite long enough. Prints put away for family albums are closed up most of the time and will last longer. There are no perfect printers, just a proper selection for the use. Good luck.

[Mills]

I heard the 2200 is difficult to get in stock right now. If you want that, I would hurry. The Canon is dye and the color more vivid and bright - but has a shorter image life; the Epson is pigment - longer life but less vivid. If you are not marketing your prints, Canon is great! If you sell your prints you might want to take the 2200 or wait for whatever Epson is coming out with next. I have a Canon S9000, which I love, but I am considering the Epson 4000 but keeping the S9000. I don't care for the Epson for B-W, and would never use it for that purpose. Canon does a nice job on B-W. (I like the HP for B-W also.) Its all about what you want to produce and why. However, as for image life, if you stay with Canon inks and are careful not to get counterfeits, and stay with quality paper, Canon will last long enough. Most people will not end up having their images collected and the average use of an image used to decorate is about 15-20 years (if not less) - which is quite long enough. Prints put away for family albums are closed up most of the time and will last longer. There are no perfect printers, just a proper selection for the use. Good luck.

How long can prints be expected to last from these two printers?

[Top-Cat]

I have an Epson 2100 (2200 in the US) and at first I was not very happy with the results but after reading some articles and tutorials I am more than delighted with the prints I get now. I found that if you print your photos using an ICC profile for the paper that you use and spend some time calibrating your monitor to your printer you will be more than satisfied with the results.
If you go to this web site you can download ICC colour profiles for the 2100 when downloaded just double click on them and they will self install
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/EditorialAnnouncement.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=42114986


If you go to this web site and follow the links you can find a comprehensive tutorial on how to use them. www.rosswilliamsphotos.com

Also be aware that the 2100 is not renowned for printing full gloss photos. I think Epson say that the prints can be expected to last about 70 – 80 years, if stored correctly.

[DReb-MO]

Stay with the Canon. But I understand a newer version is right around the corner.

[JBillings]

I can't remeber where I read it, but Canon inks were supposed to last 27 years. About the same time frames as "real" world photographs. Knowing that I bought the Canon printer. I certainly don't regret it. It's a fantastic printer.

[Barb42]

How long can prints be expected to last from these two printers?

If you stick with Canon ink and canon paper - 25-30 years before it begins to show signs of fading. I personally like high quality paper, like Epson watercolor. I also use Lumijet ImageShield to protect the surface and seal in the ink. The fading is accelerated by UV light and pollutants in the air. Putting the images behind UV glass and sealing the ink really helps. The new Epson 1800 has sealant included as an 'ink' - the glossy seal used instead of an ImageShield spray.

Understand that you don't get up some morning 30 years from now to find a pale yellow image. The image will begin to show signs of fading around that time, if its properly cared for now. As for traditional photos, my Kodak images from the 70's and 80's are a unlovely orangy color because they were on bad paper to begin with - it happens even with chemically produced images. There are never guarantees. The Getty collection is currently being scanned digitally because the negs are going bad and the collection is too important to let it go. And I have a lovely watercolor now fading from the sunlight (I tend to learn the hard way http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif ).

Pigment inks (used in Epson 2200 and the larger printers) can last 100-200 years. However, if you don't plan to live that long, who really cares - its buyer beware! But then the buyer will probably be gone by then anyway. And, better products will be around to replace inkjets long before that!

If you really think people will be collecting your prints in 50 or 100 years - buy the most expensive printer you can and go for it.

[Hellashot]

The Epson R1800 is essentially a replacement/upgrade of the R2200. Same paper sizes but with ultrachrome inks for 200 year life, plus 1.5 picoliter drops vs 4 picoliter and $150 lower list price. One disadvantage is that only the 2200 has a straight-through paper pass to handle thicker paper than the 1800 will handle. I am going to pick up an 1800 whenever is arrives in a store near me.