Choose my printer for me!

lakiluno wrote:
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

Invisible ink?

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.

well...clear ink is practically invisible.

Leo

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!

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....

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.

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---

I guess printing your own does have its advantages then ...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

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!!!

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!

Thanks! I just ordered it.

You're welcome I'm sure!!!

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!!!

Thanks.