What printer to buy?

dragon300zx · March 17, 2005

I have a Canon i9900 at work and it is a great printer. I am looking to buy a printer for at home now. I want a wide format and all of that. The question is. I want prints that will last. I know the canon throws out the looks quality. But would I be better of with the Epson 2200 when it comes to endurance of the print? Is it that much better of a printer to justify the price difference?

rutt · March 17, 2005

dragon300zx wrote:

I have a Canon i9900 at work and it is a great printer. I am looking to buy a printer for at home now. I want a wide format and all of that. The question is. I want prints that will last. I know the canon throws out the looks quality. But would I be better of with the Epson 2200 when it comes to endurance of the print? Is it that much better of a printer to justify the price difference?

I don't have much experience with the Canons, but I do have a lot of epson experience. I have both a 2200 and a 4k. Both made great prints and fading doesn't seem to be an issue (there is a lot of research behind this.) Andy has a Canon i9900 and he has seen my prints made on the epson 4k. Perhaps he can compare for you. The 2200 is relatively slow, but not so the 4k.

One really good thing about these epson printers is that they are the little brothers of professional printers. That means that if you get everything just so and want a huge print made, you can go to any number of pro places (there are two on the next block in Waltham, MA) and have them do it with the same ink, rip, and paper.

mercphoto · March 17, 2005

From what I have read, the Epsons have the lead in print longevity. Personally, I'm waiting for the R1800. You might want to consider that over a 2200.

wanderingeye · March 19, 2005

Yeah, the R1800!!! Woohoo! I can't wait to see how this baby rates once there are some user reviews. Seems like the only drawback as compared to the 2200 is the lack of a straight-through paper path, so you can't use really heavy media. Any thoughts?

Khaos · March 24, 2005

I gave my HP color to my wife and bought a laser. Why? Personal color printers are a rip off when it comes to ink. When you add in the cost of a quality printer, with ink and paper that will allow prints that don't fade after a few years, it's more economical to upload a photo to smug mug and pay for the prints, even with shipping. If you don't want to do that you can always find numerous local camera shops that will do it also. However, you'll have to research which is best.

Realize that it costs more to fill the gas tank of a $100,000 ferrari with printer ink than it does to buy the car itself.

Charlie Gast · April 14, 2005

wanderingeye wrote:

Yeah, the R1800!!! Woohoo! I can't wait to see how this baby rates once there are some user reviews. Seems like the only drawback as compared to the 2200 is the lack of a straight-through paper path, so you can't use really heavy media. Any thoughts?

Another thing to remember with the 2200 vs R1800 is that the 1800 is big brother to a consumer printer and is itself a consumer printer. The 2200 is little brother to the 9000's 4000's and such pro printers and it itself a small pro printer. THere is no free lunch. The 2200's still go for $600+ even though a rebate is offered. The R1800 is under $500 at some online retailers. Price does not tell the whole story but it says something.
A ran into a photographer today who printed up a bunch of photos on his 2200 and some on an 800. He took them to a camera store where alot of pros work and hang out. He said he did not tell them which were from what printer. He said that in every case but one they picked out the 2200 print as the superior one\
Charlie

Charlie Gast · April 15, 2005

To follow my line of thought;
I am skipping the R1800 in my upgrade process. The 2200 has been out long enough I suspect a replacement from Epson before long. The change in quality of the prints from the 2200 to 1800 is in my opinion rather insignificant when weighed against the cost of a new printer,learning how to make it work to its best ability(epson is of little assistance here), getting new inksets,and profiles made etc.

Charlie

rutt · April 15, 2005

Charlie Gast wrote:

To follow my line of thought;
I am skipping the R1800 in my upgrade process. The 2200 has been out long enough I suspect a replacement from Epson before long. The change in quality of the prints from the 2200 to 1800 is in my opinion rather insignificant when weighed against the cost of a new printer,learning how to make it work to its best ability(epson is of little assistance here), getting new inksets,and profiles made etc.

Charlie

The most likely change is a 4000 print head for a much faster 2200. I found that the 4000 drivers really were much worse than the 2200 drivers and that pushed me finally into ImagePrint. The 4000+IP is rather an expensive proposition, but the combo really produces professional results.

Andy · April 15, 2005

rutt wrote:

I don't have much experience with the Canons, but I do have a lot of epson experience. I have both a 2200 and a 4k. Both made great prints and fading doesn't seem to be an issue (there is a lot of research behind this.) Andy has a Canon i9900 and he has seen my prints made on the epson 4k. Perhaps he can compare for you. The 2200 is relatively slow, but not so the 4k.

One really good thing about these epson printers is that they are the little brothers of professional printers. That means that if you get everything just so and want a huge print made, you can go to any number of pro places (there are two on the next block in Waltham, MA) and have them do it with the same ink, rip, and paper.

rutt's right - the quality on the epson's superb! but then again, so is the i9900 imo. epson gets the nod in terms of longevity (if you read/believe marketing info and what folks are saying on the 'net)... for me, that's not a big issue since i only print with my i9900 for personal use - and if i need to reprint in a few years, it's no big deal... the canon was cheap to buy (expensive to re-ink! ... but all the inks are expensive...) and easy to setup and use.

clear as mud??

dragon300zx · April 15, 2005

Yeah, I had already had two canon i9900's (bought with other peoples money so I had to leave the first one at the company I quite and I can't take the one home at the company where I know work) so I bought another one for at home (Poster boy for canon?). I really wanted the print longevity from the Epson 2200, and thought about waiting for the i9910. But it boiled down to budget and having alot of print's I needed to print. So I went with what I knew. Canon is supposed to have a 30 year print life

but like andy said, if I need archival life I can either have it printed somewhere or I can always do a reprint (I will always have the file).

I thought the title of this thread looked familiar when I saw it.

Charlie Gast · April 15, 2005

For longevity info Livicks website is very interesting. He cuts Epsons and others claims in half or worse. His estimates are a good balance for the manufacturers rather optimistic estimates. I weigh in both.
I have some of the black and whites taken by my grandmother as a child. I want at least some of the prints I make to be around as long. Of course I have already taken the files from cd to dvd. I suppose before I croak there will be afordable print technology giving color 100's of years longevity. That way my grandkids will have lots of pictures their grandfather took to look at (or be annoyed with as they throw them in the recycling bin)

What printer to buy?

Comments