Newest Canons vs. Epsons - Best Photo Printer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zippy Zoo
  • Start date Start date
Z

Zippy Zoo

I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has
been good. Now, for my specifications.

Cost - Under $250
Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex.
Chromlife, etc)
Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual manufacturer

Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell
should be able to last 20-30 years under glass, and should be as good as
those produced by an automated photo developing machine.

This all said - which model is going to be best between Epson and Canon?

Thanks - KSC
 
I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has
been good. Now, for my specifications.

Cost - Under $250
Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex.
Chromlife, etc)
Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual manufacturer

Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell
should be able to last 20-30 years under glass, and should be as good as
those produced by an automated photo developing machine.

This all said - which model is going to be best between Epson and Canon?
Click to expand...


Save another $100 and go for the Epson R800.
My two cents, anyway.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Zippy said:
I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870
has been good. Now, for my specifications.

Cost - Under $250
Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex.
Chromlife, etc)
Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual
manufacturer
Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I
sell should be able to last 20-30 years under glass, and should be
as good as those produced by an automated photo developing machine.

This all said - which model is going to be best between Epson and
Canon?
Thanks - KSC
Click to expand...

You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has
longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for ip4200
or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink
printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money, since
there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination of canon
and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss.
 
You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has
longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for
ip4200 or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5
ink printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money,
since there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination
of canon and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss.
Click to expand...

Well maybe with the Canon IP4200 you can have it all if you only need
the photos to last 20 - 30 years and stay under $250 for the initial cost. I
haven't used the the IP4200 and have used the Epson R1800, which is a wide
format version of the R800. The Epson gives beautiful results, but the R800
will run you initially $325 + to start. and it's a 7 color printer with an
additional "glosser" cartridge to even out the surface sheen of the black on
certain papers.
Canon uses dye base ink for the color, which has less longevity than
pigment base inks. Canon uses pigment for the black. Epson is using pigment
on all their color and black. Additionally, speaking for the Epson; the
cartridges are small. They hold about 12cc of ink, and at $12 a cartridge
that will start to add up quickly in ink costs.
The basic way to get around this is to investigate refilling and using a
chip resetter. Not only do you save the environment of cartridges but you
save at least 2/3 rds of what OEM will run you, and using quality ink get
excellent results.
 
You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has
longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for ip4200
or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink
printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money, since
there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination of canon
and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss.
Click to expand...


You're basically right about most of this.

Dye inks on the right paper still look
somewhat better than pigments.

For my taste, though, the differences
are now so minor that it's no longer worth
fooling with dye inks. Just my personal
take on the matter.

FYI, the printers I've owned and used
since 1998: Epson 600, 750, two 1160s,
Canon S9000, HP DesignJet 30. Currently,
Epson 7000 and R1800.

I did a lot of experimenting with pigment
inks on the two 1160s, and found pigments
(back then) to be unacceptable. The R1800
is the first printer I've owned that's
actually built to use pigment inks.

I'm getting to that age where I'm thinking,
it would be nice if a few of my prints
outlast me.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Jan said:
Well maybe with the Canon IP4200 you can have it all if you only
need the photos to last 20 - 30 years and stay under $250 for the
initial cost. I haven't used the the IP4200 and have used the Epson
R1800, which is a wide format version of the R800. The Epson gives
beautiful results, but the R800 will run you initially $325 + to
start. and it's a 7 color printer with an additional "glosser"
cartridge to even out the surface sheen of the black on certain
papers. Canon uses dye base ink for the color, which has less
longevity than pigment base inks. Canon uses pigment for the black. Epson
is using pigment on all their color and black. Additionally,
speaking for the Epson; the cartridges are small. They hold about
12cc of ink, and at $12 a cartridge that will start to add up quickly
in ink costs. The basic way to get around this is to investigate
refilling and using a chip resetter. Not only do you save the
environment of cartridges but you save at least 2/3 rds of what OEM
will run you, and using quality ink get excellent results.
Click to expand...
but in that case you can forget long lasting Epson famous state...
BTW...Canon uses pigment black for text only, while for photos it uses dye
black
 
rafe said:
You're basically right about most of this.

Dye inks on the right paper still look
somewhat better than pigments.

For my taste,
Click to expand...
OH GOD HE EATS DA INK
though, the differences
are now so minor that it's no longer worth
fooling with dye inks. Just my personal
take on the matter.

FYI, the printers I've owned and used
since 1998: Epson 600, 750, two 1160s,
Canon S9000, HP DesignJet 30. Currently,
Epson 7000 and R1800.

I did a lot of experimenting with pigment
inks on the two 1160s, and found pigments
(back then) to be unacceptable. The R1800
is the first printer I've owned that's
actually built to use pigment inks.

I'm getting to that age
Click to expand...
ANOTHER OLD FART
 
Jan said:
Well maybe with the Canon IP4200 you can have it all if you only need
the photos to last 20 - 30 years and stay under $250 for the initial cost. I
haven't used the the IP4200 and have used the Epson R1800, which is a wide
format version of the R800. The Epson gives beautiful results, but the R800
will run you initially $325 + to start. and it's a 7 color printer with an
additional "glosser" cartridge to even out the surface sheen of the black on
certain papers.
Canon uses dye base ink for the color, which has less longevity than
pigment base inks. Canon uses pigment for the black.
Click to expand...
WRONGO BONGO. CANON USES PIGMENT FOR BLACK ONE SIDED TEXT AND DYE FOR
EVERYTHING ELSE
Epson is using pigment
on all their color and black. Additionally, speaking for the Epson; the
cartridges are small. They hold about 12cc of ink, and at $12 a cartridge
that will start to add up quickly in ink costs.
The basic way to get around this is to investigate refilling
Click to expand...
BOY IS THAT STUPID
and using a
chip resetter.
Click to expand...
MORE LUNACY
Not only do you save the environment of cartridges but you
Click to expand...
CAN CLOG YOUR PRINTER
save at least 2/3 rds of what OEM will run you, and using quality ink get
excellent results.
Click to expand...
AND THAT IS WHY MOST PEOPLE USE QUALITY OEM INK
 
