canon i960 or EpsonR300 - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

05/02/2004 11:16:47 AM · #1

a friend of mine is looking into printers.

curious if anyone has any helpful feedback about either one of these printers.

canon i960 or EpsonR300

i read an article about the canon i960 saying it was very fast at high quality - and produced well ( pcphoto current issue )

thanks.
tim

Zal

Nikon D200

05/02/2004 11:32:44 AM · #2

I have an i960 and it is phenomonal. Very fast, and print quality exceeds what you get from a lab (assuming you use decent paper--I use Canon Photo Paper Pro). The only downside to the Canon is that the prints are not archival. Epson's pigment inks are much better in this regard than Canon's dye-based inks. But, as long as you aren't planning to commercially sell prints from the Canon, I think it is the way to go.

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

05/02/2004 11:42:27 AM · #3

good to know - thanks.

i have an epson and am quite happy with it
didnt know about the ink quality

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

05/02/2004 11:48:09 AM · #4

I selected Canon over Epson because the print cartridges on Epson cannot be easily refilled. My limited budget prohibits buying new cartridges at the exorbitant prices Epson charges.
The Canon cartridges are easily refilled with after market inks (still dye-based) that are about 5% of cost of new cartridges.
Print quality is superb, but life of the prints is diminished by the dye-based inks.

05/02/2004 11:50:46 AM · #5

the epsons have no print head to wear out - that is why i bought epson.

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

05/02/2004 11:51:53 AM · #6

also the inks tend to run out evenly - so replacing the whole cartridge is convenient.

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

05/02/2004 11:55:58 AM · #7

Originally posted by soup:

the epsons have no print head to wear out - that is why i bought epson.

text

I have printed thousands of photos with no discernible wear of the ceramic print heads. Quality is just as good now as when I bought the printer two years ago.

fsteddy

05/02/2004 12:11:00 PM · #8

The Epson R800 does a better job than anything I have seen by any other printer on the market. As far as ink prices go, check out this site for good prices. //www.atlex.com

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/02/2004 12:11:11 PM · #9

knock on wood...

Originally posted by ElGordo:

I have printed thousands of photos with no discernible wear of the ceramic print heads. Quality is just as good now as when I bought the printer two years ago.

Message edited by author 2004-05-02 12:12:01.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

05/02/2004 12:50:50 PM · #10

I picked up the i960 to make quick 5x7 prints for people. If someone wants longterm work to keep then I either print it with DPCPrints or locally. The quality of the i960 is unquestionable up to 8x10's. The biggest problem with this printer is the lack of archival quality output. It's fast; doesn't use too much ink and produces gorgeous prints. If the darned things lasted longer than 10-15 years it would be the perfect answer for printing glossies. The Epsons are supposed to surpass the i960 and i9900 in printing matte output as well as in archival quality. I am considering investing in an Epson for commercial printing and keep the Canon for personal photos to take to the office and for models' portfolios (I give them the finished version on CD so they could print it 10 years from now if they wanted but honestly they should be updating their books more often than that).

Kev

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/02/2004 12:51:28 PM · #11

I have the older Canon s900, which has been fantastic for me. Most of the Epson and HP printers I've used tended to clog up and get streaky. Once it gets really clogged, an Epson printer becomes an expensive paperweight, but the Canon's printhead is replaceable- not that I've ever needed to.

True, it's not archival, so the prints 'only' last 25 years. For anything I really care about I send out to PhotoAccess, which will provide an even bettter quality archival print on true photo paper for less than the cost of an inkjet print anyway (Shutterfly and DPCPrints are similar online services, others are generally inferior).