Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Epson Photo R800

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 29, 2005 1:36:46 AM

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

HI!

Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
printer?

I would appreciate any comments as I am seriously thinking about
replacing my Stylus Color 740 with one.

TIA

Jerry

More about : epson photo r800

Anonymous
January 29, 2005 1:36:47 AM

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

"Jerry" <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> wrote in message news:99ca_knot36-B8D189.14364628012005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> HI!
>
> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> printer?

Yes.

> I would appreciate any comments as I am seriously thinking about
> replacing my Stylus Color 740 with one.

Then look them up:
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 1:36:47 AM

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

Jerry wrote:
> HI!
>
> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> printer?
>
> I would appreciate any comments as I am seriously thinking about
> replacing my Stylus Color 740 with one.
>
Tell the type of printing you plan to do, and have you also looked at
the R300. One is pigmented inks, the other uses dyes for colorant.

There's also comp.perhiphs.printers.

--
John McWilliams
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 1:45:15 AM

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

"Jerry" <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> wrote in message
news:99ca_knot36-B8D189.14364628012005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> HI!
>
> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> printer?
>
> I would appreciate any comments as I am seriously thinking about
> replacing my Stylus Color 740 with one.

I have had mine since about May. The output is nothing short of incredible,
but the ink is also incredibly expensive. Nevertheless, I would not hesitate
to get one again. The only thing I use it for is to print photos. I do wish
it had a cutter for roll paper. The output on Epson Luster is very nice.

One thing about printable CDs or DVDs. Don't bother. They are way to
expensive. I just stick blank labels on the non-printable ones and run them
through the Epson as if they were printable.

I leave it on all the time. This saves me from using gobs of ink on
start-up. It gives you plenty of warning, but if it runs out of ink in the
middle of printing it just stops and lets you put in a new cartridge. I have
never been able to see any sign of where it paused on the print.
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 5:32:25 AM

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

Jerry <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> writes:

> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> printer?

Well, yes. There's one in the living room upstairs still in its
original shipping box (it arrived this afternoon).

Ask again in a week, and I imagine I'll have *more* experience :-).

IMHO the choice is between the R800, the 2200, and the 4000. The big
differences are in size of print (and of course in price).
--
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;
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 7:56:05 AM

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

"Jerry" <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> wrote in message
news:99ca_knot36-B8D189.14364628012005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> HI!
>
> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> printer?
>
> I would appreciate any comments as I am seriously thinking about
> replacing my Stylus Color 740 with one.
>

Pit about the cost of inks.
I used to have a few Epson printers. Nothing wrong with their output, just
the running costs. Since I got rid of them and went to HP, I haven't looked
back and I think I almost have enough cash from the cost of ink savings for
a weekend away now. I'd rather spend it on decadence than Epson!

Doug
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 12:50:28 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:

> Jerry <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> writes:
>
>> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
>> printer?
>
> Well, yes. There's one in the living room upstairs still in its
> original shipping box (it arrived this afternoon).
>
> Ask again in a week, and I imagine I'll have *more* experience :-).
>
> IMHO the choice is between the R800, the 2200, and the 4000. The big
> differences are in size of print (and of course in price).

I have an older Epson printer (the Stylus Photo 780). Is there any
reason why I would want to replace it with one of these newer ones?
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 12:58:24 PM

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

"Jerry" <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> wrote in message
news:99ca_knot36-B8D189.14364628012005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> HI!
>
> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> printer?
>
> I would appreciate any comments as I am seriously thinking about
> replacing my Stylus Color 740 with one.
>
> TIA
>
> Jerry

Hi Jerry

I have had one for 4 months now and am extremely pleased with the output
from this printer.

Now on my 4th set of ink cartridges and have printed some absolutely
gorgeous landscapes. Getting close to gallery quality prints when using the
Epson Premium Glossy paper.

Ben
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 1:09:09 PM

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

I have had mine for about two months now. Using it mainly for B&W and color
photos. Print quality is very, very good. Actually, I think I will not be
needing a darkroom anymore...
Ink is a bit expensive, that is true but in my mind the results are well
worth the expenses.

