Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why are low dpi printers more expensive?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
August 8, 2004 4:24:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I'm looking to buy a new photo printer for my Canon 10d digital
camera.

I want an Epson printer because the carts are cheap and the printers
last a long time.

Just one thing, I've seen DPI on the new and old printers and I can't
understand why the low dpi printers cost more momey.

For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100 is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
costs £240. There are other printers aswell which are like this, low
DPI more money, high DPI less money.

From what I understand, "The resolution is stated in pixels (points)
per inch. The higher resolution the finer printouts."

Why is the higher DPI printer/s cheaper than the semi professional
Photo printers? I really can't understand.

I know photo paper can only handle so many DPI before it starts to
overlap but why are the low DPI A3 printers so much more money?

I don't think A3 printers can print more DPI on A4 paper.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 4:24:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hkoah0t4hr3g5sce0hddok3lb08vda6sc1@4ax.com...
> I'm looking to buy a new photo printer for my Canon 10d digital
> camera.
>
> I want an Epson printer because the carts are cheap and the printers
> last a long time.
>
> Just one thing, I've seen DPI on the new and old printers and I can't
> understand why the low dpi printers cost more momey.
>
> For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100 is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
> around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
> costs £240. There are other printers aswell which are like this, low
> DPI more money, high DPI less money.
>
> From what I understand, "The resolution is stated in pixels (points)
> per inch. The higher resolution the finer printouts."
>
> Why is the higher DPI printer/s cheaper than the semi professional
> Photo printers? I really can't understand.
>
> I know photo paper can only handle so many DPI before it starts to
> overlap but why are the low DPI A3 printers so much more money?
>
> I don't think A3 printers can print more DPI on A4 paper.
>


Epson 2100 is a wide-format printer, R800 prints up to A4/8.5" x 11". Look
at the size of the printer first.

Mark
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 4:24:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <hkoah0t4hr3g5sce0hddok3lb08vda6sc1@4ax.com>, me@privacy.net
wrote:

> Just one thing, I've seen DPI on the new and old printers and I can't
> understand why the low dpi printers cost more momey.
>
> For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100 is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
> around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
> costs £240. There are other printers aswell which are like this, low
> DPI more money, high DPI less money.

Because it's not a black and white printer. In the black and white
world, more DPI equals more quality.

But in the color world, DPI is down the list. Other factors come into
play for quality.

I can show you some 600dpi stuff that you would swear was 2400dpi
minimum. It's all in the engineering of the system.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 4:24:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

me@privacy.net writes:

> I'm looking to buy a new photo printer for my Canon 10d digital
> camera.
>
> I want an Epson printer because the carts are cheap and the printers
> last a long time.
>
> Just one thing, I've seen DPI on the new and old printers and I can't
> understand why the low dpi printers cost more momey.
>
> For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100 is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
> around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
> costs £240. There are other printers aswell which are like this, low
> DPI more money, high DPI less money.

The important point here is that the 2100 is a wide-carriage printer,
capable of printing up to 12 inches wide. The R800 is a
narrow-carriage printer, limited to 8.5 inches wide.

Wide-carriage printers are both harder to build, and sell in smaller
quantities, so they're expensive.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
August 8, 2004 5:37:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 19:29:11 -0400, "Mark B."
<mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote:

>Epson 2100 is a wide-format printer, R800 prints up to A4/8.5" x 11". Look
>at the size of the printer first.

At the moment, I envisage to print on A4. Until I start printing and
using the printer, I don't know if I'll be using A3 or not. Is it good
having an A3 printer if the DPI on A4 prints is less??

I've just looked at the RX 600 which looks good aswell as an All in
one.

Is it worth spending the money on A3 which has lower DPI if I've got
spare cash ?

