Epsom R800 Beats them all.

  • Thread starter Thread starter William Bell
  • Start date Start date
Amazing.....look at the conclusions and the Canon beats the "Epsom Salts" in
all but a single category and has the better scores on all others and they
say Epson wins.....

Something wrong with this picture, I demand a recount - all the blue states
over there and all the red states over here... and.... ;-)

Happy New Year,

Bob S.

(new owner of the Canon i9900)
 
BobS said:
Amazing.....look at the conclusions and the Canon beats the "Epsom Salts"
in
all but a single category and has the better scores on all others and they
say Epson wins.....
Click to expand...


Read it again...."The conclusion is easy to draw: If you're looking only for
quality, the Stylus Photo R800 is the only choice. In all areas - including
black and white - it is the printer with the best fidelity of
reproduction...."

The key is that the conclusion is weighted towards quality....and here the
Epson wins.

Si.
 
Si said:
Read it again...."The conclusion is easy to draw: If you're looking
only for quality, the Stylus Photo R800 is the only choice. In all
areas - including black and white - it is the printer with the best
fidelity of reproduction...."

The key is that the conclusion is weighted towards quality....and
here the Epson wins.

Si.
Click to expand...

If you look carefully, only in one photo Epson indeed looks better, but if
you'd only set blue to a bit less, it yould be ok.
While if you look at photos with bright colors, ip8500 has way brighter
output than Epson.
Laying all in one blue photo----i don't think so. All other talks in favor
of Canon.
 
William Bell said:
Read for your self

http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041229/index.html

Mind you the Canon to me looked better and has the lowest running
costs, but I only skimmed over the review.
Click to expand...

Canon has only the lowest running costs if you never look at your
prints after they are printed: People here in usenet and tests from
magazines report serious fading for Canon's BCI-6 inks (search google
groups for "canon ink fading"). Probably that's why Canon sells BCI-7
inks with increased fading resistance in Japan.

In contrast, Epson and HP prints seem to have much larger durability
(check www.wilhelm-research.com for results from an independent
testing lab). This means you don't have to re-print your framed
pictures every couple of months. Thus you save money. The review
above doesn't reflect this factor.
 
Matthias said:
Canon has only the lowest running costs if you never look at your
prints after they are printed: People here in usenet and tests from
magazines report serious fading for Canon's BCI-6 inks (search google
groups for "canon ink fading"). Probably that's why Canon sells BCI-7
inks with increased fading resistance in Japan.

In contrast, Epson and HP prints seem to have much larger durability
(check www.wilhelm-research.com for results from an independent
testing lab). This means you don't have to re-print your framed
pictures every couple of months. Thus you save money. The review
above doesn't reflect this factor.
Click to expand...

All above strongly depends on paper used. If you use best possible paper,
durability can increase big time.
Canon claims their Photo Paper Pro lasts over 100 years with original BCI6
inks. I didn't test any of my photos that long, though...
I bet any of you didn't, too...no matter which printer.
 
All above strongly depends on paper used. If you use best possible paper,
durability can increase big time.
Canon claims their Photo Paper Pro lasts over 100 years with original BCI6
inks. I didn't test any of my photos that long, though...
I bet any of you didn't, too...no matter which printer.
Click to expand...

Must be handy for anyone who plans to be around in 100 years time to show
his/her pics.
If they [the pics] have faded he/she can then sue Canon.
 
Testing compatibility with original pictures is a great thing. I would
suggest tests with more iterations to show if printers print realistic
pictures or somewhat hacked, "better" looking ones. The tester should have
the best possible scanner, make first print, scan first print, make second
print from the scan of the first print, then for many iterations print
number should be made from scan of print [i-1]. The last print should be
compared to the original. I expect interesting results!
 
pete said:
All above strongly depends on paper used. If you use best possible
paper, durability can increase big time.
Canon claims their Photo Paper Pro lasts over 100 years with
original BCI6 inks. I didn't test any of my photos that long,
though...
I bet any of you didn't, too...no matter which printer.
Click to expand...

Must be handy for anyone who plans to be around in 100 years time to
show his/her pics.
If they [the pics] have faded he/she can then sue Canon.
Click to expand...

In 100 years we (ops...sorry - they) probably won't be showing pics on a
paper, maybe even won't know what paper is...
 
SleeperMan said:
If you look carefully, only in one photo Epson indeed looks better, but if
you'd only set blue to a bit less, it yould be ok.
While if you look at photos with bright colors, ip8500 has way brighter
output than Epson.
Laying all in one blue photo----i don't think so. All other talks in favor
of Canon.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed something when reading the explanations?

