Kenneth said:
KENNETH said:
I am getting in to digital photography in a big way and also like using
Adobe photoshop to clean up old photos. I am looking for a good printer in
the $200 to $400 range that is also economical on ink, any suggestions?
Kenny
In a few words I personally conclude: The R800 produces photos and the
Canon makes a print.
The Epson R800 is hands down superior over Canon 960.
Let see?
Pixel size: Epson world's 1st smallest 1.5 / Canon 2.0 picoliters
Individual Ink Colors: Epson has 8 including a matt black ink along w/
the Photo black and a unique gloss optimizer cartridge to cover the
print. Canon only has 6.
Resolution: Epson has 5760x1440 and Cano has 4800x1200
Inks: Epson uses a Ultra-Chrome Hi-Gloss "PIGMENT INK" for archival
quality lasting up to 100 years. Water proof. Canon has the regular "DYE
PIGMENT" that fade in a matter of years. Keep away from direct light or
they are gone in less than a week. Not at all water proof. You can dunk
a R800 photo under water! I have wiped R800 photos off w/ a wet cloth to
clean from improper handling.
ICC printer profiles: Epson has numerous options, the Canon is very limited
***Be aware that Canon dye based inks do not last like the pigmented
inks on Epsons.***
Canon has tried and has "some" models that use a light-fast in that
makes claims of 25 year print life.
Bottom line you can't fairly compare a $200 I960 Canon to a $400 R800
Epson. But they since the 960 was recommended and the R800 is in your
budjet range it is only fair.
I want my pictures to be handed down from generations I like to think
they will last over my lifetime. I don't want to be afraid a water
spilled on a print and quite frankly I think the color range on the R800
is superior to ANY home inkjet out there now.
If you want serious photo printer under $400 than you can't beat the
R800. The rest can't compare especially if you want to see that photo
when you older and retired.