Full Specs of 2100 Maximum 2880 x 1440 dpi in black and in colour:
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/inkjet_printers/product...
Full Specs of RX600 Maximum Resolution 2400 x 4800dpi / 3pl droplets:
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/all_in_one_products/pro...
Full Specs of R800 Up to 5760* x 1440dpi optimised , 1.5pl droplets:
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/inkjet_printers/product...
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:37:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:D asah01eom9cpvhtjg3ntpd718633reqml@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 19:29:11 -0400, "Mark B."
> <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Epson 2100 is a wide-format printer, R800 prints up to A4/8.5" x 11".
Look
> >at the size of the printer first.
>
> At the moment, I envisage to print on A4. Until I start printing and
> using the printer, I don't know if I'll be using A3 or not. Is it good
> having an A3 printer if the DPI on A4 prints is less??
>
> I've just looked at the RX 600 which looks good aswell as an All in
> one.
>
> Is it worth spending the money on A3 which has lower DPI if I've got
> spare cash ?
>

I don't know why I referenced A4 in my reply; I just realized I don't know
what size that actually is. 2100 can do up to 13" wide, R800 up to 8.5"
wide. Personally, I wouldn't worry about the dpi difference. From what
I've seen with 1440 dpi on my 870, I can't imagine 2880 will be a noticeable
difference. Get the printer for the size prints you'll be doing. If you
need to do larger prints, then it's worth the money. Keep in mind the 2100
has been replaced by the 2200 which can do 2880 in one direction (1440 in
the other). Check epson.com for specs on all their printers.

Mark
August 8, 2004 5:37:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

There is a great deal of difference to a photographer in 1440 and 2880! Also
the 2100 IS the same printer as the 2200.The 2100 is the Euro version! The
2100(2200) and the R800 use "pigment inks"! The RX 600 does not! Pigment
inks have solids suspended in them,and give much loner lasting prints,on the
right papers!By the way Mark,the 2000 was the printer replaced bu the 2200!
I agree people should check Epsons website for specs instead of
"speculating" on the differences!
"Mark B." <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:y9OdnZ8n6MJyGojcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>
> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:D asah01eom9cpvhtjg3ntpd718633reqml@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 19:29:11 -0400, "Mark B."
> > <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Epson 2100 is a wide-format printer, R800 prints up to A4/8.5" x 11".
> Look
> > >at the size of the printer first.
> >
> > At the moment, I envisage to print on A4. Until I start printing and
> > using the printer, I don't know if I'll be using A3 or not. Is it good
> > having an A3 printer if the DPI on A4 prints is less??
> >
> > I've just looked at the RX 600 which looks good aswell as an All in
> > one.
> >
> > Is it worth spending the money on A3 which has lower DPI if I've got
> > spare cash ?
> >
>
> I don't know why I referenced A4 in my reply; I just realized I don't know
> what size that actually is. 2100 can do up to 13" wide, R800 up to 8.5"
> wide. Personally, I wouldn't worry about the dpi difference. From what
> I've seen with 1440 dpi on my 870, I can't imagine 2880 will be a
noticeable
> difference. Get the printer for the size prints you'll be doing. If you
> need to do larger prints, then it's worth the money. Keep in mind the
2100
> has been replaced by the 2200 which can do 2880 in one direction (1440 in
> the other). Check epson.com for specs on all their printers.
>
> Mark
>
>
August 8, 2004 5:37:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Past 1440 there is really no appreciable gain in the reviews that I have
read. You might see a very, very slight increase in smoothness in monochome
prints with 2880. Don't take maximum DPI too seriously, some very high dpi
printers (notably Lexmarks IME) turn out prints that look like trash...

