Epson R300 or... else.

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

Hello,

I'd like to buy a printer for photos.
I've seen some prints from R300 and they looked great.
But before I buy R300...
what other printers should I consider ?
I mean - are there any ofering the same (or better) quality
and possible to get for the same (or less) money?

Thank you,

latet
38 answers Last reply
More about epson r300 else
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "latet" <bla@bla.bla.pl> wrote in message
    news:ctpa32$n51$1@host102-ursus.spray.net.pl...
    > Hello,
    >
    > I'd like to buy a printer for photos.
    > I've seen some prints from R300 and they looked great.
    > But before I buy R300...
    > what other printers should I consider ?
    > I mean - are there any ofering the same (or better) quality
    > and possible to get for the same (or less) money?
    >
    > Thank you,
    >
    > latet
    >

    If you don't need the card slots then the R200 is a 300 with no slots. Its
    quite a bit cheeper and uses the same heads ans carts.

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

    I have compared many printers before I made my choice. The two
    finalists were the Epson R300 and the Canon IP4000. I chose the Canon
    IP4000. I had the privledge at Fry's of speaking to both the Epson and
    Canon reps at the same time. Both were in agreement that Epson goes
    through some ink priming cycle every time you turn it on and uses ink.
    They said that the R300 uses less than previous Epson Printers.

    Overseas both of these printers can print on CDs but not in the US.
    Canon does not offer that feature in the US and if that is a must you
    should buy the Canon but you will loose much of what the Canon offers.
    Besides, my friend's primary purpose was to print on CD surfaces and
    bought an R300. He had on replacement during the warranty period for a
    malfunction of the CD feed system and now after a 6 months the
    replacement acts up. Epson printers in general are ink hogs and
    substantially slower than Canon.

    The IP4000 is fast, does great on photos and a decent job on business
    documents, has 2 paper feeds and prints in duplex more automatically.
    It does better on ink and the cartridges cost less. Of all the Canon
    printers the only other one to consider if you want narrow format is the
    IP8500 but is costs more than double. Also the wide format i9900 is the
    best of any under $500 printer.

    Peter Seddon wrote:

    >"latet" <bla@bla.bla.pl> wrote in message
    >news:ctpa32$n51$1@host102-ursus.spray.net.pl...
    >
    >
    >>Hello,
    >>
    >>I'd like to buy a printer for photos.
    >>I've seen some prints from R300 and they looked great.
    >>But before I buy R300...
    >>what other printers should I consider ?
    >>I mean - are there any ofering the same (or better) quality
    >>and possible to get for the same (or less) money?
    >>
    >>Thank you,
    >>
    >>latet
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >If you don't need the card slots then the R200 is a 300 with no slots. Its
    >quite a bit cheeper and uses the same heads ans carts.
    >
    >Peter.
    >
    >
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Peter Seddon" <peter.seddon@nomail.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:36cfp5F4vsa90U1@individual.net...
    >
    > "latet" <bla@bla.bla.pl> wrote in message
    > news:ctpa32$n51$1@host102-ursus.spray.net.pl...
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> I'd like to buy a printer for photos.
    >> I've seen some prints from R300 and they looked great.
    >> But before I buy R300...
    >> what other printers should I consider ?
    >> I mean - are there any ofering the same (or better) quality
    >> and possible to get for the same (or less) money?
    >>
    >> Thank you,
    >>
    >> latet
    >>
    >
    > If you don't need the card slots then the R200 is a 300 with no slots. Its
    > quite a bit cheeper and uses the same heads ans carts.
    >
    > Peter.


    ======================

    In the UK the price differential ibetween the two is now down to about £15 -
    and the R300 is much more robust than the R200 (better quality plastic,
    nicer design, more solid control panel, etc) so it's worth paying the extra
    to get the 300 even if you don't need the card slots and LCD display.

    I picked up a 200 for £50 in the January sales - and, at that price, it was
    worth having as a backup to my 300, but having seen the difference in
    quality I certainly wouldn't pass the 300 for the sake of £15.

    Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are now
    down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a dozen
    sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only fractionally
    lower than genuine Epson ink.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    U¿ytkownik "Pinky & Perky ham it up" <scratching@pork.com>
    > Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
    > now down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a
    > dozen sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only
    > fractionally lower than genuine Epson ink.

    How about water-resistance?

    I won't be using direct printing (CF card--> printer)
    but it's nice to have some slots in case a friend visits
    me with his/her strange cameras. I won't get R200.

    R300 is my favorite type right time,
    but maybe some HP machine would give me comparable
    quality for less money? I don't know...

    Another thing:
    with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
    yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
    does it good enough?

    Thanks,

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

    "latet" <bla@bla.bla.pl> wrote in message
    news:ctraqn$bf7$2@host102-ursus.spray.net.pl...
    > U¿ytkownik "Pinky & Perky ham it up" <scratching@pork.com>
    >> Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
    >> now down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a
    >> dozen sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only
    >> fractionally lower than genuine Epson ink.
    >
    > How about water-resistance?<


    Same with genuine and non-genuine iks - they're not waterproof, i.e., wil
    smear if rubbed with a wet finger, even weeks after printing.

    -----------------
    >
    > I won't be using direct printing (CF card--> printer)
    > but it's nice to have some slots in case a friend visits
    > me with his/her strange cameras. I won't get R200.
    >
    > R300 is my favorite type right time,
    > but maybe some HP machine would give me comparable
    > quality for less money? I don't know...

    Even using refill kits for HP you would still be paying far more for your
    ink than with an Epson

    -----------------------------

    >
    > Another thing:
    > with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
    > yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
    > does it good enough?<

    I actually print relatively few CD's (mostly A4 brochures on 160 gsm paper).
    but I have printed some demo CD's using my own designs. However, the photo
    CD's that I've done using Print CD were automatically resized by the
    software (including the photo that I used for the business card CD) and gave
    excellent results.

    I've never used the Canon CD printer but that is also supposed to be good.
    However, the proven quality of Epson and the ready availability of cheap ink
    makes me more than happy to stay with the Epson range.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Most of the threads in this forum where people have had problems with
    clogging have been with cheap ink. That goes for all brands of
    printer. At least with the Canon IP4000 you can remover the print head
    and clean it or install a new one. They are user replaceable.

    Pinky & Perky ham it up wrote:

    >"latet" <bla@bla.bla.pl> wrote in message
    >news:ctraqn$bf7$2@host102-ursus.spray.net.pl...
    >
    >
    >>U¿ytkownik "Pinky & Perky ham it up" <scratching@pork.com>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
    >>>now down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a
    >>>dozen sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only
    >>>fractionally lower than genuine Epson ink.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>How about water-resistance?<
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >Same with genuine and non-genuine iks - they're not waterproof, i.e., wil
    >smear if rubbed with a wet finger, even weeks after printing.
    >
    >-----------------
    >
    >
    >>I won't be using direct printing (CF card--> printer)
    >>but it's nice to have some slots in case a friend visits
    >>me with his/her strange cameras. I won't get R200.
    >>
    >>R300 is my favorite type right time,
    >>but maybe some HP machine would give me comparable
    >>quality for less money? I don't know...
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Even using refill kits for HP you would still be paying far more for your
    >ink than with an Epson
    >
    >-----------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >>Another thing:
    >>with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
    >>yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
    >>does it good enough?<
    >>
    >>
    >
    >I actually print relatively few CD's (mostly A4 brochures on 160 gsm paper).
    >but I have printed some demo CD's using my own designs. However, the photo
    >CD's that I've done using Print CD were automatically resized by the
    >software (including the photo that I used for the business card CD) and gave
    >excellent results.
    >
    >I've never used the Canon CD printer but that is also supposed to be good.
    >However, the proven quality of Epson and the ready availability of cheap ink
    >makes me more than happy to stay with the Epson range.
    >
    >
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    >Another thing:
    >with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
    >yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
    >does it good enough?