Category - Printing High-Quality Photos, Bright Colors
Conclusion:
"While the Stylus Photo R800 didn't do as well with green, it offered
the highest fidelity of all the printers for the image as a whole."
Winner: Epson

Category - Photo Quality: Blue Shades
Conclusion:
"Only the Stylus Photo R800 was able to correctly reproduce the very
light blue of the water."
Winner: Epson

Category - Photo Quality: Red-Orange
Conclusion:
"The Pixma IP8500 was strong on color saturation, whereas once again
the Stylus Photo R800 was closest to the original."
Winner: Epson

Category - Photo Quality: Black-and-White
Conclusion:
"But here again, the Stylus Photo R800 did best. In addition to the
usual black ink, it has a dedicated black photo cartridge for
improving contrast. The result is that it's very hard to tell the
difference between the print from the Stylus and the model."
Winner: Epson

Category - Text Quality (The quality of text output may be relatively
unimportant for printers like these)
Conclusion:

"The Pixma IP8500 provided a good compromise and seems to produce the
best results in terms of text quality.
Winner: Canon

Category - Cost Of Printing
Conclusion:

Winner: Canon

Print Speed
Winner: Canon

Not mentioned but important to me and those who wish for their
grandchildren and great grandchildren to see family photos as we see
those of our great grandparents must consider longevity. By the time
our great grandchildren are here, the CD and DVD players of today will
not exist to show family or our generations digital images. Long
lasting photos will only require an album of these photos to enjoy.

Longevity: Epson and HP with Epson having a wider selection of
papers.

Winner: Epson

Overall winner: Epson

Richard
 
Richard said:
Perhaps you missed something when reading the explanations?

Category - Printing High-Quality Photos, Bright Colors
Conclusion:
"While the Stylus Photo R800 didn't do as well with green, it offered
the highest fidelity of all the printers for the image as a whole."
Winner: Epson

Category - Photo Quality: Blue Shades
Conclusion:
"Only the Stylus Photo R800 was able to correctly reproduce the very
light blue of the water."
Winner: Epson

Category - Photo Quality: Red-Orange
Conclusion:
"The Pixma IP8500 was strong on color saturation, whereas once again
the Stylus Photo R800 was closest to the original."
Winner: Epson

Category - Photo Quality: Black-and-White
Conclusion:
"But here again, the Stylus Photo R800 did best. In addition to the
usual black ink, it has a dedicated black photo cartridge for
improving contrast. The result is that it's very hard to tell the
difference between the print from the Stylus and the model."
Winner: Epson

Category - Text Quality (The quality of text output may be relatively
unimportant for printers like these)
Conclusion:

"The Pixma IP8500 provided a good compromise and seems to produce the
best results in terms of text quality.
Winner: Canon

Category - Cost Of Printing
Conclusion:

Winner: Canon

Print Speed
Winner: Canon

Not mentioned but important to me and those who wish for their
grandchildren and great grandchildren to see family photos as we see
those of our great grandparents must consider longevity. By the time
our great grandchildren are here, the CD and DVD players of today will
not exist to show family or our generations digital images. Long
lasting photos will only require an album of these photos to enjoy.

Longevity: Epson and HP with Epson having a wider selection of
papers.

Winner: Epson

Overall winner: Epson

Richard
Click to expand...

If i'll want my grand children to see any of those photos, i will took them
to the lab and so they will last ages...cheaper, better.
But, like i said, all above can be adjusted- while 'seeing' overall quality
is the matter of human eye - i see different than you, also different inks
react differently on same paper. i think most true would be to print with
Epson on Epson's paper, with Canon on Canon's etc...
 
(SNIP previous statements for brevity)
If i'll want my grand children to see any of those photos, i will took them
to the lab and so they will last ages...cheaper, better.
But, like i said, all above can be adjusted- while 'seeing' overall quality
is the matter of human eye - i see different than you, also different inks
react differently on same paper. i think most true would be to print with
Epson on Epson's paper, with Canon on Canon's etc...
Click to expand...

That is very easy to say, but which ones would you choose? The
selection of photos that survived from my relatives are very few and I
am certain that no one "selected" these photos, they were just some
that happened to survive the years.
I doubt many here will create such an archive since we could not know
which photos anyone might find of great interest. In any case you say
you will go to a photo lab for long lasting prints which is fine but
you do realize that the Epson 800 prints photos using Epson ink and
Epson paper that are projected to last in a photo album anywhere
between 110 years to greater than 400 years depending upon which Epson
paper is used? See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_12_03.pdf .

While I personally think this time frame is optimistic it certainly is
far better than any photo lab print of which I am personally aware and
most certainly better than Canon. The Canon printers are excellent,
print beautiful photos, are reliable, inexpensive to operate and the
fastest currently available. I still choose the better print quality
of the Epson printer combined with their longevity. Printing with a
Canon on Canon paper using Canon ink will get you nowhere near this
kind of archival capability. Apparently this only matters to some of
us and to be perfectly honest, if I did not care about longevity then
it would be a more difficult choice.

In any case, Happy New Year to you and everyone here!

