Epson R800 versus 2200 image quality

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Has anyone done a side by side comparison of the image quality between the Epson
R800 and 2200?

Ben

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<< The R800 produces much better glossy blacks (no bronzing
problems like the 2200) and has slightly better color gamut
as well. >>

Does the R800 use dye or pigment based inks?

Conrad


Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 31 Dec 2004 12:39:01 GMT, in rec.photo.digital weil91@aol.com (Conrad
Weiler) wrote:

><< The R800 produces much better glossy blacks (no bronzing
>problems like the 2200) and has slightly better color gamut
>as well. >>
>
>Does the R800 use dye or pigment based inks?

Pigment.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:59:34 -0800, "Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote in message news:7eo9t0l8authslp50fgv9ca7g19h6lh1l8@4ax.com...
>> Has anyone done a side by side comparison of the image quality between the Epson
>> R800 and 2200?
>
>Such a review can be found here:
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-r800.shtml
>
>It compares the R800 and 2100 (same printer as the 2200).
>
>The R800 produces much better glossy blacks (no bronzing
>problems like the 2200) and has slightly better color gamut
>as well.
>
>

Thanks, that review was helpful. Since I'm currently not planning to do many
prints larger than 8x12 it would not be much of a problem to send the occasional
larger print out to a lab. And in the future, who knows, perhaps Epson will
pass along the r800's technology to its older big brothers.

I was ready to pick one up yesterday but none of the local places had it in
stock. Hmmm, I wonder if that's an omen? <g>

Ben

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:54:24 +0900, in rec.photo.digital "David J.
Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:


>They already have: it's called the PX-G5000. (Only in Japan so far, though.)
>
>By the way, my _suspicion_ is that the R800 renders detail better than the
>2200, simply because the droplet size is a lot smaller. I don't have a 2200,
>but the R800 prints are really lovely in terms of detail. And the gloss
>optimizer really works well: much less bronzing than even the earlier Epson
>dye-ink based inkjets.

I believe you mean pigment based, not dye.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 20:21:42 GMT, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>Ed Ruf wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:54:24 +0900, in rec.photo.digital "David J.
>> Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>>optimizer really works well: much less bronzing than even the earlier Epson
>>>dye-ink based inkjets.
>>
>>
>> I believe you mean pigment based, not dye.
>
>I beleive David meant what he wrote!

Having a 1270 and a R800 I can't see how that is the case, as I never
experienced any bronzing with the dye based inks off my 1270. Now, prints
off my R800 on the Epson Photo Paper sold at Costco has been less than
impressive showing a muddying of dark shadows. This is not seen with the
same print on HWM paper.

________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:54:24 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:59:34 -0800, "Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Has anyone done a side by side comparison of the image quality between
>the Epson
>> >> R800 and 2200?
>> >
>> >Such a review can be found here:
>> >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-r800.shtml
>> >
>> >It compares the R800 and 2100 (same printer as the 2200).
>> >
>> >The R800 produces much better glossy blacks (no bronzing
>> >problems like the 2200) and has slightly better color gamut
>> >as well.
>>
>> Thanks, that review was helpful. Since I'm currently not planning to do
>many
>> prints larger than 8x12 it would not be much of a problem to send the
>occasional
>> larger print out to a lab. And in the future, who knows, perhaps Epson
>will
>> pass along the r800's technology to its older big brothers.
>
>They already have: it's called the PX-G5000. (Only in Japan so far, though.)
>
>By the way, my _suspicion_ is that the R800 renders detail better than the
>2200, simply because the droplet size is a lot smaller. I don't have a 2200,
>but the R800 prints are really lovely in terms of detail. And the gloss
>optimizer really works well: much less bronzing than even the earlier Epson
>dye-ink based inkjets.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>


Thanks for the heads up about the Px-G5000. Just saw a preview of it on
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ [...] 5000.shtml
It will probably not be in the United States until spring. Unfortunately, I
don't think that I can hold off that long. :-(

Ben