Best photo printer???

[Dufrane]

I recently bought a 5mp digital camera and am researching a good photo printer. So far I have narrowed the choices to these two printers. Epson R300 and Canon i960. According to the specs the Epson printer has more DPI. Is that really a big consideration??? Please help.

 

[moonsite]

I don't know. But I have a Canon i850, and it prints beautiful pictures on Canon Photo Paper Pro.

 

[Dufrane]

Does anyone know what nozzle count is in the specifications for a printer?? The Epson one has 540 nozzles and the Canon has 3072 nozzles. That is quiet a difference.

 

[slackosaurus]

I just bought the Epson R200 mainly because of the CD/DVD print feature and am really happy with the print quality and overall solid feel of the printer especially considering it's an entry level model. The reviews I've read for the R300 were all positive too. I doubt very much that you'd be disappointed with the Epson.

 

[beatle]

The Fuji Frontier found at Walmart and Sam's Club is one of the best I know. Better prints than you can hope for out of a home-user printer, and cheaper per print, even when you only consider the consumables!

 

[Looney]

I have an HP Photosmart 7350 and it's great... but ink costs suck. get a Canon, ink is so much cheaper with them.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Dufrane
I recently bought a 5mp digital camera and am researching a good photo printer. So far I have narrowed the choices to these two printers. Epson R300 and Canon i960. According to the specs the Epson printer has more DPI. Is that really a big consideration??? Please help.

DPI is important, but if the ink droplet size is too big then the DPI becomes irrelevant. Canon uses 2 picoliter droplets, and AFAIK epson uses 5. We're talking about 4800x1200 machines here anyways; that's a massive DPI.

If you must have the "best", I would reccomend the Canon i9900. I own one and use it all the time for professional architectural work. I print out high-resolution renderings on 13"x19" paper and they look amazing. I paid ~$600CDN for it.

As others have said, the i850 is an excellent 8.5x11 printer. I owned an i560 and it was great. I would refill my ink and get 4x5.5 prints for less than 5 cents each. The quality easily rivaled Wal Mart quality, and even comes close to Blacks IMO.

I've been sticking with Canon as they have the cheapest inks lately. Espon isn't too bad on the ink, but their print speed is horrible. Some purists think Epson printers have the best overall output, but I'm very happy with my Canons. The Epsons have a tendancy to clog, rendering them useless.

 

[Markfw]

The best ? You should qualify, as I would say the Tektronix Phaser 780, but after Xerox bought them out, not sure the model number now (about $7000). The Phaser 850DP (that I have) is way above all the above mentioned, but is $1000 used on ebay if you are lucky. Please give a price range.....

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: slackosaurus
I just bought the Epson R200 mainly because of the CD/DVD print feature and am really happy with the print quality and overall solid feel of the printer especially considering it's an entry level model. The reviews I've read for the R300 were all positive too. I doubt very much that you'd be disappointed with the Epson.

I just got an Epson R200 too and I'm really pleased with the print quality on 4x6" photo paper.

 

[RyanM]

Oh dear. Not another one of these. *sigh*

"Does anyone know what nozzle count is in the specifications for a printer?? The Epson one has 540 nozzles and the Canon has 3072 nozzles. That is quiet a difference."

Yes, but the Canon can't fire all the nozzles as frequently. Because they and HP use a thermal inkjet process, which involves heat in the dispersion of ink, the nozzles need several rest states before being able to fire again. The Epson does not. It'd be like comparing an AMD Athlon XP to an Intel - AMD doesn't need the MHz because they get more done with what they have.

"DPI is important, but if the ink droplet size is too big then the DPI becomes irrelevant. Canon uses 2 picoliter droplets, and AFAIK epson uses 5. We're talking about 4800x1200 machines here anyways; that's a massive DPI."

The R300 uses 3 picoliter droplets. The R800 uses 1.5 picoliter droplets, and they're pigmented inks, to boot, so the actual droplet size on the paper appears smaller than a 1.5 picoliter dye droplet.

"The Epsons have a tendancy to clog, rendering them useless."

Which can be remedied by injecting deionized water through the ink deliver system. If the print head on the Canon goes (which it probably will in less than 2 years), you're SOL, buy a new printer.

If you're looking for the best output on Letter size, borderless, and smaller, get the R800. Hi-fi inks, separate ink takes, a greater variety of media support, and archival print life out of the box.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: MachFive
"The Epsons have a tendancy to clog, rendering them useless."

Which can be remedied by injecting deionized water through the ink deliver system. If the print head on the Canon goes (which it probably will in less than 2 years), you're SOL, buy a new printer.

If you're looking for the best output on Letter size, borderless, and smaller, get the R800. Hi-fi inks, separate ink takes, a greater variety of media support, and archival print life out of the box.

