New Printer Recommendations

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

I am sure there are a ton of opinions on this but I thought I would
ask.

I shoot with a D100 and a S3Pro.
I am currently using a Epson 1280 mostly with Red River Paper (polar
satin 66lb).

I am not per se unhappy with this printer but it is a few years old and
wnat to upgrade.

I print mostly 5x7 some 8x10 and rarely 11x17

I have head good things about the r800.
Price is not an issue (yet)

Thanks.

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

"robdes" <rdesel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1104582590.273070.311850@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I am sure there are a ton of opinions on this but I thought I would
> ask.
>
> I shoot with a D100 and a S3Pro.
> I am currently using a Epson 1280 mostly with Red River Paper (polar
> satin 66lb).
>
> I am not per se unhappy with this printer but it is a few years old and
> wnat to upgrade.
>
> I print mostly 5x7 some 8x10 and rarely 11x17
>
> I have head good things about the r800.
> Price is not an issue (yet)
>
> Thanks.

There are a lot of happy canon i9900 owners out there. To learn pros and
cons do a google groups search - of photography and printer discussion
groups on i9900 and go to printer forum on dpreview.com. The later has a
wealth of info.

Canon is relatively fast, easy set up. I use Ilford Classic Pearl paper
now. People will debate Espon vs. Cannon endlessly. I had to jump in and
get my feet wet. I'm happy with my decision but don't have direct
comparisons like others.

I'm not sure you'll find r800 great for the 11x17's. Read specs below:
http://tinyurl.com/6hwn3

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

"Paul Schröder" <pjsatomno@spamplanet.nl> wrote in message
news:cr6b1g$jig$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> The R800 is a very fine printer. Fine art prints on Archival Matte or
> Premium Glossy paper (8x10) are very good.
> For larger prints take a look at the Epson 2100/2200
>
> Paul
>
> http://www.atom-it.net


I can't see switching out a 1280 for a 2100/2200. You're just changing from
dye to pigment inks on basically the same quality printer.

The R800 is a big improvement --- long lasting pigment inks with gloss
optimizer. BUT (and it is a big but), it only does 81/2 x 11, NOT 11x17.

The Canon is nice, but not really a visible improvement to the 1280 (still a
fine printer -- I use my 1270 all the time).

Personally, I'd use the 1280 until it dies. If not, then wait for the R800
in 11x17 size.

If you MUST buy a printer now, consider the Epson 4000. 17" wide, so you
can print even larger. I have its big brother, the Epson 7600 (24" wide).

Tom

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

Prints with pigments ink last longer.

Paul

"robdes" <rdesel@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:1104592363.106466.318740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Is dye or pigment ink better?
>

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

"Don" <d@d.com> wrote in message
news:fGABd.8528$_X7.7846@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> I had an Epson 1270 and used the same red river paper. Now have a Canon
> i9900. Output is great, speed is amazing! It won't do 44" prints like the
> Epson and it doesn't do 8x10 borderless prints.

Do you think, as I do, that in the not too far future, there will be less
need for borderless 8x10's and more people printing borderless 8.5x 11's.
More nice frames will eventually have a 8.5x11 opening. More people will
have printers that do borderless 8.5x11 prints. If you haven't noticed
there's a lot of photo paper this size about ;-) A few stores near me
carry it. I think 8x10 is a leftover from days before digital photography
and modern printers. Noone likes to cut paper and thow out 15% of the paper
if they don't need to. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this -
though I suppose I could be wrong. If I were a frame company I'd start
making a lot of nice styles with a 8.5x11 opening, but only if I wanted to
get hugely rich in the next few years.


Main Entry: anach·ro·nism
Pronunciation: &-'na-kr&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from Middle Greek anachronismos, from anachronizesthai
to be an anachronism, from Late Greek anachronizein to be late, from Greek
ana- + chronos time
1 : an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of
persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other
2 : a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place; especially :
one from a former age that is incongruous in the present

>
> Don
>
> "robdes" <rdesel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1104582590.273070.311850@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I am sure there are a ton of opinions on this but I thought I would
> > ask.
> >
> > I shoot with a D100 and a S3Pro.
> > I am currently using a Epson 1280 mostly with Red River Paper (polar
> > satin 66lb).
> >
> > I am not per se unhappy with this printer but it is a few years old and
> > wnat to upgrade.
> >
> > I print mostly 5x7 some 8x10 and rarely 11x17
> >
> > I have head good things about the r800.
> > Price is not an issue (yet)
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
>

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

The R800 is a fine printer. However, in the same price range one can
get a Canon Pixma ip8500. This is the narrow carriage version (print
engine) of the Canon i9900, considered the best under $500.

Paul Schröder wrote:

>The R800 is a very fine printer. Fine art prints on Archival Matte or
>Premium Glossy paper (8x10) are very good.
>For larger prints take a look at the Epson 2100/2200
>
>Paul
>
>http://www.atom-it.net
>
>
>"robdes" <rdesel@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
>news:1104582590.273070.311850@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>I am sure there are a ton of opinions on this but I thought I would
>>ask.
>>
>>I shoot with a D100 and a S3Pro.
>>I am currently using a Epson 1280 mostly with Red River Paper (polar
>>satin 66lb).
>>
>>I am not per se unhappy with this printer but it is a few years old and
>>wnat to upgrade.
>>
>>I print mostly 5x7 some 8x10 and rarely 11x17
>>
>>I have head good things about the r800.
>>Price is not an issue (yet)
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>