    It does pretty good at this. I have printed an 8.5"x11" and a 4"x6" (inches)
    from a memory card and it will auto-crop to fit the paper. You do have a
    choice with "Advanced" turned on to custom crop - you select which of several
    crop settings look best.
    Lynn
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <20050202163234.13342.00000245@mb-m27.aol.com>,
    LLutton <llutton@aol.com> wrote:
    >>Another thing:
    >>with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
    >>yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
    >>does it good enough?
    >
    >It does pretty good at this. I have printed an 8.5"x11" and a 4"x6" (inches)
    >from a memory card and it will auto-crop to fit the paper. You do have a
    >choice with "Advanced" turned on to custom crop - you select which of several
    >crop settings look best.
    >Lynn


    Can anyone confirn the statement made in this thread that the
    R300 has better build quality than the R200 ?

    --

    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
    news:ctrhc4$bv$1@panix5.panix.com...
    > In article <20050202163234.13342.00000245@mb-m27.aol.com>,
    > LLutton <llutton@aol.com> wrote:
    >>>Another thing:
    >>>with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
    >>>yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
    >>>does it good enough?
    >>
    >>It does pretty good at this. I have printed an 8.5"x11" and a 4"x6"
    >>(inches)
    >>from a memory card and it will auto-crop to fit the paper. You do have a
    >>choice with "Advanced" turned on to custom crop - you select which of
    >>several
    >>crop settings look best.
    >>Lynn
    >
    >
    > Can anyone confirn the statement made in this thread that the
    > R300 has better build quality than the R200 ?
    >
    > --
    >
    > a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    >
    > Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

    yup R300 is more robust than the R200, R200 remids me of low end lexmark
    build quality
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I read a review about the R200/R300 and it said the two printers was the
    same. the R300 just had the photo slots and you could print without a
    printer.It is of the same quality.

    Rev Dr Mark wrote:
    > "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
    > news:ctrhc4$bv$1@panix5.panix.com...
    >
    >>In article <20050202163234.13342.00000245@mb-m27.aol.com>,
    >>LLutton <llutton@aol.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Another thing:
    >>>>with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
    >>>>yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
    >>>>does it good enough?
    >>>
    >>>It does pretty good at this. I have printed an 8.5"x11" and a 4"x6"
    >>>(inches)
    >>
    >>>from a memory card and it will auto-crop to fit the paper. You do have a
    >>
    >>>choice with "Advanced" turned on to custom crop - you select which of
    >>>several
    >>>crop settings look best.
    >>>Lynn
    >>
    >>
    >>Can anyone confirn the statement made in this thread that the
    >>R300 has better build quality than the R200 ?
    >>
    >>--
    >>
    >>a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    >>
    >>Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
    >
    >
    > yup R300 is more robust than the R200, R200 remids me of low end lexmark
    > build quality
    >
    >

    --


    * Magic Is Believing In Yourself*

    *if you can do that*

    * You Can Make Anything Happen *
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    latet wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I'd like to buy a printer for photos.
    > I've seen some prints from R300 and they looked great.
    > But before I buy R300...
    > what other printers should I consider ?
    > I mean - are there any ofering the same (or better) quality
    > and possible to get for the same (or less) money?
    >
    > Thank you,
    >
    > latet
    >
    >
    I just bought an R300, I had it narrowed down to the Canon pixma 5000,
    HP7760 and R300. Each had a feature I liked that the others didn't have,
    but in the end it was the price that did it The R300 had 50C$ off at the
    till and a 30US$ rebate, bringing it down to 150C$, the best price I
    could get on a Canon at the time was 239C$ and I think I could have
    picked up the HP for about 170C$.
    As well, any reviews (that I read) put the R300 slightly ahead of the
    others in photo printing quality, and I found it strange that the pixma
    5000 with its 1 pico and much higher res. rated lower in photo quality
    than the pixma 4000.

    In any case, I figured that the differences between the three would have
    been so subtle they would have been hardly noticeable anyway, so it was
    price that decided it in the end.

    I have almost spent my first set of cartridges and am so far very happy
    with the results, I printed an 8X10 from a negative scan that is
    virtually indistiguishable from a lab print, and it does a very passable
    job on black & white prints as well (the HP's stong point).