I have never heard of that clogging remedy. It sounds complicated. In any event, I see no reason why that wouldn't be possible on a Canon printer. On top of that, many users report over 20,000 printed pages before their Canon printer dies. Even if the heads do clog (which is very rare on a Canon printer) the print heads are user replaceable, albeit at a cost.

As for your hi-fi inks, my i9900 has 8 colors (plus black), not just 6. It also has seperate ink tanks, and they can be easily refilled. I'm pretty sure Epson puts some kind of anti-refill device in their cartridges. As for media support, I can't imagine wanting a more diverse range than what my printer provides. I can print on just about anything up to 13"x19" in size, borderless to boot. The only advantage I see with the Epsons is the archival quality, but apparently the Canons will do the same thing on Canon archival paper (this problem doesn't affect me due to the nature of my work). This advantage is outweighed by the cheaper ink offered by the Canon printers IMO.

As for the quality, it's subjective. The photos from my i9900 look like photos; I don't know what else to say. Compared to a traditional print, they look as good or better. Some say the Epsons look better, others say the Canons. I have yet to see output from another printer that can match what I have.

Honestly, for ~$50 more than the R800 you can get the i9900 which has 13"x19" support, a cheaper cost-per-page, plus it's faster.

 

[Lokan]

Which can be remedied by injecting deionized water through the ink deliver system. If the print head on the Canon goes (which it probably will in less than 2 years), you're SOL, buy a new printer.

I'm not sure about the water cleaning solution for Epson, but holy crap is your assertion about the Canon printer correct! We bought 3 of those things (various models mind you) and all three either dropped ink or had some other critical quality print issue within 8-12 months. Canon's customer service was, how shall I put this nicely... non-existant?

Eitherway, after 3 of their printers I switched to HP. Sure the ink costs more, but I had their Printer/Scanner/Copier for 2.5 years before it had an issue. I called their support line and while they said it was out of warrenty, if I would pay the shipping to them, they would clean it and do their best to fix any of the problems for no cost. Now, I had an in-store big box warrenty at the time that I exercised instead, but still, the option was there and I apprecaited it.

I'm not say get an HP or Epson, or even saying stay away from Canon. I'm just humbly relating some of my past experiences with two competing companies. I hope if you do chose Canon though, your experiences rival the above posters and not my own. Good luck!

 

[RyanM]

When I used to work at Best Buy, I was astonished at the number of people coming in with defective Canons before the first year was even up, let alone afterward. As a former Canon owner, I couldn't believe this until the day mine crapped out on me in the same method.

I've owned Epsons since, and I haven't had a problem. This "head clogging" people talk about - Don't leave the printer powered on 24/7. If you turn it off when you're done, the most you'll experience is a clogged nozzle or two every few months, and a head cleaning fixes it.

The i9900 is an awesome printer, but I just don't trust Canon's reliability. I also do NOT refill my inks, that's begging for trouble no matter what brand printer you have.

 

[Macro2]

I have 11 Canons. For good reason. They are the easiest to run, cheapest to run and have the best quality. I even refill and also have direct ink feed.

I have seveal HPs sitting in the closet. Too expensive to run and too hard to refill successfully. We tried Epsons...even direct feed and they clogged.

As far as a photo printer...Canon i960.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: MachFive
When I used to work at Best Buy, I was astonished at the number of people coming in with defective Canons before the first year was even up, let alone afterward. As a former Canon owner, I couldn't believe this until the day mine crapped out on me in the same method.

We have a Canon inkjet printer from my grandfather's 386 (I'm guessing it's 10 years old) and it still works! This is with a black ink cartridge that has been refilled again and again for years. :Q

Maybe with their newer printers their quality control got worse. That said, my parents have been using an s330 for almost 2 years now without an issue, and it is used very heavily.

My i560 has probably pumped out ~500 full-bleed 8.5x11 photo prints. If I were to calculate the money I saved on ink I would probably be able to buy a new one and still have money left over compared to what I would have spent on an Epson.

 

[Macro2]

Actually, Canons quality seems to get better with every new generation.

 

[usernamemax20charact]

Originally posted by: MachFive
Yes, but the Canon can't fire all the nozzles as frequently. Because they and HP use a thermal inkjet process, which involves heat in the dispersion of ink, the nozzles need several rest states before being able to fire again. The Epson does not. It'd be like comparing an AMD Athlon XP to an Intel - AMD doesn't need the MHz because they get more done with what they have.

From what I was told by HP, Epson, and Canon reps, it's the other way around. Epson and Canon use the thermal process while HP does not.

