Review: Epson Photo R800 - DPChallenge Forums

06/28/2004 07:48:11 PM · #1

I received my new printer, the Epson Photo R800, about a week ago, so thought I would give it a quick review here. I was using an Epson Photo 915, so at times will compare to that. I had been waiting for this baby as it has been winning awards all over the place and got mine within days of them being released here in Australia.

It is not going to be one of those, excellent, in depth and technical reviews, just an overview. I am happy to answer questions if people have anything specific they want to ask â�¦. if I can. I am also going to do this from memory, so forgive any minor inaccuracies if there are any (though I hope there will be none) on technical specs.

What specifically was I looking for? Something that could do the best photos I could possibly manage at home, and within my budget. I also wanted print longevity and border free printing. I decided to limit size to A4 rather than pay more for an A3 printer as I very rarely print A3 and for the occasional print where I wanted to I can get it done online anyway.

Print speed was not an issue for me, the Epsons are usually slow, but the R800 turned out to be surprisingly fast, about 45 seconds for a 10cm x 15cm at full photo quality. It is also amazingly quiet, which surprised me compared to previous models I have had.

This model lacks the inbuilt card reader that some models now have so you can print direct from the camera card. This was not an issue for me at all as I had never used it in the previous model, as everything I do gets kissed by Photoshop for USM at least.

Ok, this printer is winning awards for new levels in printing quality for the home user. It is apparently the next step up from the Epson Photo 2200, but only does A4 rather than A3.

It has 8, yes 8, cartridges. These are individual cartridges, which is good news for when one runs out before the others. A full ink refill looks like it is going to be horrendously expensive, but apparently as the cartridges are larger the cost per page is about the same as other Epson models.

The inks are now Ultrachrome Hi-gloss, and seem to dry instantly as the print comes out. They are apparently good for something like 80-100 years, a big step up on the older inks.

There are the standard cyan, magenta, yellow, but Epson have dropped the second cyan/yellow (or was it magenta/yellow, I forget) in favour of bright red and bright blue, apparently for brighter images. There are then 2 blacks, photo and standard and finally something that I believe is key to the new quality of images here â�¦. A gloss optimiser. The sheen, for want of a better term, of ink coated paper compared to white areas of paper without ink differs on a standard print. The gloss optimiser is almost like a varnish in the fact it coats the white areas so that the sheen matches the other areas. It appears to be highly effective.

Printing is at a highly impressive 5760 dpi using RPM technology (yeah, I have no idea what that is either, probably the speed you can rotate the print before all the ink flies off ;) However, I can not spot the difference between this and the next level down (2800 I think) called â��best photoâ��. It is probably there under a magnifying glass, but to me is it can not be detected with the naked eye why bother (as it uses more ink and is slower) . The photos I did were all at 300 DPI, not to be confused with the printer DPI.

So, and this is highly subjective â�¦. Print quality?

Astounding, simple as that. I have always been very impressed with the prints from the Photo 915, they really were full photo quality, but this takes it a step further. There is nothing at all (to my eyes at least) in the print that gives it away as not being a full chemical print from a lab.

The colours are true, there is absolutely no banding at all, even with very close scrutiny, and the photo, using the default settings, comes out as crisp as the original.

All my prints so far have been on either Premium Glossy Photo Paper (10x15 cm cards) or Glossy Photo Paper (A4). I want to try some of the matt photo paper but have yet to find it in store anywhere.

I did have a minor issue initially with small track marks on the print, but they were only visible if you have a solid area of black (probably other dark areas as well) but could not be discerned at all unless the colour was absolutely uniform. I phoned Epson about this and had some prat tell me that you get that with printers and it was still photo quality and what did I expect for $500 â�¦ well yes, photo quality as long as you ignore the tracks! Having quickly tired of that guy, as he was not interested in the â��problemâ�� but just in being arrogant and defending the product without thought I escalated the problem with Epson. They called me back within 24 hours, I missed the call, and again the following day and I got someone helpful. He told me that it can happen with the thicker cards (yes, it had only been on the thick 10x15â��s) on areas of uniform dark colour (yes again) and that they disappear within a couple of days as the inks settle and the paper sort of bounces back from being compressed by the feeding mechanism. I went and checked the prints and sure enough, I could no longer find the track marks. Cool! (and a lesson on who should be allowed to work in their customer service department).

I did try and scan in a previously printed photo and reprint to see how well it reproduced it. However, the colours on the original once scanned were not quite the same on screen as the original, due to the scanner, so any further testing was pointless.

The printer also does CDâ��s. I have only done one thus far but was very impressed indeed with the quality. It is about the same quality as printing a photo on good quality standard paper (i.e. not photo paper) and more than good enough for a CD. Ink takes 24 hours to fully dry there, although it appeared to dry a lot quicker for me. I have read about problems with CD printing though and inks not drying, and I believe that comes down to using the right CDâ��s as some makes work better than others.

