will u help me with printer decision?

[daphz]

umm... that's kind of like saying that if the photo didn't turn out good, it must definitely be the camera's fault. :think:

:bsmilie: if a photo didn't turn out good, maybe camera's fault, maybe photographer no good....but there were about 10 printouts, how can it all be equally blur? Same photographer, same lousy handling? hahahaha!

Besides, I would expect them to take the photos with a canon camera - cross-selling perhaps?

 

[daphz]

It's courts that made those prints, not canon sales people. If they made similar prints on Epson, the results might be similar.

does it matter who makes the prints? since I'm not a canon sales person, when I use the printer without the magical canon hands, it means I will also produce bad prints? :thumbsd:

 

[mpenza]

does it matter who makes the prints? since I'm not a canon sales person, when I use the printer without the magical canon hands, it means I will also produce bad prints? :thumbsd:

It does matter. For one, the person might be printing low resolution pictures that are blur to begin with or use an inappropriate paper/setting. The printer can't turn a blur source into a sharp print. It depends on which level you are comparing yourself with. If you're a competent user, you'll know what makes a good print. The same can't be said for all sales people who have to handle many different products from different manufacturers, sometimes without proper training. Did you see the same source being printed on other printers by the same sales person to make a proper comparison?

A Canon 1D Mk II or Nikon D2H in lousy hands would produce lousy pictures or you may get a sales person trying frantically to turn on the LCD to focus. Or looking down on a pro camera because of lack of built-in flash.

btw, I've used several inkjets from Epson (Epson Stylus Color, Epson 950) and Canon (S9000) since they first came out and I was able to get sharp prints from the very first one oned. Any bad prints is more likely the user than the printer.

 

[daphz]

It does matter. For one, the person might be printing low resolution pictures that are blur to begin with or use an inappropriate paper/setting. The printer can't turn a blur source into a sharp print. It depends on which level you are comparing yourself with. If you're a competent user, you'll know what makes a good print. The same can't be said for all sales people who have to handle many different products. Did you see the same source being printed on other printers by the same sales person to make a proper comparison?

A Canon 1D Mk II or Nikon D2H in lousy hands would produce lousy pictures or you may get someone trying frantically trying to turn on the LCD to focus.

btw, I've used inkjets from Epson and Canon since they first came out and I was able to get sharp prints from the very first one oned. Any bad prints is more likely the user than the printer.

It's like so difficult to express to you guys the terrible prints I saw... it's like no one, not even a beginner, can mistake those prints as good output. Firstly it was dark (camera problem? maybe), secondly it was like 'smudged' - as though a thin layer of moisture was allows to settle on it. It's totally different from camera blur.

Actually I wonder if anyone here owns that canon photo printer. Perhaps he/she would be able to tell us if the output is any good.

 

[jbma]

I have been using HP, Canon and Epson. And right now I am sticking to Epson.

 

[loudhailer]

My current HP printer is spoilt - intend to buy a new one that can print photo occasionally, can print A4, and B/W documents. This HP is my 2nd printer. My first was an Epson (colour stylus 200!), bought in 1997! That epson was always cleaning printhead or something, made alot of noise, and basically gave me problems. My HP has been great until it's recent heart attack.

I cannot decide between HP and Epson. HP ink is so so expensive, and I think it is risky to buy fake ink. :dunno: How would u guys decide? My budget for the printer is less than $200.

ps/ although I love canon, I hate their printers!

get the epson durabrite...it uses pigment ink.

 

[zekai]

Btw, Epson and HP.... No fight... def Epson.

I hate Canon Printer whatever other people say.....

 

[daphz]

such an overwhelming support for Epson. wow.

anyone have anything to say against HP?

 

[AJ23]

anyone have anything to say against HP?

Good quality output, but expensive (of the 3) ink cartridges and no individual colour ink cartridges.

 

[mpenza]

It's like so difficult to express to you guys the terrible prints I saw... it's like no one, not even a beginner, can mistake those prints as good output. Firstly it was dark (camera problem? maybe), secondly it was like 'smudged' - as though a thin layer of moisture was allows to settle on it. It's totally different from camera blur.

Actually I wonder if anyone here owns that canon photo printer. Perhaps he/she would be able to tell us if the output is any good.

no one said that you mistake good prints for bad. from what you descrbed, it sounds like a setting problem (e.g. paper used was plain paper but the printer setting was set to using glossy paper) that probably arises due to inexperience of the person doing the print.

maybe you'll want to say which model too?

 

[Java_Guru]

Watcher,

where u getting the Ilford at $18? I want to buy a few boxes. Savings at least pay for my parking.

Rgds.