Another thing is that the Epson and Canon printers seem to go through this nozzle cleaning process almost everytime you want to print something. That's why they have that diaper to catch the ink as it's sprayed through the nozzles to clean/clear them. HP printers, from what I know, don't need to do this. As a result, ink is wasted during this nozzle cleaning process. And since HP printers don't have to go through the cleaning process, they also tend to have a faster 1st page out.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

In any case, I'd definitely go with the Canon i960. It's still one of the best printers out there. I have a i850 and absolutely love the quality.

You might even want to take a look at their new line of photo printers such as the iP4000.

 

[Antoneo]

Originally posted by: usernamemax20charact

Originally posted by: MachFive
Yes, but the Canon can't fire all the nozzles as frequently. Because they and HP use a thermal inkjet process, which involves heat in the dispersion of ink, the nozzles need several rest states before being able to fire again. The Epson does not. It'd be like comparing an AMD Athlon XP to an Intel - AMD doesn't need the MHz because they get more done with what they have.

From what I was told by HP, Epson, and Canon reps, it's the other way around. Epson and Canon use the thermal process while HP does not.

Another thing is that the Epson and Canon printers seem to go through this nozzle cleaning process almost everytime you want to print something. That's why they have that diaper to catch the ink as it's sprayed through the nozzles to clean/clear them. HP printers, from what I know, don't need to do this. As a result, ink is wasted during this nozzle cleaning process. And since HP printers don't have to go through the cleaning process, they also tend to have a faster 1st page out.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

In any case, I'd definitely go with the Canon i960. It's still one of the best printers out there. I have a i850 and absolutely love the quality.

You might even want to take a look at their new line of photo printers such as the iP4000.

This is incorrect. HP and Canon use basically the same technology (Canon calls theirs BubbleJet) which is thermal inkjet. Epson uses MicroPiezo to quirt the droplets out (electric charge/"pressure" causes the crystals in the head to change shape).

 

[Macro2]

RE:"HP and Canon use basically the same technology (Canon calls theirs BubbleJet) which is thermal inkjet. Epson uses MicroPiezo to quirt the droplets out (electric charge/"pressure" causes the crystals in the head to change shape)."

You are correct. That's why Epsons have inherent clogging problems.

 

[Dufrane]

Thanks everyone for all of the information. Keep it coming.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Macro2
RE:"HP and Canon use basically the same technology (Canon calls theirs BubbleJet) which is thermal inkjet. Epson uses MicroPiezo to quirt the droplets out (electric charge/"pressure" causes the crystals in the head to change shape)."

You are correct. That's why Epsons have inherent clogging problems.

I don't get the "inherent clogging problem." Canon's and HP's need regular head cleanings too, Canon far more than HP, of course, since the print head is permanent.

Do Epson clog more than Canons and HPs? Probably. I run head cleanings on mine about once every cartridge change, but then, I print at least 14 documents a week and run through my cartridges within 2 or 3 months, so there isn't much chance to clog.

I also don't do refills, though. Refuse to. Just take a look at the fading that occurs with photos printed on refilled ink. Within a year, that photo is going to look like crap, if not sooner. Every test ever conducted by or on behalf of a computing magazine has showed that refills are inferior to manufacturer inks in almost every instance, including price.

And I know people who still own the original Epson Stylus Color. Does that mean every Epson is going to last 10 years? Bloody hell no. It's an exception to the rule. I'm happy if I get a year out of a printer and it still works so I can sell it and buy something new.

They're a reason that 4 out of 5 printers sold to professional graphic designers is Epson, though. And there's a reason why HP and Canon's marketshare has declined steadily the past few years as Epson sells more and more printers.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: slackosaurus
I just bought the Epson R200 mainly because of the CD/DVD print feature and am really happy with the print quality and overall solid feel of the printer especially considering it's an entry level model. The reviews I've read for the R300 were all positive too. I doubt very much that you'd be disappointed with the Epson.

Oh the R300 is a by the far the printer in the price range..

The r200 is basically the identical twin, just without the Card reader.

Other than the occasional heads drying out ( never had a problem ) I would get the Epson over the Canon..

 

[Zepper]

Canons print better than many other 6-color printers using only 4 colors and the cost of ownership is among the lowest over time. The i860 was $80. on outpost.com this week (there was a rebate link there but it seems to be expired - best to call outpost and check). My i450 does all I need and it only cost me about $60. shipped and I just found a source of excellent replacement carts, usainkjet on ebay (under $4. for a set of black and color in quantity). Their carts are better than most of the other 3rd party carts out there. Don't know re longevity of ink colors, but if you don't keep them exposed to direct sun or fluorescent lighting, they should last a good long time anyway.
.bh.

 

[UCDAggies2k4]

If you want a printer for ONLY photos get a dye sublimation printer. They produce much better images than inkjet printers.

 

[Dufrane]

Where can I buy such a monster????? I have never heard of it. How much does it cost???