WHILE THE CANON I9900 PRODUCES BETTER LOOKING RESULTS YOU MIGHT WANT TO
CONSIDER THE EPSON 2400
 
rafe said:
I'm getting to that age where I'm thinking,
it would be nice if a few of my prints
outlast me.
Click to expand...
That's scary - I'm 72, so I'd need inks to last only a couple
of years :-( Fortunately, my daughter's the family genealogist, so I
guess she'd appreciate archival inks/papers. Right now I use a Canon
i4000, no idea of the lasting qualities of Canon's inks. I'm probably
more interested in the lifespan of digital video tapes, which I'm using
to transfer 8 mm movie film, S-VHS tapes, and Hi 8 tapes using my mini
DV camera.
 
Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink printer - 3
colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money...
Click to expand...

Only if you're prepared to accept a reduced gamut. Try printing Ferrari scarlet with a five-ink printer, for example.

Jon.
 
Jon said:
Only if you're prepared to accept a reduced gamut. Try printing
Ferrari scarlet with a five-ink printer, for example.

Jon.
Click to expand...

i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any
color, i don't see why red would be one...
It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i don't
see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those basic three.
I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 or even 10
colors, but only basic 3- yet - a wonder happens - you still see all
available ones...
 
i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any
color, i don't see why red would be one...
It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i don't
see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those basic three.
I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 or even 10
colors, but only basic 3- yet - a wonder happens - you still see all
available ones...
Click to expand...


You're making vast generalizations about color
and yet not even stopping to consider the distinction
between additive and subtractive color.

Have you heard of the IEC? Ever used or created an
ICC profile?

Ever heard of a Colorspan printer?

Why do printers use K ink instead of just CMY?
Do you know what UCR and GCR mean?

In short, what are your qualifications for speaking
with such authority on the issue of color and gamut?

I understand the anger at Epson, Canon, et. al.
for their outrageous ink prices.

But don't assume their engineers are total idiots.
They are not.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with
any color, i don't see why red would be one...
Click to expand...

Maybe the exact duplication of a colour has never been important to you. And I said Ferrari scarlet, not 'red'. There are also blues that can't be reproduced with CMYK printers, even the best lith printers. If colour accuracy is important to you then you need a printer with the widest possible gamut.

Jon.
 
SleeperMan said:
i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any
color, i don't see why red would be one...
It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i don't
see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those basic three.
I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 or even 10
colors, but only basic 3- yet - a wonder happens - you still see all
available ones...
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the resolution of a TV screen and a printed
photo. One limitation with using three colors is getting the mix just
right, especially with very fine gradients. It is not easy getting the
overlays exact.

If you're happy with your finished photos, I'm happy for you. It could be
though, that they would be even better with other ink, other paper, other
color balance, other exposure. Much of phography is very subjective. When
Grandma sees the baby's smiling face she says it is a great picture, no
matter how out of balance the skin tone may be or how fuzzy the focus.
Sometimes we just want more out of it.
 
Edwin said:
There is a difference between the resolution of a TV screen and a
printed photo. One limitation with using three colors is getting the
mix just right, especially with very fine gradients. It is not easy
getting the overlays exact.

If you're happy with your finished photos, I'm happy for you. It
could be though, that they would be even better with other ink, other
paper, other color balance, other exposure. Much of phography is
very subjective. When Grandma sees the baby's smiling face she says
it is a great picture, no matter how out of balance the skin tone may
be or how fuzzy the focus. Sometimes we just want more out of it.
Click to expand...

ok let's stop here. I see you're going into pro mode, while general thread
was regarding printers for general public. If going into pro, it's also a
question of which color is right? Since first mistake comes in in the
camera, then monitor etc...it's no point of printer being, say 0.00001%
accurate if all other is only 0.01 % accurate. That what i meant.
But you go on with your 10 or even 20 color printers and have a good luck
working only for ink, while us mortals are quite happy with what i said.
There's a limit somewhere, otherwise printers would use so many millions of
color as picture have in order to get perfect print.
Oops...but there's a catch...digital camera catches only 3...damn...
have fun
 
Cost - Under $250
Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell
should be able to last 20-30 years under glass, and should be as good as
those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
Click to expand...

Pretty friggin' amazing that any such cheap machine should be
considered for professional work.

Out of curiosity, what's the price of whatever the next technology up
is these days (sublimation? transfer? some better ink tech?)

J.
 
TALKING FROM THE ANUS
Maybe the exact duplication of a colour has never been important to you. And I said Ferrari scarlet, not 'red'. There are also blues that can't be reproduced with CMYK printers, even the best lith printers. If colour accuracy is important to you then you need a printer with the widest possible gamut.

Jon.
Click to expand...
 
JXStern said:
Pretty friggin' amazing that any such cheap machine should be
considered for professional work.
Click to expand...

Well, the advances made in home printing in the last half dozen or so
years *have* been pretty amazing. There are printers available from
several manufacturers for well under $250 that can noticeably exceed the
print quality from the typical one hour photo developing place.

- Bob Headrick
 
Back
Top