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

    "John H." <jhensleys@att.net> wrote in message
    news:T4cMd.138663$w62.74524@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >I read a review about the R200/R300 and it said the two printers was the
    >same. the R300 just had the photo slots and you could print without a
    >printer.It is of the same quality.
    >
    > Rev Dr Mark wrote:
    >> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
    >> news:ctrhc4$bv$1@panix5.panix.com...
    >>
    >>>In article <20050202163234.13342.00000245@mb-m27.aol.com>,
    >>>LLutton <llutton@aol.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>Another thing:
    >>>>>with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
    >>>>>yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
    >>>>>does it good enough?
    >>>>
    >>>>It does pretty good at this. I have printed an 8.5"x11" and a 4"x6"
    >>>>(inches)
    >>>
    >>>>from a memory card and it will auto-crop to fit the paper. You do have
    >>>>a
    >>>
    >>>>choice with "Advanced" turned on to custom crop - you select which of
    >>>>several
    >>>>crop settings look best.
    >>>>Lynn
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Can anyone confirn the statement made in this thread that the
    >>>R300 has better build quality than the R200 ?
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>>
    >>>a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    >>>
    >>>Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
    >>
    >>
    >> yup R300 is more robust than the R200, R200 remids me of low end lexmark
    >> build quality
    The ink carts and heads are the same I can't comment on the build quality, I
    run an R300, got it before the 200 came out. I've been very satified with
    it. I pay £1.49 +vat for carts BUT you only get a small quantity of ink in
    them, not the 30 ml of a genuine Epson, but it still works out cheaper, just
    not as cheap as you think.

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

    "John H." <jhensleys@att.net> wrote in message
    news:T4cMd.138663$w62.74524@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >I read a review about the R200/R300 and it said the two printers was the
    >same. the R300 just had the photo slots and you could print without a
    >printer.It is of the same quality.


    ---------------------

    The print quality is exactly the same - but the construction is very
    different. The 200 is flimsy and creaky in comparison to the 300

    I know, I've got both of them.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Peter Seddon" <peter.seddon@nomail.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:36d1qkF4vfa4hU1@individual.net...
    >
    > "John H." <jhensleys@att.net> wrote in message
    > news:T4cMd.138663$w62.74524@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>I read a review about the R200/R300 and it said the two printers was the
    >>same. the R300 just had the photo slots and you could print without a
    >>printer.It is of the same quality.
    >>
    >> Rev Dr Mark wrote:
    >>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:ctrhc4$bv$1@panix5.panix.com...
    >>>
    >>>>In article <20050202163234.13342.00000245@mb-m27.aol.com>,
    >>>>LLutton <llutton@aol.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>Another thing:
    >>>>>>with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
    >>>>>>yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
    >>>>>>does it good enough?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>It does pretty good at this. I have printed an 8.5"x11" and a 4"x6"
    >>>>>(inches)
    >>>>
    >>>>>from a memory card and it will auto-crop to fit the paper. You do have
    >>>>>a
    >>>>
    >>>>>choice with "Advanced" turned on to custom crop - you select which of
    >>>>>several
    >>>>>crop settings look best.
    >>>>>Lynn
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Can anyone confirn the statement made in this thread that the
    >>>>R300 has better build quality than the R200 ?
    >>>>
    >>>>--
    >>>>
    >>>>a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    >>>>
    >>>>Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> yup R300 is more robust than the R200, R200 remids me of low end lexmark
    >>> build quality
    > The ink carts and heads are the same I can't comment on the build quality,
    > I run an R300, got it before the 200 came out. I've been very satified
    > with it. I pay £1.49 +vat for carts BUT you only get a small quantity of
    > ink in them, not the 30 ml of a genuine Epson, but it still works out
    > cheaper, just not as cheap as you think.

