Epson 2200 or Kodak 8500 printer?

[mnracing]

I've just bought a Canon 1d and I'm thinking about also getting a new printer. Right now I only have a Epson 820 but for $100 it makes pretty nice 8x10s. I'm considering getting either the Epson 2200 or a Kodak 8500. I've seen nothing but good comments when it comes to the 2200 but I don't see to many posts concerning the 8500.

The main reason I'm even thinking about the 8500 is speed. I mostly take racing photos (motocross) and I might try to start printing photos at the track to sell so the speed of the Kodak would be a big plus. I have read that the 8500 can make an 8x10 in around 2 minutes or less.

If anyone has any comments on these printers in comparison I would love to hear them. I don't know much about dye-sublimation printing so there may be something about it that I'm unaware of or that would make it a poor choice for my application. Thanks in advance for any comments!

Gregg

[charlesu]

What size do you need? My 2200 makes an 8x10 that fast. 13 x 19 is pretty reasonable too. Faster than my old 2000P made an 8x10.

Good luck!!

[charlesu]

Actually, my 2200 might beat that time. It'd probably depend on the actual picture. It's damn fast. I also have an Olympus P400 and it is similar in speed but the images cannot compare to the 2200--esp in detail and subtleties.

[Dans_D60]

If you are looking for large format printer (A3+), you may want to consider the Canon S9100. I have the S9000 and with a little ICC tweaking, I get great results. This printer will print 8.5X11 borderless prints in about 60 seconds at high-quality setting. The S9100 is even a higher resolution printer at the same $499 list price. I hear the Epson is a fine printer but if the need is for speed, one minute high-quality 8X10’s is hard to beat.
Dan
http://www.pettusphoto.com

[brunz]

I don't have either printer but I've read both reviews a while back and I believe that the Kodak printer is more expensive per 8x10....something like $1.70 whereas most inkjet printers are around $1.00 per print. The 2200 may be slightly more expensive since it has the new archival inks. Check Popular Photography or Petersons Photographic...one of those magazines had a review within the last year of the Kodak Printer. I think that the Epson has a lot more paper choices too. I have an Epson 870 and like it a lot so I would probably stay with the Epson.Sounds like the Epson speed is a lot faster than mine. My printer takes 5 minutes for an 8x10 at 720 DPI but they only cost $.70 each which isn't bad for a photo quality 8x10. Hope this helps.

[mnracing]

Thanks for the tips/advice. I'll probably decide in the next week or so and I'll let you know what I decided and how the printer is working for me. Thanks again!

[whitejs]

I've a Photo 2200, up from my 1280 about two months ago.

It is just fantastic.

I don't care about speed. I print for quality, and both the 1280 and 2200 are the best I've seen.

I hear the Canon 9000 series is fantastic, too, and a bit more speedy.

Look at it, though, and decide if that flimsy thing is what you would pay that much for. I know it all boils down to quality and durability, but some things just look bad to me, and the 9000 is one of them.

[whitejs]

I've a Photo 2200, up from my 1280 about two months ago.

It is just fantastic.

I don't care about speed. I print for quality, and both the 1280 and 2200 are the best I've seen.

I hear the Canon 9000 series is fantastic, too, and a bit more speedy.

Look at it, though, and decide if that flimsy thing is what you would pay that much for. I know it all boils down to quality and durability, but some things just look bad to me, and the 9000 is one of them.

[mack]

I do work with an Epson 2200 (here in Germany 2100) and an 8650 Kodak. A Friend has an 8500.

You get nice prints using the Kodak, but with high price!
Regardless how large your picture will be, you always will pay for a full print.

Next problem comes if you wanne print A4 siced. In thsi case you need extra lage papers and color ribbons, for higher price.

Comparing prints from both Printers gives me better colors using Epsons 2100 an better sharpnes. Thats why I use my 2200. Even my friend bought an Epson 2100 and didnt use his Kodak for 6 month. Now he wants to sell it.

[Andre Regini]

Regarding your query on the 8500 2200 issue. See my post below on the 8500...

I am interested to see that there are no posts or reviews of the Kodak 8500 printer. Could this be because it is so bad? I am in the process of returning one after Kodak have admitted that it is not good enough for my "type of photography".