Toby

"Mark B." <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:y9OdnZ8n6MJyGojcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>
> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:D asah01eom9cpvhtjg3ntpd718633reqml@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 19:29:11 -0400, "Mark B."
> > <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Epson 2100 is a wide-format printer, R800 prints up to A4/8.5" x 11".
> Look
> > >at the size of the printer first.
> >
> > At the moment, I envisage to print on A4. Until I start printing and
> > using the printer, I don't know if I'll be using A3 or not. Is it good
> > having an A3 printer if the DPI on A4 prints is less??
> >
> > I've just looked at the RX 600 which looks good aswell as an All in
> > one.
> >
> > Is it worth spending the money on A3 which has lower DPI if I've got
> > spare cash ?
> >
>
> I don't know why I referenced A4 in my reply; I just realized I don't know
> what size that actually is. 2100 can do up to 13" wide, R800 up to 8.5"
> wide. Personally, I wouldn't worry about the dpi difference. From what
> I've seen with 1440 dpi on my 870, I can't imagine 2880 will be a
noticeable
> difference. Get the printer for the size prints you'll be doing. If you
> need to do larger prints, then it's worth the money. Keep in mind the
2100
> has been replaced by the 2200 which can do 2880 in one direction (1440 in
> the other). Check epson.com for specs on all their printers.
>
> Mark
>
>
August 8, 2004 9:38:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 21:18:21 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>me@privacy.net writes:
>> I'm looking to buy a new photo printer for my Canon 10d digital
>> camera.

>> For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100 is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
>> around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
>> costs £240. There are other printers aswell which are like this, low
>> DPI more money, high DPI less money.

>The important point here is that the 2100 is a wide-carriage printer,
>capable of printing up to 12 inches wide. The R800 is a
>narrow-carriage printer, limited to 8.5 inches wide.

>Wide-carriage printers are both harder to build, and sell in smaller
>quantities, so they're expensive.

Is it worth investing in the 2100? or should I be looking at another
printer. From what I can tell, this is one of the best printers for
mid range money.

The reason I need a printer is because I'm a professional photographer
and I send out my pictures as jpgs to my clients.The publications
print the images themselves. I only want the printer for contact
sheets and samples of the jpgs. The images will be printed by the
client using the CD-ROM's I supply.

I could go for a R800 or R300 quite easily but if I'm going to buy a
printer I want to get it right first time. I like to keep my printers
for a long time.

I think I'd very rarely use A3 size. it's just one of those nice
things to have. I also like the idea of being equipped to deal with
bigger prints if the situation should ever arise in the future.

If I went for an Epson A4 printer would the quality be better? If yes,
which Epson printer is better than the 2100 for A4 prints.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 3:40:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <uoCdnQGFlqXaP4jcRVn-qw@centurytel.net>, Douglas
<?.?@?.?.invalid> writes

>There is a great deal of difference to a photographer in 1440 and 2880!

Not if they know what they are talking about!

Here we are talking about *DOTS* per inch, not *pixels* per inch, or
ppi.

All of the Epson desktop range resample all of the images you send them
to 720ppi (other manufacturers do the same but with differing native
resolutions, like 300ppi etc.). The dots per inch is always higher than
this for an inkjet printer so that each pixel's colour can be reproduced
as accurately as possible by dithering the ink dot placement. More ink
colours means that less dots are required per pixel to accurately
produce its colour. In addition, since the highest resolution that you
can see on the printed page without use of magnification is about
250ppi, and for most people it is a lot less, that 720ppi resampled data
means that there are about 9 actual pixels on the page for each resolved
unit that you can see - so the driver can easily afford to dither dots
over 9 pixels before you would even see any performance fall-off. Epson
take advantage of this using a stochastic dither process which produces
very high colour accuracy over areas where adjacent pixels are almost
identical, yet achieves up to 360cy/in resolution on the page where the
image actually contains such information.

--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
August 8, 2004 3:40:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Kennedy, you are a gem. Thanks for that very lucid explanation.