    ----------------------------

    I've been paying £2 each at a local market - where do you get yours? -
    online? (it would save traipsing off to the market on cold wet days)
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Peter Seddon" <peter.seddon@nomail.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:36d1qkF4vfa4hU1@individual.net...
    >
    > "John H." <jhensleys@att.net> wrote in message
    > news:T4cMd.138663$w62.74524@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>I read a review about the R200/R300 and it said the two printers was the
    >>same. the R300 just had the photo slots and you could print without a
    >>printer.It is of the same quality.
    >>
    >> Rev Dr Mark wrote:
    >>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:ctrhc4$bv$1@panix5.panix.com...
    >>>
    >>>>In article <20050202163234.13342.00000245@mb-m27.aol.com>,
    >>>>LLutton <llutton@aol.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>Another thing:
    >>>>>>with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
    >>>>>>yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
    >>>>>>does it good enough?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>It does pretty good at this. I have printed an 8.5"x11" and a 4"x6"
    >>>>>(inches)
    >>>>
    >>>>>from a memory card and it will auto-crop to fit the paper. You do have
    >>>>>a
    >>>>
    >>>>>choice with "Advanced" turned on to custom crop - you select which of
    >>>>>several
    >>>>>crop settings look best.
    >>>>>Lynn
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Can anyone confirn the statement made in this thread that the
    >>>>R300 has better build quality than the R200 ?
    >>>>
    >>>>--
    >>>>
    >>>>a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    >>>>
    >>>>Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> yup R300 is more robust than the R200, R200 remids me of low end lexmark
    >>> build quality
    > The ink carts and heads are the same I can't comment on the build quality,
    > I run an R300, got it before the 200 came out. I've been very satified
    > with it. I pay £1.49 +vat for carts BUT you only get a small quantity of
    > ink in them, not the 30 ml of a genuine Epson, but it still works out
    > cheaper, just not as cheap as you think.
    >
    > Peter.

    30ml? Sure about that? I've seen 13ml as the capacity of the Epson's...
    All the compatible carts I've seen have the same or slightly more capacity -
    16ml or 18ml.

    I'm trying the IMJET carts at the moment in my R200 - and apart from the
    rather alarming gurgle of ink when the air seal tape is removed they seem to
    work fine, and at less then £10 for a complete set they're a bargain.

    I've not handled an R300 to comment on the build quality, but the R200's
    outer case is decidedly cheap and cheerful. Its quite alarming the first
    time you switch it on and have the whole of the top flex down half an inch
    as you press the on/off button. I'm guessing the mechanics are the same -
    the R200's innards look like typical Epson construction.. just a hell of a
    lot quieter than they were 2 or 3 years back.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
    now
    > down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a dozen
    > sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only fractionally
    > lower than genuine Epson ink.
    >

    Sorry to enter the conversation, but I just bought a R300 and I'm wondering
    what is the brand of the compatible cartridges you're using that are so
    cheap? Can you tell me that, please?

    Thanks,
    TJ
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Tojo" <tojo@nebraska.com> wrote in message
    news:36d6bjF50lgh1U1@individual.net...
    >> Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
    > now
    >> down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a dozen
    >> sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only fractionally
    >> lower than genuine Epson ink.
    >>
    >
    > Sorry to enter the conversation, but I just bought a R300 and I'm
    > wondering
    > what is the brand of the compatible cartridges you're using that are so
    > cheap? Can you tell me that, please?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > TJ
    >
    I got mine from here http://svp.co.uk/acatalog/Epson_Stylus_Photo_R200.html
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <36d6bjF50lgh1U1@individual.net>, Tojo <tojo@nebraska.com> wrote:
    >> Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
    >now
    >> down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a dozen
    >> sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only fractionally
    >> lower than genuine Epson ink.
    >>
    >
    >Sorry to enter the conversation, but I just bought a R300 and I'm wondering
    >what is the brand of the compatible cartridges you're using that are so
    >cheap? Can you tell me that, please?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >TJ
    >
    >


    If you go to pricewatch.com and search for the part # for
    a cartridge you'll find some "generic" inks, cheap.
    I'm not interested in them. YMMV.

    I suggest you check resellerratings.com before you do
    business with any online vendor for the first time.

    newegg.com has the real thing for about $9 each.