Richard
 
Richard said:
(SNIP previous statements for brevity)

That is very easy to say, but which ones would you choose? The
selection of photos that survived from my relatives are very few and I
am certain that no one "selected" these photos, they were just some
that happened to survive the years.
I doubt many here will create such an archive since we could not know
which photos anyone might find of great interest. In any case you say
you will go to a photo lab for long lasting prints which is fine but
you do realize that the Epson 800 prints photos using Epson ink and
Epson paper that are projected to last in a photo album anywhere
between 110 years to greater than 400 years depending upon which Epson
paper is used? See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R800_2004_12_03.pdf .

While I personally think this time frame is optimistic it certainly is
far better than any photo lab print of which I am personally aware and
most certainly better than Canon. The Canon printers are excellent,
print beautiful photos, are reliable, inexpensive to operate and the
fastest currently available. I still choose the better print quality
of the Epson printer combined with their longevity. Printing with a
Canon on Canon paper using Canon ink will get you nowhere near this
kind of archival capability. Apparently this only matters to some of
us and to be perfectly honest, if I did not care about longevity then
it would be a more difficult choice.

In any case, Happy New Year to you and everyone here!

Richard
Click to expand...

It's interesting how all do the testing of all kind of other printers,
papers etc...but i didn't see yet any review with Canon's best Photo Pro
paper (which has Alumna layer)... someone posted one test earlier elsewhere
and there was only one canon tester on god knows which paper, while there
were number of Epsons. It's hard to tell the difference.
BTW...i guess r800 do have gloss optimizer, right? And how is R800 priced
against. let's say ip4000? I think ip4000 would be more comparable with R300
(in price), which doesn't have gloss optimizer, so photos are not of such
high gloss - am i right?

Second thing...i wonder why all people say that lab photos are not so time
resistive...i have some veeeery old lab photos and they are still more or
less same as they used to be. Lab photos doesn't contain ink ,so they are
not so sensitive to fading...(or are they?).
It's just...you know...all those testers claim 100, years, 400
years...etc...remember what they (used) to say for CDR's? 100 years, 1000
years...while now it turned out that same can last only a few years. That's
why i say it's impossible to predict so long period. You can't possibly
compare lab results with reality. OK, maybe i do believe that pigmented inks
do last longer, but dye ones make better photos. So, regarding longevity,
Epson wins, regarding quality, Canon wins...and that's not above test
result, but pure fact - not because of Canon, but because Canon uses dye
ink.
Don't get me wrong...i'm not Canon lover...i'm just an Epson hater... :-)))
and as i said, when - if - my current Canon dies too soon, i'll seriously
consider to get some other company and these thoughts WILL include
Epson...maybe by that time they will solve clogging problems... :-)

OH, Thanks and HNY2005 to you.too!
 
SleeperMan said:
It's just...you know...all those testers claim 100, years, 400
years...etc...remember what they (used) to say for CDR's? 100 years, 1000
years...while now it turned out that same can last only a few years. That's
why i say it's impossible to predict so long period.
Click to expand...

Really, do check the page from Wilhelm Research. While they can't
predict 100% what will happen in 100 years, they try really hard to
get realistic estimates. They document their testing procedure quite
precisely (there are free papers on their web site), and they publish
on scientific conferences. Print aging is mostly a chemical process
influenced by gas, light, and moisture. You can try to scientifically
understand how it works and what influences it. It's complex, but no
black magic.

From the big names in consumer printing Canon, HP, and Epson, only the
latter two let their print durability be estimated from Wilhelm
Research. Canon does it in-house, using their own testing procedure.
They must have noticed at least some problem, otherwise they wouldn't
sell their new BCI-7 "ChromaLife 100" ink in Japan. Maybe this new
ink changes the whole story...

Happy '05...
 
It's interesting how all do the testing of all kind of other printers,
papers etc...but i didn't see yet any review with Canon's best Photo Pro
paper (which has Alumna layer)... someone posted one test earlier elsewhere
and there was only one canon tester on god knows which paper, while there
were number of Epsons. It's hard to tell the difference.
BTW...i guess r800 do have gloss optimizer, right? And how is R800 priced
against. let's say ip4000? I think ip4000 would be more comparable with R300
(in price), which doesn't have gloss optimizer, so photos are not of such
high gloss - am i right?
Click to expand...



No Wrong, it depends on the Type of ink used, pigments ink do need it, dye
inks do not..
 
Matthias said:
Really, do check the page from Wilhelm Research. While they can't
predict 100% what will happen in 100 years, they try really hard to
get realistic estimates. They document their testing procedure quite
precisely (there are free papers on their web site), and they publish
on scientific conferences. Print aging is mostly a chemical process
influenced by gas, light, and moisture. You can try to scientifically
understand how it works and what influences it. It's complex, but no
black magic.

From the big names in consumer printing Canon, HP, and Epson, only the
latter two let their print durability be estimated from Wilhelm
Research. Canon does it in-house, using their own testing procedure.
They must have noticed at least some problem, otherwise they wouldn't
sell their new BCI-7 "ChromaLife 100" ink in Japan. Maybe this new
ink changes the whole story...

Happy '05...
Click to expand...

Why only in Japan...? are we in Europe not good enough...? Or they can just
fool Japanese....
 
Back
Top