Need a new photo printer Canon or Epson

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I am getting in to digital photography in a big way and also like using
Adobe photoshop to clean up old photos. I am looking for a good printer in
the $200 to $400 range that is also economical on ink, any suggestions?

Kenny

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I am beginning to prefer Canon's better printers to Epson: I am looking at a
stack of prints made with both just today. One reservation I have is that
there are not as many profiles for papers as for the Epson because Canon
does not make as many paper types. However the few profiles Canon provides
seem to match up well with Epson and other papers. The Canon printers are
reasonably economical with regard to ink use. However if you make alot of
prints you use alot of ink . . . If you do not need to make larger than 8.5
x 11 prints look at the Canon 960.

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Kenneth Maultsby wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback.
> "bmoag" <aetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2FTwc.6702$Hr6.2724@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>I am beginning to prefer Canon's better printers to Epson: I am looking at
>
> a
>
>>stack of prints made with both just today. One reservation I have is that
>>there are not as many profiles for papers as for the Epson because Canon
>>does not make as many paper types. However the few profiles Canon provides
>>seem to match up well with Epson and other papers. The Canon printers are
>>reasonably economical with regard to ink use. However if you make alot of
>>prints you use alot of ink . . . If you do not need to make larger than
>
> 8.5
>
>>x 11 prints look at the Canon 960.
>>
>>
>
>
>

KENNETH MAULTSBY wrote:

> I am getting in to digital photography in a big way and also like using
> Adobe photoshop to clean up old photos. I am looking for a good
printer in
> the $200 to $400 range that is also economical on ink, any suggestions?
>
> Kenny
>
>
In a few words I personally conclude: The R800 produces photos and the
Canon makes a print.

The Epson R800 is hands down superior over Canon 960.
Let see?
Pixel size: Epson world's 1st smallest 1.5 / Canon 2.0 picoliters

Individual Ink Colors: Epson has 8 including a matt black ink along w/
the Photo black and a unique gloss optimizer cartridge to cover the
print. Canon only has 6.

Resolution: Epson has 5760x1440 and Cano has 4800x1200

Inks: Epson uses a Ultra-Chrome Hi-Gloss "PIGMENT INK" for archival
quality lasting up to 100 years. Water proof. Canon has the regular "DYE
PIGMENT" that fade in a matter of years. Keep away from direct light or
they are gone in less than a week. Not at all water proof. You can dunk
a R800 photo under water! I have wiped R800 photos off w/ a wet cloth to
clean from improper handling.

ICC printer profiles: Epson has numerous options, the Canon is very limited

***Be aware that Canon dye based inks do not last like the pigmented
inks on Epsons.***
Canon has tried and has "some" models that use a light-fast in that
makes claims of 25 year print life.

Bottom line you can't fairly compare a $200 I960 Canon to a $400 R800
Epson. But they since the 960 was recommended and the R800 is in your
budjet range it is only fair.

I want my pictures to be handed down from generations I like to think
they will last over my lifetime. I don't want to be afraid a water
spilled on a print and quite frankly I think the color range on the R800
is superior to ANY home inkjet out there now.

If you want serious photo printer under $400 than you can't beat the
R800. The rest can't compare especially if you want to see that photo
when you older and retired.