    --

    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Al Dykes wrote:
    > In article <36d6bjF50lgh1U1@individual.net>, Tojo <tojo@nebraska.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
    >>
    >>now
    >>
    >>>down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a dozen
    >>>sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only fractionally
    >>>lower than genuine Epson ink.
    >>>
    >>
    >>Sorry to enter the conversation, but I just bought a R300 and I'm wondering
    >>what is the brand of the compatible cartridges you're using that are so
    >>cheap? Can you tell me that, please?
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>TJ
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > If you go to pricewatch.com and search for the part # for
    > a cartridge you'll find some "generic" inks, cheap.
    > I'm not interested in them. YMMV.
    >
    > I suggest you check resellerratings.com before you do
    > business with any online vendor for the first time.
    >
    > newegg.com has the real thing for about $9 each.
    > Yeah plus 4.99 a piece for shipping

    --


    * Magic Is Believing In Yourself*

    *if you can do that*

    * You Can Make Anything Happen *
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Harvey" <harvey@not.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:O3dMd.2660$d45.800@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

    > I'm trying the IMJET carts at the moment in my R200 - and apart from the
    > rather alarming gurgle of ink when the air seal tape is removed they seem
    > to work fine, and at less then £10 for a complete set they're a bargain.

    Agreed - where are you getting them for a tenner?
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Tojo" <tojo@nebraska.com> wrote in message
    news:36d6bjF50lgh1U1@individual.net...
    >> Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
    > now
    >> down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a dozen
    >> sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only fractionally
    >> lower than genuine Epson ink.
    >>
    >
    > Sorry to enter the conversation, but I just bought a R300 and I'm
    > wondering
    > what is the brand of the compatible cartridges you're using that are so
    > cheap? Can you tell me that, please?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > TJ
    >


    I've used several brands - all from a local market.

    All have been good, but lately I've been using the IMjet ones that Harvey
    posted a link for.

    Since his source is cheaper, I'll be ordering from there in the future.

    Don't hesitate to use the cheap ink - it's really good and I've never had a
    problem (except one - not IMjet - that had a chip failure and couldn't be
    recognised by the printer)
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > I have almost spent my first set of cartridges and am so far very happy
    > with the results, I printed an 8X10 from a negative scan that is

    How many pictures (and other things) have you printed to this point?
    How exactly does the soft show ink levels?

    I know that colors can be even better than on lab prints,
    but is sharpness really as good as on... let's say Fuji Frontier labs?

    Thanks,

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

    > Sorry to enter the conversation, but I just bought a R300 and I'm
    > wondering
    > what is the brand of the compatible cartridges you're using that are so
    > cheap?

    And I'm wondering - what if I have two sets of cartridges,
    original, and cheap, what kind of containers can I use to
    keep the cartridges that are not in the printer? I mean -
    - not to let them dry out.

    Thanks,

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

    latet wrote:
    >>Sorry to enter the conversation, but I just bought a R300 and I'm
    >>wondering
    >>what is the brand of the compatible cartridges you're using that are so
    >>cheap?
    >
    >
    > And I'm wondering - what if I have two sets of cartridges,
    > original, and cheap, what kind of containers can I use to
    > keep the cartridges that are not in the printer? I mean -
    > - not to let them dry out.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > You Can keep them in ziplock bags.keep them cool.
    > latet
    >
    >

    --


    * Magic Is Believing In Yourself*

    *if you can do that*

    * You Can Make Anything Happen *
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > Don't hesitate to use the cheap ink - it's really good and I've never had
    > a problem (except one - not IMjet - that had a chip failure and couldn't
    > be recognised by the printer)

    Chip failure? Don't you buy just ink containers (not the whole head)
    for Epson printers?

    I've heard from an experienced R300 user that bad cheap ink
    can dry out easier - and the printing head (which is not replacable)
    may get stuck. Is that possible? What then?

    Thanks,

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

    latet wrote:
    >>I have almost spent my first set of cartridges and am so far very happy
    >>with the results, I printed an 8X10 from a negative scan that is
    >
    >
    > How many pictures (and other things) have you printed to this point?
    > How exactly does the soft show ink levels?
    >
    > I know that colors can be even better than on lab prints,
    > but is sharpness really as good as on... let's say Fuji Frontier labs?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > latet
    >
    >
    I'm not sure how many pictures I have done to date, but my yellow ink
    just fell below the 20% mark and the printer has the option of warning
    you when this happens. The inks have gone down fairly evenly and I've
    already picked another set off of ebay for about 60C$. I havent decided
    if I am going to try good quality compatibles yet or not. The ink
    levels show up in the printer status window with every print job, so you
    always know where you are at. Very good compared to my old stylus 400 in
    any case.