Toby

"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QshVGtBaMgFBFwXi@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <uoCdnQGFlqXaP4jcRVn-qw@centurytel.net>, Douglas
> <?.?@?.?.invalid> writes
>
> >There is a great deal of difference to a photographer in 1440 and 2880!
>
> Not if they know what they are talking about!
>
> Here we are talking about *DOTS* per inch, not *pixels* per inch, or
> ppi.
>
> All of the Epson desktop range resample all of the images you send them
> to 720ppi (other manufacturers do the same but with differing native
> resolutions, like 300ppi etc.). The dots per inch is always higher than
> this for an inkjet printer so that each pixel's colour can be reproduced
> as accurately as possible by dithering the ink dot placement. More ink
> colours means that less dots are required per pixel to accurately
> produce its colour. In addition, since the highest resolution that you
> can see on the printed page without use of magnification is about
> 250ppi, and for most people it is a lot less, that 720ppi resampled data
> means that there are about 9 actual pixels on the page for each resolved
> unit that you can see - so the driver can easily afford to dither dots
> over 9 pixels before you would even see any performance fall-off. Epson
> take advantage of this using a stochastic dither process which produces
> very high colour accuracy over areas where adjacent pixels are almost
> identical, yet achieves up to 360cy/in resolution on the page where the
> image actually contains such information.
>
> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
replying)
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 3:50:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The R800 is the latest in epsons range of pigmented base inkjet printers -
apart from the width,it differs from the 2100/2200, and other ultrachrome
printers ( 4000 , 7600 etc) in that it uses a different inkset ( a red and
blue rather than a light cyan and magenta and, to improve the glossy finish,
has a clear gloss cartridge as well. this evens teh surface when printed on
gloss paper ( the 2100 etc suffer from what is called bronzing on semi and
glossy papers a reflection of the ink when viewed at an angle - it bothers
some, but I dont find it a major issue)

The greatest advantage of these printers is the print life - these should
outlast traditional, wet darkroom prints, so may be too much of a printer if
all you intend is to print contact sheets - If you intend to sell your own
prints, then these are the best available at the moment .

Finally with a 10d, you can print reasonable 13*19's without interpolation -
but I wouldn't recommend too much cropping, (or printing larger, nor
studying it too close!); how do I know - I have the same combination....


<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ghabh05rmhq29uq4u4m9k08f1cukj5joo3@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 21:18:21 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
> >me@privacy.net writes:
> >> I'm looking to buy a new photo printer for my Canon 10d digital
> >> camera.
>
> >> For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100 is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
> >> around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
> >> costs £240. There are other printers aswell which are like this, low
> >> DPI more money, high DPI less money.
>
> >The important point here is that the 2100 is a wide-carriage printer,
> >capable of printing up to 12 inches wide. The R800 is a
> >narrow-carriage printer, limited to 8.5 inches wide.
>
> >Wide-carriage printers are both harder to build, and sell in smaller
> >quantities, so they're expensive.
>
> Is it worth investing in the 2100? or should I be looking at another
> printer. From what I can tell, this is one of the best printers for
> mid range money.
>
> The reason I need a printer is because I'm a professional photographer
> and I send out my pictures as jpgs to my clients.The publications
> print the images themselves. I only want the printer for contact
> sheets and samples of the jpgs. The images will be printed by the
> client using the CD-ROM's I supply.
>
> I could go for a R800 or R300 quite easily but if I'm going to buy a
> printer I want to get it right first time. I like to keep my printers
> for a long time.
>
> I think I'd very rarely use A3 size. it's just one of those nice
> things to have. I also like the idea of being equipped to deal with
> bigger prints if the situation should ever arise in the future.
>
> If I went for an Epson A4 printer would the quality be better? If yes,
> which Epson printer is better than the 2100 for A4 prints.
>
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 3:56:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <ghabh05rmhq29uq4u4m9k08f1cukj5joo3@4ax.com>, me@privacy.net
writes
>
>I think I'd very rarely use A3 size.

That's what you think right now - because you don't have the ability to
print 13x19" Super A3. Once you do, those little squiddly A4 prints
will just seem like trash magazine pages. ;-)

>it's just one of those nice
>things to have.

And when you have it its very nice. ;-)

> I also like the idea of being equipped to deal with
>bigger prints if the situation should ever arise in the future.
>

When so equipped, it is amazing how frequently that situation arises.
;-)

>If I went for an Epson A4 printer would the quality be better?

