| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/06/2004 09:17:57 PM · #1 |
Curious as to what people have and how they like it? I'm looking to spend no more than about 400-500 dollars. Also, do the photo printers double as normal printers also? or is it strictly photos...
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 09:25:14 PM · #2 |
You should consider that you can get 4x6 digital prints at a local drugstore for under $.40/piece. That's about 1200 photos for the cost of the printer alone. Photo paper for printers that do the 4x6 print size are $.30/sheet from what I've priced.
Getting prints from the drugstore also allows you to get larger prints without compromising price/resolution in larger photo printers.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 09:32:31 PM · #3 |
wwwavenger has a good point, although dedicated services like PhotoAccess, DPCPrints and Shutterfly will give you MUCH better quality than a drugstore for the same price or less. Most such services offer your first 10 prints for free, so it's worth the nominal cost of shipping to try 'em out.
If you still want a photo printer for instant gratification, I would highly recommend the Canon i9900 or Epson R800. They are the current kings of photo quality. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 09:49:24 PM · #4 |
| If you have a Costco in your area, that's the way to go. A 4x6 is $0.17 and an 11x14 is only $2.99. I have the Hp photosmart 7760 and have been very happy with it for printing things on my own. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 09:53:45 PM · #5 |
I've got the Epson R300, which I really like. I believe these are about $175.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 10:36:45 AM · #6 |
Personally, I have a Canon i550 and it works great for 4x6 and 5x7 shots. I have printed out a few 8 1/2 x 11's but those weren't on glossy paper, they were on 'Matte Photo' paper, which to me hides a little of the 'mistakes' such a printer can make. If you look up close to my big prints, it's not to hard to tell they were off an inkjet.
HP makes a number of great photo-printers that double as regular printers. Canon also has a new 'Prosumer' level printer that has something like 7 Individual ink tanks, over the long run, that could/should save you money over single tank multiple color cartridges that HP makes.
My Canon i550 also uses 4 seperate ink tanks. So far, I have replaced every tank, save the Yellow tank, over the past year, at least three times, with the yellow tank being replaced only twice. I don't print everyday, all the time.
Your mileage may vary. |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 09:33:54 AM · #7 |
I have a Canon i950 which I use to print my A4 and 8x10 pictures. I use Canon Photo Paper Pro, which although I've heard reports of fading but I have yet to encounter any problems with it. For 4x6 pictures, which I also sometimes hand out to people, I use a Canon CP-200.
:)atwl
|
|
|
|
07/08/2004 12:30:17 PM · #8 |
| if i had 500 dolalr today to spend on a printer, i would absolutely without a doubt, without a trace of hesitation get the "canon i9900"...absolutely lovely printer. and i wouldnt go anything other than canon myself anyway when it comes to printers. i9100 would be a nice alternative or s9000(discontinued) if you still can find it... |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 12:31:05 PM · #9 |
| by the way i have canon s820 currently and i absolutely loved it. not one problem since a year and a half when i bought it.. |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 12:35:49 PM · #10 |
FWIW- The Canon i9900 Photo inkjet printer costs $426 with free shipping at newegg.com (don't forget to add a USB 2.0 or Firewire cable).