    Not familiar with the lab prints you mentioned, but the sharpness is
    equal to any I've had done in labs, mind you I havent had anything done
    in a real "high end" lab in years so...

    My first 8X10 I did from my negative scan I accidentally did in photo,
    not best photo mode, it spit the picture out in no time flat and even
    then I had to get real close to see the dots, in a frame on a wall it
    would not even be noticeable. When I did it in best photo mode, with the
    high speed still turned on, it is virtually perfect, I think with a
    magnifying glass I could see the dots, but difficult to impossible just
    looking at it.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> yup R300 is more robust than the R200, R200 remids me of low end
    >>>> lexmark build quality
    >> The ink carts and heads are the same I can't comment on the build
    >> quality, I run an R300, got it before the 200 came out. I've been very
    >> satified with it. I pay £1.49 +vat for carts BUT you only get a small
    >> quantity of ink in them, not the 30 ml of a genuine Epson, but it still
    >> works out cheaper, just not as cheap as you think.
    >
    > ----------------------------
    >
    > I've been paying £2 each at a local market - where do you get yours? -
    > online? (it would save traipsing off to the market on cold wet days)
    >
    Burn media on the net. The price was for 5 plus of each

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

    Is it safe for Epson R300 to print continuously
    for many hours (for example: 500 pages with text and some color graphisc)?
    Won't it overheat or something?

    I'm going to buy R300 to print 20-30 photos per month
    (for my own private use),
    but... a friend just asked me if I would be able to print
    a couple of hundreds pages for him from time to time.
    He would pay me for the ink, so this is no problem,
    but what about the printer?

    What is the recomended maximum of pages per month?
    Is there a known safe max. of pages in a row?

    Thanks,

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

    > Overseas both of these printers can print on CDs but not in the US.

    Interesting. Do you know why?
    Thanks,

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

    > Most of the threads in this forum where people have had problems with
    > clogging have been with cheap ink. That goes for all brands of printer.

    That's what many people tell me. Not the print quality, but clogging
    is the problem with cheap ink. Esp. with Epsons - for the printing
    head is not replaceble.

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

    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:PcbMd.21$aW6.6@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
    > Most of the threads in this forum where people have had problems with
    > clogging have been with cheap ink. That goes for all brands of printer.
    > At least with the Canon IP4000 you can remover the print head and clean it
    > or install a new one. They are user replaceable.
    >

    Yes the print heads are replaceable, but have a look here
    http://www.systeminsight.co.uk/acatalog/Canon_Printhead_Assemblies.html?title=Printhead_Assemblies_[All] -
    the cost of a replacement head for an IP4000 is £65.75. When you can pick up
    a new R200 (with all 6 ink cartridges for less (about £60), it makes you
    wonder......even the cost of a new IP4000 is only about £95.

    I don't suppose Canon publish the likely duty cycle of the printheads do
    they? I can't find it anywhere if they do.

    And, although I can't find the price for the R200's printhead, Epson charge
    £46.66 for a printhead for their Epson Stylus Photo 830. They are more of a
    hassle to change, but its no more than a couple of screws and a few clips or
    so.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:13:00 +0100, "latet" <bla@bla.bla.pl> wrote:

    >> Overseas both of these printers can print on CDs but not in the US.
    >
    >Interesting. Do you know why?
    >Thanks,
    >
    Apparently some sort of legal wrangle over a patent. We also get
    other goodies you don't get like the Gray Balancer for the Epson 2100
    (2200).

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  33. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
    news:91k501t4cj1t3352cv791bdgl68qi2pgds@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:13:00 +0100, "latet" <bla@bla.bla.pl> wrote:
    >
    >>> Overseas both of these printers can print on CDs but not in the US.
    >>
    >>Interesting. Do you know why?
    >>Thanks,
    >>
    > Apparently some sort of legal wrangle over a patent. We also get
    > other goodies you don't get like the Gray Balancer for the Epson 2100
    > (2200).
    >

    Do you get the "Oh, aren't Epson being generous by giving us some paper with
    the printer" pack? Consisting of THREE sheets of 4"x6" thin photo paper?