No, unless you want the highest gloss on glossy paper possible, then it
will make a difference, but not in resolution. The R800 uses
ultrachrome inks which have a glossier finish than the pigment inks on
the 2100. The 2100 doesn't really provide a high gloss finish at all,
and the results on high gloss paper can look slightly embossed.

--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:00:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Mark B. wrote:

<snip printer discussion>
>
> I don't know why I referenced A4 in my reply; I just realized I don't know
> what size that actually is.

A4 is 210mm by 297mm (8.27" by 11.69") in size. A3 is twice the width at
420mm by 279mm (16.54" by 11.69").
August 8, 2004 9:25:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 11:50:02 GMT, "stanb"
<soxy1@NOSPAMcyberone.com.au> wrote:

>The R800 is the latest in epsons range of pigmented base inkjet printers -
>apart from the width,it differs from the 2100/2200, and other ultrachrome
>printers ( 4000 , 7600 etc) in that it uses a different inkset ( a red and
>blue rather than a light cyan and magenta and, to improve the glossy finish,
>has a clear gloss cartridge as well. this evens teh surface when printed on
>gloss paper ( the 2100 etc suffer from what is called bronzing on semi and
>glossy papers a reflection of the ink when viewed at an angle - it bothers
>some, but I dont find it a major issue)

So is the 2100 still a safe bet? The only reason I'm asking is because
it's been around for a couple of years and I'm worried that the newer,
cheaper printers such as the R300 or R800 are better.
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 1:55:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Douglas" <.> wrote in message news:uoCdnQGFlqXaP4jcRVn-qw@centurytel.net...
> There is a great deal of difference to a photographer in 1440 and 2880!

If you're talking about printer dpi, it will be nearly indiscernable. The
difference between 720 dpi & 1440 is noticeable, but not from much more than
an arm's length. I'd be willing to bet very few folks could tell the
difference between a 1440 dpi and 2880 dpi print using the same image file.

>Also
> the 2100 IS the same printer as the 2200.The 2100 is the Euro version! The
> 2100(2200) and the R800 use "pigment inks"! The RX 600 does not! Pigment
> inks have solids suspended in them,and give much loner lasting prints,on
the
> right papers!By the way Mark,the 2000 was the printer replaced bu the
2200!
> I agree people should check Epsons website for specs instead of
> "speculating" on the differences!

OK, thanks - that's exactly why I recommended the Epson site for info.

Mark
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 2:01:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:jakch0dr3j5u5jma4g00l2aidsu6nk09fn@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 11:50:02 GMT, "stanb"
> <soxy1@NOSPAMcyberone.com.au> wrote:
>
> >The R800 is the latest in epsons range of pigmented base inkjet
printers -
> >apart from the width,it differs from the 2100/2200, and other ultrachrome
> >printers ( 4000 , 7600 etc) in that it uses a different inkset ( a red
and
> >blue rather than a light cyan and magenta and, to improve the glossy
finish,
> >has a clear gloss cartridge as well. this evens teh surface when printed
on
> >gloss paper ( the 2100 etc suffer from what is called bronzing on semi
and
> >glossy papers a reflection of the ink when viewed at an angle - it
bothers
> >some, but I dont find it a major issue)
>
> So is the 2100 still a safe bet? The only reason I'm asking is because
> it's been around for a couple of years and I'm worried that the newer,
> cheaper printers such as the R300 or R800 are better.

Think of the R800 as a little brother to the 2100. They both use the
archival pigment based inks.