I have been attempting to print images with large areas of dark saturated colour with subtle hue changes (e.g. skies, graded portrait backgrounds etc.) with appalling results. The 8500 produces very noticeable mottled striations similar to crepe paper, in one orientation (in the direction of printing), while in the other, there are bands of varying density. The problem is isolated to areas of plain or subtly textured colour and especially bad if that area is out of focus. However, if there is a fine texture to those areas, or the image is "busy" and sharp, then yes the prints are pretty good.

Initial suspicions were with the test images, however numerous results from inkjets and a commercial wet process are perfect. All were shot on a Canon 1DS and imported using sRGB profiles throughout.

Although Kodak (UK) are now admitting to the problem, and that it is a function of the process, they tell me I am the only complaint they have had. However, I have already heard of one other person who is dissatisfied, but who is yet to contact them. I’d be interested to hear if anyone else is having the same problems and will supply test images if you would like to test your printer.

Andre Regini, Kingbridge Photographic

[mikebegley]

mnracing wrote:
I've just bought a Canon 1d and I'm thinking about also getting a new printer. Right now I only have a Epson 820 but for $100 it makes pretty nice 8x10s. I'm considering getting either the Epson 2200 or a Kodak 8500. I've seen nothing but good comments when it comes to the 2200 but I don't see to many posts concerning the 8500.

The main reason I'm even thinking about the 8500 is speed. I mostly take racing photos (motocross) and I might try to start printing photos at the track to sell so the speed of the Kodak would be a big plus. I have read that the 8500 can make an 8x10 in around 2 minutes or less.

If anyone has any comments on these printers in comparison I would love to hear them. I don't know much about dye-sublimation printing so there may be something about it that I'm unaware of or that would make it a poor choice for my application. Thanks in advance for any comments!

Gregg

Gregg,

I hope I can help you here. I have two printers the Epson 2200 and the Canon i950. Both produce unbelievable prints. The Epson is slow as you stated. If I print a borderless 8 1/2 x 11 in the best resolution (turning off fast printing) it takes about 20 minutes - yeah 20 minutes! BUT the quality is amazing.

If I have shots that I need speed on and am not worried about the archival life that the Epson gives, I print on the i950. On the i950 the same print takes 2 minutes and 5 seconds. HUGE difference! And it's prints are comparable. If you keep the i950 print under glass it should last quite a while as well.

For less than the Kodak costs you can have both of these printers and your price per print is less.

You can get the Epson on sale right now at Amazon for $664.99 - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000067V0A/mjbdesign-20

You can get the Canon on sale right now at Amazon for $222.94 - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008CMUB/mjbdesign-20

This is what I did but for different reasons. I bought the Epson for photo printing and wanted to get an everyday printer that was fast for everything else. So I bought the i950 and love it.

Hope this helps you make up your mind. Or did I just confuse you more?!?

Mike

[brunz]

Mike, thanks for the price tip on the Epson 2200. I just ordered one from Amazon for about $669 and free shipping. It's scheduled to be delivered tomorrow UPS, only about 4 days total....impressive. I found a tip on getting my 10D on this site and now this printer. This is a wonderful forum and I really thank the moderator Pekka for this service. If anyone needs a nice D30 or D60, I have one of each for sale. Need to pay for my printer. Thanks to all of you contributers on this forum.........Brian

Brunzie21@aol.com

[masego777]

For all of those people talking about the 2200, I had an interesting esperience the other day. An Epson rep was at Comp USA and noted that the 2200 prints did not compare favorably to the 1280 or to the 925/960. This I understand has something to do with archival inks versus regular ink jet photo inks. I called Epson and their answer was tht they know that there is a difference, but they say that it is because the archival inks are more representative of "true color". Now, I saw a print out of the same image, same paper 2200 versus 1280 and the 1280 looked much better. Similarly I saw a comparison of the Canon 1950 and the 2200 and the 1280; Canon has a slight edge. I would really like to hear from the 2200 folks on this one. Which is better?

[charlesu]

Mike,
I think you must be having a problem with your 2200. Mine is no where near that slow.

I am using the firewire connection and it really flies. More like 90-120 seconds for a top notch 8x10.

Are you using USB 1.0? If so, you might want to take a look at the firewire.

Good luck!

Charles

[gdstaples]

Don't waste your money on the 8500. All of the Kodak Dye-Sub printers have been a maintenance nightmare. I have owned a number of 8600 series and the 8500. All have required almost constant maintenance via Kodak - especially the 8600 series printers. I have switched to the S9000 but the Epson printers are very good as well. If you don't need the speed go with 2200. If you need the speed go with the S9000 as it is faster than the 8500.

Duncan