| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/09/2013 11:49:23 AM · #1 |
Since I didn't see this posted before Canon Pixma - $90 (after rebates)
Reading the reviews of the printer it looks like a great deal!
Also being offered at Adorama and Amazon, B&H looks like the best price with free shipping.
ETA: $90 includes - 13 x 19" photo paper (50 Sheets)
Message edited by author 2013-05-09 12:43:07. |
|
|
|
05/09/2013 11:57:28 AM · #2 |
Looks like a good deal if they don't play games with the rebate as many have done.
However, I've always wondered about why people choose to print themselves when lab work is pretty inexpensive and gives you a true photographic print. Is it just convenience, control, or are ink-jet prints somehow considered better for fine-art by some? |
|
|
|
05/09/2013 12:39:57 PM · #3 |
Rebate is offered by Canon, so I am hoping it will be reliable, even though its not a Nikon ;)
Don't know if Canon has played games in the past with rebates?
I have never had a printer at home, but I believe it will be more convenient for single prints. Online cost + shipping turns out to be quite expensive for those occasional prints. |
|
|
|
05/09/2013 03:12:50 PM · #4 |
I've been waiting for something like this for a long time!
Thanks for posting!
|
|
|
|
05/09/2013 03:48:13 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by vikas:
Rebate is offered by Canon, so I am hoping it will be reliable, even though its not a Nikon ;)
Don't know if Canon has played games in the past with rebates?
I have never had a printer at home, but I believe it will be more convenient for single prints. Online cost + shipping turns out to be quite expensive for those occasional prints. |
I was just speaking of rebates in general. I tend to ignore them now after being burned a few times and reading about others (but not by Canon or Nikon).
WHCC doesn't charge for 2-day UPS shipping to your "studio" address as long as the order is $12.00 or more.
A 12x18 print costs $6.30, and 8x10's are $2.20 (those are Lustre...metallic is just a bit more). With the cost of ink and paper, seems to me that's competitive with maintaining your own printer. Though it's not as convenient of course!
Just saying...(maybe I'm tainted by my experience with a large format Epson (1200?) printer which cost $500 and lasted about three years...then it would always clog and waste a ton of ink cleaning it. My experiences with Canon printers have been much better, at least in terms of clogging!)
Message edited by author 2013-05-09 15:49:55. |
|
|
|
05/09/2013 09:57:34 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Originally posted by vikas:
Rebate is offered by Canon, so I am hoping it will be reliable, even though its not a Nikon ;)
Don't know if Canon has played games in the past with rebates?
I have never had a printer at home, but I believe it will be more convenient for single prints. Online cost + shipping turns out to be quite expensive for those occasional prints. |
I was just speaking of rebates in general. I tend to ignore them now after being burned a few times and reading about others (but not by Canon or Nikon).
WHCC doesn't charge for 2-day UPS shipping to your "studio" address as long as the order is $12.00 or more.
A 12x18 print costs $6.30, and 8x10's are $2.20 (those are Lustre...metallic is just a bit more). With the cost of ink and paper, seems to me that's competitive with maintaining your own printer. Though it's not as convenient of course!
Just saying...(maybe I'm tainted by my experience with a large format Epson (1200?) printer which cost $500 and lasted about three years...then it would always clog and waste a ton of ink cleaning it. My experiences with Canon printers have been much better, at least in terms of clogging!) |
You're right about WHCC.. Maybe time to rethink this one.. |
|
|
|
05/13/2013 06:44:28 PM · #7 |
I just got the printer and its huge and heavy, should have read the description properly.
I am going to return it without opening the box!
waste of $31 return shipping cost :(
|
|
|
|
05/13/2013 07:15:50 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Looks like a good deal if they don't play games with the rebate as many have done.
However, I've always wondered about why people choose to print themselves when lab work is pretty inexpensive and gives you a true photographic print. Is it just convenience, control, or are ink-jet prints somehow considered better for fine-art by some? |
for me, it's control, Neil. Still, I swore at the Epson 1280 printer and gave it away, and swear by my trusty Canon printers. (One (the 9500 and only original ink) is reserved just for art work, and the other a 1650, for ephemera like newsletters and uses cheep, cheep ink. |
|
|
|
05/13/2013 11:53:07 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by Neil:
Looks like a good deal if they don't play games with the rebate as many have done.
However, I've always wondered about why people choose to print themselves when lab work is pretty inexpensive and gives you a true photographic print. Is it just convenience, control, or are ink-jet prints somehow considered better for fine-art by some? |
for me, it's control, Neil. Still, I swore at the Epson 1280 printer and gave it away, and swear by my trusty Canon printers. (One (the 9500 and only original ink) is reserved just for art work, and the other a 1650, for ephemera like newsletters and uses cheep, cheep ink. |
I know ink jets can produce nice prints...and they are used in fine art--but do you think you get a print as good as one from a pro printer, which looks just like a wet process print (which it may in fact be)?
I got pretty good prints from my Canon, but I don't think I'd ever mistake them for a "real" photographic print. |
|
|
|
05/15/2013 10:37:01 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by Neil:
Looks like a good deal if they don't play games with the rebate as many have done.
However, I've always wondered about why people choose to print themselves when lab work is pretty inexpensive and gives you a true photographic print. Is it just convenience, control, or are ink-jet prints somehow considered better for fine-art by some? |
for me, it's control, Neil. Still, I swore at the Epson 1280 printer and gave it away, and swear by my trusty Canon printers. (One (the 9500 and only original ink) is reserved just for art work, and the other a 1650, for ephemera like newsletters and uses cheep, cheep ink. |
I know ink jets can produce nice prints...and they are used in fine art--but do you think you get a print as good as one from a pro printer, which looks just like a wet process print (which it may in fact be)?
I got pretty good prints from my Canon, but I don't think I'd ever mistake them for a "real" photographic print. |
Ah, Neil, it may be that's the difference. After painting with watercolors for a number of years, I've come to prefer the matte finish and softness I can get with the Ink Jet and can experiment with a variety of papers for each image.
We had a darkroom downstairs for many years, and that tack-sharp, glorious depth is wonderful; just not what I want in my present-day art.
So, as always I suppose, it comes down to preference. |
|
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: 09/08/2025 12:20:58 PM EDT.