Mark
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 10:47:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I pretty much second what Kennedy states here... how nice to not have
to write all this stuff myself ;-)

Art

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> In article <uoCdnQGFlqXaP4jcRVn-qw@centurytel.net>, Douglas
> <?.?@?.?.invalid> writes
>
>> There is a great deal of difference to a photographer in 1440 and 2880!
>
>
> Not if they know what they are talking about!
>
> Here we are talking about *DOTS* per inch, not *pixels* per inch, or ppi.
>
> All of the Epson desktop range resample all of the images you send them
> to 720ppi (other manufacturers do the same but with differing native
> resolutions, like 300ppi etc.). The dots per inch is always higher than
> this for an inkjet printer so that each pixel's colour can be reproduced
> as accurately as possible by dithering the ink dot placement. More ink
> colours means that less dots are required per pixel to accurately
> produce its colour. In addition, since the highest resolution that you
> can see on the printed page without use of magnification is about
> 250ppi, and for most people it is a lot less, that 720ppi resampled data
> means that there are about 9 actual pixels on the page for each resolved
> unit that you can see - so the driver can easily afford to dither dots
> over 9 pixels before you would even see any performance fall-off. Epson
> take advantage of this using a stochastic dither process which produces
> very high colour accuracy over areas where adjacent pixels are almost
> identical, yet achieves up to 360cy/in resolution on the page where the
> image actually contains such information.
>
August 9, 2004 11:12:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I also have a Canon 10D and I use the
Canon i9900 printer and it prints the
best glossy photos I have ever seen from
a inkjet. Sorry but I got sick of
cloged cartriges.

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hkoah0t4hr3g5sce0hddok3lb08vda6sc1@4ax.com...
> I'm looking to buy a new photo printer
for my Canon 10d digital
> camera.
>
> I want an Epson printer because the
carts are cheap and the printers
> last a long time.
>
> Just one thing, I've seen DPI on the
new and old printers and I can't
> understand why the low dpi printers
cost more momey.
>
> For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100
is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
> around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo
R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
> costs £240. There are other printers
aswell which are like this, low
> DPI more money, high DPI less money.
>
> From what I understand, "The
resolution is stated in pixels (points)
> per inch. The higher resolution the
finer printouts."
>
> Why is the higher DPI printer/s
cheaper than the semi professional
> Photo printers? I really can't
understand.
>
> I know photo paper can only handle so
many DPI before it starts to
> overlap but why are the low DPI A3
printers so much more money?
>
> I don't think A3 printers can print
more DPI on A4 paper.
>
August 10, 2004 6:46:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Actually the inks are different. Hoave a look here:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R8...

There is no larger version of the R800 here in Japan yet, so it will be at
least a year (I guess) before you see a new A3 pigment ink Epson printer in
the US.

Toby

"Mark B." <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YtudnYRyAPyLRovcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:jakch0dr3j5u5jma4g00l2aidsu6nk09fn@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 11:50:02 GMT, "stanb"
> > <soxy1@NOSPAMcyberone.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > >The R800 is the latest in epsons range of pigmented base inkjet
> printers -
> > >apart from the width,it differs from the 2100/2200, and other
ultrachrome
> > >printers ( 4000 , 7600 etc) in that it uses a different inkset ( a red
> and
> > >blue rather than a light cyan and magenta and, to improve the glossy
> finish,
> > >has a clear gloss cartridge as well. this evens teh surface when
printed
> on
> > >gloss paper ( the 2100 etc suffer from what is called bronzing on semi
> and
> > >glossy papers a reflection of the ink when viewed at an angle - it
> bothers
> > >some, but I dont find it a major issue)
> >
> > So is the 2100 still a safe bet? The only reason I'm asking is because
> > it's been around for a couple of years and I'm worried that the newer,
> > cheaper printers such as the R300 or R800 are better.
>
> Think of the R800 as a little brother to the 2100. They both use the
> archival pigment based inks.
>
> Mark
>
>
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 7:00:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 21:54:33 -0400, "Mark B."
<mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote:

> Keep in mind the 2100
>has been replaced by the 2200 which can do 2880 in one direction (1440 in
>the other). Check epson.com for specs on all their printers.
>
Wrong. The 2100 is the designation for Europe and, IIRC, Japan. 2200
is the designation for North America.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
August 10, 2004 7:00:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate, FYI in Japan the printer is called the PM-4000PX. It comes with CD
printer tray but no gray balancer.