So, there you go. Overall I am absolutely delighted with this printer and it has reinforced my personal feeling that Epson still have the edge on home photo printing (although I prefer HP for non photo work). If the prints last as long as they state I will be even more delighted.

Now, to start printing all the photos I have been saving up until I got my new gadget!!!

:) :) :) :) :)

N.B. I wrote this for the Australian Digital Photo of the Day site originally, but thought I would share it here also - check them out at: //www.potd.com.au/adpotd.shtml

Message edited by author 2004-06-28 19:48:40.

06/28/2004 09:53:15 PM · #2

It is a great printer. I wrote a mini-review in this thread too.

At the time I mentioned the CDs were a bit washed out and someone suggested boosting the saturation +2. I've since tried that on a couple of CDs and the results are much better.

Still no clogging either in frequent use, or with a couple of weeks off. I do typically switch the printer off pretty much immediately after printing though so the heads are parked when not in use.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

06/28/2004 11:08:26 PM · #3

Yup, your earlier review was one of the factors that led me to getting this printer Gordon, thanks.

With the CD's, I have only printed the one, but I did what whoever it was suggested (a review from another site I found from memory) and did bump up the saturation +2 (not the max +3) straight away and got a very acceptable result.

wimbello

Canon EOS-10D

06/28/2004 11:14:31 PM · #4

Natator: What did you pay and where? (I'm in Sydney)

And what price would you expect to pay for an ~A3+ print? - From an imaging shop.

I was about to go head-long an buy the Canon i9950, but I'm trying to source it cheaper. In the meantime, saw your post and then realised the great value of having the clear "gloss" ink.

Also, in the drivers/software, can you tell it to print ONLY with basic colours? (CMYK) And leave the gloss/red/blue out of the print? (Like a "draft" print, or similar?)

Message edited by author 2004-06-28 23:15:08.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

06/29/2004 12:12:41 AM · #5

Heya Wimbello :)

I got mine from //www.scannerplace.com.au I found it about $10 cheaper somewhere else but they did not have them in stock yet.

I was going to get one from Harris Technology but their stock got delayed until early next month, and I looked around and found it considerably cheaper.

The clear gloss ink is excellent. I don't know of a review off hand between the R800 and the i9950 but have seen them mentioned together. I'll post you the really mega in depth review on the R800 when I get home tonight. It was about 10 pages long and more depth than I needed. They gave it a wonderful write up ... but were also considering how you might use it, price was a factor etc. It might mean it came out higher when all that is considered than the i9950 ... but ignoring price etc the 19950 may be better, I do not recall the details off hand.

It has low quality print settings and in advanced mode you can do quite a lot of corrections if you want. I have no idea if you can specifically turn off the red/blue (and don't understand enough myself to know why someone ever would, though there may well be a very good reason).

I was disappointed in Epson as there was no printed manual, just a copy on CD. I also found it online, I'll see if I can find the link for you and it might help answer than for you.

Message edited by author 2004-06-29 00:56:07.

wimbello

Canon EOS-10D

06/29/2004 12:40:44 AM · #6

Originally posted by Natator:

It has low quality print settings and in advanced mode you can do quite a lot of corrections if you want. I have no idea if you can specifically turn off the red/blue (and don't understand enough myself to know why someone ever would, though there may well be a very good reason).

I was more thinking plain paper with the gloss optimiser on it. i see no point on plain paper.

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/29/2004 12:54:33 AM · #7

Another thing the gloss optimizer does is make the blacks look black when held at certain angles to the light. For example, take a print from any other ink jet printer. When you move it at different angles to the light the black should look shinny and sort of redish color. The gloss optimizer helps eliminate alot of that. Check it out some time.

I have had my R800 since March and I am really enjoying it. Sometimes it almost has too much detail a shows any imperfections in the image. Or like if you over sharpen, it is really obvious on the print. But that is just silly to complain about, after all it keeps you honest about how much you try to manipulate an image in Photoshop.

Is is a great little printer, I really enjoy having mine.

06/29/2004 12:57:49 AM · #8

Oh, I didn't know that G4Ds, but know exactly what you mean about different angles on black.

06/29/2004 05:54:59 AM · #9

Here is the VERY in depth review I mentioned:

//www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R800/page_1.htm

Here is the online manual, which might answer those questions on the inks Wimbello.

06/29/2004 11:02:12 AM · #10

Originally posted by wimbello:

Originally posted by Natator:
It has low quality print settings and in advanced mode you can do quite a lot of corrections if you want. I have no idea if you can specifically turn off the red/blue (and don't understand enough myself to know why someone ever would, though there may well be a very good reason).

I was more thinking plain paper with the gloss optimiser on it. i see no point on plain paper.