    - They really spare no expense do they :)
  34. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Some people also question the durability of 3rd party inks. Some even
    say that the inks fade in a month just sitting on a desk. My prints
    from a Canon IP4000 using factory inks on Canon Photo Paper Pro have not
    faded in 90 days but who knows how long it will take.

    I have some slides that have faded in 20 years and others in the same
    box that have not.

    latet wrote:

    >>Most of the threads in this forum where people have had problems with
    >>clogging have been with cheap ink. That goes for all brands of printer.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >That's what many people tell me. Not the print quality, but clogging
    >is the problem with cheap ink. Esp. with Epsons - for the printing
    >head is not replaceble.
    >
    >latet
    >
    >
    >
    >
  35. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    US printers are slow learners? ;-)

    There have been some licensing issues that differ between the various
    countries regarding who owns the rights to this type of technology.

    Art

    latet wrote:

    >>Overseas both of these printers can print on CDs but not in the US.
    >
    >
    > Interesting. Do you know why?
    > Thanks,
    >
    > latet
    >
    >
  36. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:00:21 GMT, "Harvey" <harvey@not.ntlworld.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
    >news:91k501t4cj1t3352cv791bdgl68qi2pgds@4ax.com...
    >> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:13:00 +0100, "latet" <bla@bla.bla.pl> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Overseas both of these printers can print on CDs but not in the US.
    >>>
    >>>Interesting. Do you know why?
    >>>Thanks,
    >>>
    >> Apparently some sort of legal wrangle over a patent. We also get
    >> other goodies you don't get like the Gray Balancer for the Epson 2100
    >> (2200).
    >>
    >
    >Do you get the "Oh, aren't Epson being generous by giving us some paper with
    >the printer" pack? Consisting of THREE sheets of 4"x6" thin photo paper?
    >
    >- They really spare no expense do they :)
    >
    >
    <g> Only 3? I got 10 ;-)

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  37. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:50:06 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >Some people also question the durability of 3rd party inks. Some even
    >say that the inks fade in a month just sitting on a desk. My prints
    >from a Canon IP4000 using factory inks on Canon Photo Paper Pro have not
    >faded in 90 days but who knows how long it will take.

    Cheap inks will do that. C0omparable inks will not. But then, you're
    not saving any money unless you buy into a CIS like the one from
    Permajet.

    >I have some slides that have faded in 20 years and others in the same
    >box that have not.
    >
    >latet wrote:
    >
    >>>Most of the threads in this forum where people have had problems with
    >>>clogging have been with cheap ink. That goes for all brands of printer.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>That's what many people tell me. Not the print quality, but clogging
    >>is the problem with cheap ink. Esp. with Epsons - for the printing
    >>head is not replaceble.
    >>
    As opposed to Canon where the problem is the print head burning out.
    :)

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  38. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:ypBMd.943$aW6.821@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
    > Some people also question the durability of 3rd party inks. Some even say
    > that the inks fade in a month just sitting on a desk. My prints from a
    > Canon IP4000 using factory inks on Canon Photo Paper Pro have not faded in
    > 90 days but who knows how long it will take.
    >

    looky here http://www.pcpro.co.uk/labs/124/inkjet-printers/products.html -
    read the reviews of Canon printers, especially the parts like

    "Also worth noting is that Canon photos aren't particularly light fast. Even
    if kept behind glass, they'll fade quicker than with other inkjets. If you
    cherish photos, look elsewhere."

    They published a review in their monthly magazine that showed that some of
    the 3rd party inks perform better than Canon's ink. (Lexmark's ink was
    bottom of the pile -fading to just cyan after 6 months in sunlight, and
    Kodak papers are bad too). Its a shame the test isn't published on the
    website anywhere...

    There's a lot more about lightfastness of inks here
    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ but I can't really be bothered to be honest
    to read through it all :)
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Epson Peripherals