Toby

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f0bgh019fv1ejd6fqgu0p77c8jh8pqcsuc@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 21:54:33 -0400, "Mark B."
> <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Keep in mind the 2100
> >has been replaced by the 2200 which can do 2880 in one direction (1440 in
> >the other). Check epson.com for specs on all their printers.
> >
> Wrong. The 2100 is the designation for Europe and, IIRC, Japan. 2200
> is the designation for North America.
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 7:03:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 07:12:50 -0400, "YoYo" <YoYo@none.of
your.business.com> wrote:

>I also have a Canon 10D and I use the
>Canon i9900 printer and it prints the
>best glossy photos I have ever seen from
>a inkjet. Sorry but I got sick of
>cloged cartriges.
>
Try reading about the i9950 in the thread above and see if you're
still so confident ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
August 10, 2004 7:56:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

For the most part,you are right! The only real benefit of the higher dpi is
in the fine details in the darker areas,like shadows.As I said to a
photographer it "IS" noticeable.For most people they will not see it!I guess
I should have said there is a great deal of difference to me!
As for Epsons model numbers,the R210=US R200,R310= US R300.It is a bit
confusing.Canon does somewhat the same thing,but most of the Euro versions
do cd/dvd printing,so there IS more of a difference.
"Mark B." <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hpCdneWTuK9ERIvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
> "Douglas" <.> wrote in message
news:uoCdnQGFlqXaP4jcRVn-qw@centurytel.net...
> > There is a great deal of difference to a photographer in 1440 and 2880!
>
> If you're talking about printer dpi, it will be nearly indiscernable. The
> difference between 720 dpi & 1440 is noticeable, but not from much more
than
> an arm's length. I'd be willing to bet very few folks could tell the
> difference between a 1440 dpi and 2880 dpi print using the same image
file.
>
> >Also
> > the 2100 IS the same printer as the 2200.The 2100 is the Euro version!
The
> > 2100(2200) and the R800 use "pigment inks"! The RX 600 does not! Pigment
> > inks have solids suspended in them,and give much loner lasting prints,on
> the
> > right papers!By the way Mark,the 2000 was the printer replaced bu the
> 2200!
> > I agree people should check Epsons website for specs instead of
> > "speculating" on the differences!
>
> OK, thanks - that's exactly why I recommended the Epson site for info.
>
> Mark
>
>
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 11:42:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Douglas" <.> wrote in message news:-7KdndiWwasaq4TcRVn-sA@centurytel.net...
> For the most part,you are right! The only real benefit of the higher dpi
is
> in the fine details in the darker areas,like shadows.As I said to a
> photographer it "IS" noticeable.For most people they will not see it!I
guess
> I should have said there is a great deal of difference to me!
> As for Epsons model numbers,the R210=US R200,R310= US R300.It is a bit
> confusing.Canon does somewhat the same thing,but most of the Euro versions
> do cd/dvd printing,so there IS more of a difference.

As a photographer I have to say the 1440dpi prints from my 870 are good
enough for my own uses. I'm not confident enough in the archival qualities
to sell prints off of it, however.

Mark
Anonymous
August 11, 2004 3:21:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <-7KdndiWwasaq4TcRVn-sA@centurytel.net>, Douglas
<?.?@?.?.invalid> writes
>For the most part,you are right! The only real benefit of the higher dpi is
>in the fine details in the darker areas,like shadows.As I said to a
>photographer it "IS" noticeable.For most people they will not see it!I guess
>I should have said there is a great deal of difference to me!

What an amazing feat - you claim to see a difference in the very region
where it is at its minimum and demonstrably zero, the shadows, yet fail
to mention any visible difference at all where a slight benefit actually
exists - the highlights.

Do you see everything in negative or is it just inkjet prints? ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Anonymous
August 11, 2004 5:57:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 10 Aug 2004 02:35:16 -0500, "Toby" <zdftokyo@ggol.com> wrote:

>Hecate, FYI in Japan the printer is called the PM-4000PX. It comes with CD
>printer tray but no gray balancer.
>
Thanks, I wasn't sure :) 

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
!