Message edited by author 2004-07-08 12:36:20. |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 12:39:38 PM · #11 |
| I have the Canon i960 and absolutely love it. Although it can only print up to 8.5 x 11, that's ok with me. The ink cartridges are about US $12.00 each and seem to last quite a while. |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 12:43:28 PM · #12 |
I have an R800. Great printer - there are some reviews in the forums.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2004 12:44:39 PM · #13 |
| photo printers will double as a normal printer and they are pretty damn fast too.. canon i9900 will print 13 by 19 borderless images in about 5 minutes, 8,5 by 11 borderless in about a minute and 4 by6 borderles photos in about 30 seconds. one of the fastest printers. it can print up to 13 by 19 if you chose to. it is quality is top notch and may be unmatched. nice and sleek design in my opinion. i9100 is pretty much the same printer with less nozzles(slightly slower) and it will print 13 by 19 but it wont print borderless 13 by 19.. it still will print borderless 8, 5 by 11s though. i think you can find i9100 for about 300 bucks. i9100 uses 6 ink cartdiges and i9900 uses 8 for superiro color reproduction. it cna rival thousands of dolalrs worth dyesub printers in color quality and reproduction...hope it helps |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 12:47:05 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Lafaminit:
The ink cartridges are about US $12.00 each and seem to last quite a while. |
BTW- the best way to shop for these BCI-6 ink cartridges is to check dealcoupon.com for a discount at Staples, OfficeDepot, etc. and buy several at once. You can get them down to $8-10 this way depending on the available discounts. |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 01:45:16 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Lafaminit:
I have the Canon i960 and absolutely love it. Although it can only print up to 8.5 x 11, that's ok with me. The ink cartridges are about US $12.00 each and seem to last quite a while. |
Maybe they improved ink usage between my s900 and your i960 but I've always thought the ink tanks were incredibly small. Not to mention the ink guzzling it does when you clean the nozzles. I'm quite pleased with the speed and quality of the images but the ink really drives me nuts. If it isn't running out it's shifting colors.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2004 01:54:13 PM · #16 |
I test inkjet printers for a living, and when I make recommendations, I always offer these observations:
- Epsons offer superior color quality to Canon and HP. Canons, in particular, create a reddish cast on their prints. That cast is more noticable on prints with certain colors, but it's always there.
- Canon prints will begin to fade after a few months if you don't frame them. Epson prints will not - plus, some Epson inks are water resistant. Put a few drops on your Canon prints and they will run almost immediately.
- Canon printers are usually speedier than Epsons, so if you want prints fast, they are the way to go.
- Epson inks tend to be more expensive than Canon inks.
- The Canon i9900 is a wonderful printer, but as with all Canon prints, you need to frame them or otherwise protect them carefully, or they will fade.
That said, for an inexpensive photo printer, I'd opt for the R300. In the more expensive category, I'd splurge on either an R800 or i9900. HP's photo printers are a joke - shoddy construction, poor print quality, and ink cartridge schemes desinged to maximize profits, not image quality.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2004 02:31:27 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by dunces:
- Epsons offer superior color quality to Canon and HP. Canons, in particular, create a reddish cast on their prints. That cast is more noticable on prints with certain colors, but it's always there.
- Canon prints will begin to fade after a few months if you don't frame them. Epson prints will not - plus, some Epson inks are water resistant. Put a few drops on your Canon prints and they will run almost immediately.
|
Can't say as I've personally noticed the color cast you mention nor the fading. Fading seems to only affect some people in certain areas. Although I do believe that the lifespan of a Canon print is greatly shorter than that of the Epson.
The bit about the Canon prints running almost immediately is misleading from my experience. The majority of the printing I do with the s900 is making beer labels. I print on coated paper for inkjet printing. The ink virtually never runs. Putting them in the fridge and allowing them build up condensation - no running. Shoving them in a bucket of ice and then pulling them out to build up condensation - no running. In fact I've been tempted to reuse labels made with the s900 after soaking them off in warm water because they still look good. The paper getting warped is the only reason I don't. Now if you use plain paper running may be a problem as it's very porous. I wasn't sure about photo paper as I can't remember the last time I dunked a photo in water but I just did an experiment. I took an old print that I made last October (no sign of fading and it hasn't been framed) and ran it under the sink for 1 minute under luke warm water. No running. So while I think in certain circumstances the statement about running may apply as a blanket statement I believe it is wrong.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2004 08:25:09 PM · #18 |
I'm using a Canon S9000. Really like the six seperate ink tanks, and the print quality has been great for me. Up to 8 1/2 by 11 borderless and 13 by 19 with border.
Mark
|
|
|
|
07/08/2004 08:39:27 PM · #19 |
| Dunces... FWIW, your test results conflict with my experience. I've never noticed a color cast on the Canon output either. Perhaps it's related to the paper, software settings or specific to later models, but output from my s900 shows no significant cast compared to "real" PhotoAccess prints. I have NEVER seen Canon prints run, and I've soaked plenty of them. Epson prints probably DO resist fading longer, but that's a relative term. Current Canon prints will 'only' last a couple of decades vs. 50 years or so for a pigment-based Epson print. None of my Canon prints appear faded after several years (a serious problem with HP printers and older Epson models). |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 11:32:03 AM EDT.