Yes the gloss optmiser is controllable on a print by print basis (on, off and 'only over bits that were printed')

The gloss is noticeable when placed over white areas- i.e., you can see the boundary between 'printed' white space and the border (if you don't print borderless) the option to just use gloss on printed areas avoids this (though you may want it)

06/29/2004 11:08:14 AM · #11

Originally posted by wimbello:

And what price would you expect to pay for an ~A3+ print? - From an imaging shop.

One of the reasons I got the R800 over the Epson 2200 is the size of the printer. The R800 is pretty small (though I guess big for an A4 printer) but in comparision an A3 printer is _huge_ Not sure about the Canon one you mentioned, but the epson one would take over a large chunk of desk real estate - probably needing its own table, depending on your arrangement - particularly when you consider the paper feed path. It would be worth trying to see one in person if you haven't yet.

For my own particular needs, A3 isn't very interesting - I often print things at the 8x10 size and I often print images at 16x20 or larger, but not a whole lot in that middle ground. The bigger printer wasn't big enough, and I certainly wasn't going to get an Epson 4000 or equivalent to do really big prints. I pay around $25 USD for a 16x24 print from a good lab. I could get them roughly half of that price with reasonable quality. I'm not sure what the equivalent Australian prices are though.

Also, the R800 has better ink options than the Epson 2200 - in particular decent support for gloss prints which I understand the 2200 does not do very well.

CD printing is kinda cool too. Not a make or break feature but gives a professional touch compared to stick on labels.

ButterflySis

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/29/2004 10:47:11 PM · #12

Simon: Thanks for posting this review. It couldn't come at a better time. I've been spending the last few days looking at the 1280 and the 2200. Didn't really consider the R800 until now.

ButterflySis

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/29/2004 10:47:45 PM · #13

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by wimbello:

And what price would you expect to pay for an ~A3+ print? - From an imaging shop.

One of the reasons I got the R800 over the Epson 2200 is the size of the printer. The R800 is pretty small (though I guess big for an A4 printer) but in comparision an A3 printer is _huge_ Not sure about the Canon one you mentioned, but the epson one would take over a large chunk of desk real estate - probably needing its own table, depending on your arrangement - particularly when you consider the paper feed path. It would be worth trying to see one in person if you haven't yet.

For my own particular needs, A3 isn't very interesting - I often print things at the 8x10 size and I often print images at 16x20 or larger, but not a whole lot in that middle ground. The bigger printer wasn't big enough, and I certainly wasn't going to get an Epson 4000 or equivalent to do really big prints. I pay around $25 USD for a 16x24 print from a good lab. I could get them roughly half of that price with reasonable quality. I'm not sure what the equivalent Australian prices are though.

Also, the R800 has better ink options than the Epson 2200 - in particular decent support for gloss prints which I understand the 2200 does not do very well.

CD printing is kinda cool too. Not a make or break feature but gives a professional touch compared to stick on labels.

Gordon: Thanks for the the comparisons you listed. Are there any other major differences? Wondering why the R800 is so much better when the 2200 is $300 more. Just curious. I hope to be buying a semi-professional printer soon.

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/30/2004 10:47:26 AM · #14

The 2200 is more because it is a larger format printer.

06/30/2004 11:43:02 AM · #15

R800 is a letter/A4 size printer

2200 is a larger format (I think up to 17" wide) printer.

The R800 is the latest version of the Epson ultrachrome technology. It has both matte and 'photo' black cartridges fitted at all times and can print both matte and glossy papers. The 2200 requires you to change cartridges to switch media like that and essentially doesn't do glossy very well anyway. The gloss optimiser in the R800 ultrachrome set allows you to do handle both medias in the R800. R800 also has the smallest ink droplet size of any Epson printer.

No doubt there will be a wide format 'R800-like' ultrachrome printer at some point from Epson, but right now the 2200 and the near commercial Espon 4000 are the wider format versions. The 2200 is the best option for archival large format home printed results, but the R800 is a better general purpose archival solution if you can live with prints up to A4/letter size only.

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/30/2004 04:06:23 PM · #16

The 2200 doesn't go wider than 13". It is a very nice printer though. The largest sheet size paper that can fit is the super A3.(13"x19") :)

Message edited by author 2004-06-30 16:06:58.

06/30/2004 04:23:04 PM · #17

Originally posted by G4Ds:

The 2200 doesn't go wider than 13". It is a very nice printer though. The largest sheet size paper that can fit is the super A3.(13"x19") :)

I have to confess to not understanding this - the 13" wide bit I get but I've seen this maximum length thing a couple of times in reference to the 2200 and I don't get it.

For comparision i've printed 8"x23" sheets on my R800 and an Epson 780 - isn't the 'depth' figure just as arbitarly large as you can feed in to it ?

scab-lab

Canon EOS-D60

06/30/2004 05:10:28 PM · #18

You can go up to 13 x 44 on the Epson 2200 with roll paper.

ButterflySis

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/30/2004 05:25:34 PM · #19

Originally posted by Gordon:

Thank you for explaining, Gordon.