Epson R210
Ilford Gallerie paper A4 Premium glossy 20 for $18
Used it for around 6 months; no clog so far, even after I had turned it off for > 1 month

 

[AJ23]

where u getting the Ilford at $18? I want to buy a few boxes. Savings at least pay for my parking.

You can get them at Chamoxa @ Funan or Ruby.

 

[Watcher]

Watcher,

where u getting the Ilford at $18? I want to buy a few boxes. Savings at least pay for my parking.

Rgds.

Try Chamoxa, Funan. The last time I got it around that price. May have run out of stock. You can also try Ruby.

 

[zekai]

such an overwhelming support for Epson. wow.

anyone have anything to say against HP?

Daph i work in HP b4.... testing printer. nah HP printer does not cut it....

 

[Watcher]

Good quality output, but expensive (of the 3) ink cartridges and no individual colour ink cartridges.

:thumbsup: Agree. HP puts the print head on the carts... That makes them very expensive. To be honest, with the difference in price, you can use 1-1.5 years on the R210 get a new one after that time and it will still be cheaper than if you use the HP.

 

[HeWolf]

It's like so difficult to express to you guys the terrible prints I saw... it's like no one, not even a beginner, can mistake those prints as good output. Firstly it was dark (camera problem? maybe), secondly it was like 'smudged' - as though a thin layer of moisture was allows to settle on it. It's totally different from camera blur.

Actually I wonder if anyone here owns that canon photo printer. Perhaps he/she would be able to tell us if the output is any good.

I know what you mean by 'smudged'.

It happend to my Canon S820, ONLY when I tried out the 4R size Sepom paper. The ink just didn't 'eats' into the paper.

(now I have a pack of Sepom 4R paper to give away, who wants? self collect from punggol)

When used with canon paper (esp PPP) and canon ink, the result is excellent.


I suggest, you bring few pic of your own (of good quality, sharpest, and adequate resolution - megapixel), and test them out at Canon showroom (at Funan if I'm not wrong). See for yourself the result before you dismiss the brand.

 

[daphz]

Daph i work in HP b4.... testing printer. nah HP printer does not cut it....

does not cut it? U mean quality-wise, epson is better?

 

[daphz]

:thumbsup: Agree. HP puts the print head on the carts... That makes them very expensive. To be honest, with the difference in price, you can use 1-1.5 years on the R210 get a new one after that time and it will still be cheaper than if you use the HP.

printhead on cartridge: Isn't that better? with other brands, do u feel as though ur printhead worsens as time goes by? so if HP puts new printhead with each new ink cartridge, feels like a new printer each time! ;p

 

[Watcher]

printhead on cartridge: Isn't that better? with other brands, do u feel as though ur printhead worsens as time goes by? so if HP puts new printhead with each new ink cartridge, feels like a new printer each time! ;p

Yes and no. You're right that it is better in some ways. But you have to literally pay for it. Even when you don't need it.

For a low end printer like R210 with 1-1.5 year warranty (Epson give extra for registration of your printer online), it makes no sense as the difference in the cost in the inks will more than make up for a brand new printer when the printer dies.

 

[CIO]

I have done a lot of photo printing myself and I also send my photo to studio to print (only large format). I have used all three brands and now I use mostly Epson. I used a Canon printer long time ago (forgot the model) and it gave me very bad experience and since then I've never owned another Canon printer. To be fair to Canon, their recent printers can print out very good picture if you use Canon paper (especially PPP). I believe the bad print is due to the use of wrong paper that ink does not settle properly on the paper surface. Sad to say some shop owners don't know how to use a printer properly. I do have a HP small portable printer, the quality is very good (espeically when use its Prem Photo paper). But the ink is dame expensive. As someone has pointed out that it is due to the fact that the printhead is included. I agree with Watcher that you'll save enough for 1-1.5 years on ink costs to cover your capital cost of a low end Epson printer. I do won a R210 and it produce very good results and is relatively quite (someone pointed out Epson printers are noisy and I totally agree) compare with other Epson printer. I also have a Epson 1290 (for A3+ printouts) and I use Ilford Smooth Pearl and Glossy paper. The result is excellent.

One thing you have to consider is the fading of the photo. All the printer discussed here are dye base printer. Some of them (I said some) produce prints that can only last few months (I have seen many such prints and it is usually due to the use of wrong printer with low quality paper). Dye base printers produce better colour than pigment ink but the picture does not last as long as pigment ink. Recently both HP and Canon claimed that their dye base printer can produce long lasting prints but that only apply to their high end large format new models. If you want to keep your photo for many many years (rather than months), you have to use pigment ink. (Many of the pictures I printed with my 1290 and Ilford paper does not experience fading after 3 years. Yes, I got my 1290 3 years ago) Today, only Epson has A4 size printer that use pigment ink. The costs of consumables for Epson is in between Canon and HP (you know which one is the most expensive).