Väinö Louekari

"Jerry" <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> wrote in message
news:99ca_knot36-B8D189.14364628012005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> HI!
>
> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> printer?
>
> I would appreciate any comments as I am seriously thinking about
> replacing my Stylus Color 740 with one.
>
> TIA
>
> Jerry
January 29, 2005 1:20:48 PM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qvKdnSHmAINJQGfcRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> Jerry wrote:
> > HI!
> >
> > Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> > printer?
> >
> > I would appreciate any comments as I am seriously thinking about
> > replacing my Stylus Color 740 with one.
> >
> Tell the type of printing you plan to do, and have you also looked at
> the R300. One is pigmented inks, the other uses dyes for colorant.
>
> There's also comp.perhiphs.printers.
>
> --
> John McWilliams

Personally, I'd eliminate the R300 from consideration (too much like the
R200
for twice the price). I got the R200 just to print on CDs and DVDs and it
does
a very nice job. If I'd wanted it to do photographs too, I'd have gotten
the R800
because it is noticeably better in overall print quality. (Doesn't it also
use the
smudge-resistant inks?) Also, hasn't the R300 been replaced? I think I saw
either
an R320 or R330 in the stores.
January 29, 2005 1:23:27 PM

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

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FHEKd.139242$K7.67031@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Jerry" <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> wrote in message
> news:99ca_knot36-B8D189.14364628012005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > HI!
> >
> > Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> > printer?
> >
> > I would appreciate any comments as I am seriously thinking about
> > replacing my Stylus Color 740 with one.
> >
>
> Pit about the cost of inks.
> I used to have a few Epson printers. Nothing wrong with their output, just
> the running costs. Since I got rid of them and went to HP, I haven't
looked
> back and I think I almost have enough cash from the cost of ink savings
for
> a weekend away now. I'd rather spend it on decadence than Epson!
>
> Doug
>
>

Very ironically, in spite of the higher ink costs on the Epson, you are
stuck with
the same print head until you pay to have it replaced. On HP, you get a new
one
with each cartridge. (It just cost me $60 at Costco for ink for my $100
Epson that
came with ink.)
January 29, 2005 1:27:06 PM

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

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cr2dnRQlIrhjrWbcRVn-vg@wavecable.com...
>
> "Jerry" <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> wrote in message
> news:99ca_knot36-B8D189.14364628012005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > HI!
> >
> > Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> > printer?
> >
> > I would appreciate any comments as I am seriously thinking about
> > replacing my Stylus Color 740 with one.
>
> I have had mine since about May. The output is nothing short of
incredible,
> but the ink is also incredibly expensive. Nevertheless, I would not
hesitate
> to get one again. The only thing I use it for is to print photos. I do
wish
> it had a cutter for roll paper. The output on Epson Luster is very nice.
>
> One thing about printable CDs or DVDs. Don't bother. They are way to
> expensive. I just stick blank labels on the non-printable ones and run
them
> through the Epson as if they were printable.
>

I've been getting them when they go on sale (check techbargains.com to see
who has them on sale) and have been paying less than 0.30 each for printable
DVD-Rs. I think that is pretty cheap and is certainly cheaper than having a
label peel off inside your drive and screw things up...EVEN if you can just
fool
around with the drive for half an hour and get it working again who wants to
work for 0.60 an hour?

> I leave it on all the time. This saves me from using gobs of ink on
> start-up. It gives you plenty of warning, but if it runs out of ink in the
> middle of printing it just stops and lets you put in a new cartridge. I
have
> never been able to see any sign of where it paused on the print.
>
>
January 29, 2005 1:30:28 PM

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

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m23bwkd49y.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> Jerry <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> writes:
>
> > Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> > printer?
>
> Well, yes. There's one in the living room upstairs still in its
> original shipping box (it arrived this afternoon).
>
> Ask again in a week, and I imagine I'll have *more* experience :-).
>
> IMHO the choice is between the R800, the 2200, and the 4000. The big
> differences are in size of print (and of course in price).

And IF you're considering the 2200 (which IS nice), you'd probably better be
considering the Canon i9900 which is $200 less, has cheaper ink costs, AND
has even nicer output. Isn't competition great? Now, if Canon would just
bring
their i9950 (South Pacific, Asia, Europe sales only) to the U.S.

> --
> 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;
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 4:28:31 PM

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

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:50:28 -0800, Matt Austern <austern@well.com>
wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> Jerry <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> writes:
>>
>>> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
>>> printer?
>>
>> Well, yes. There's one in the living room upstairs still in its
>> original shipping box (it arrived this afternoon).
>>
>> Ask again in a week, and I imagine I'll have *more* experience :-).
>>
>> IMHO the choice is between the R800, the 2200, and the 4000. The big
>> differences are in size of print (and of course in price).
>
>I have an older Epson printer (the Stylus Photo 780). Is there any
>reason why I would want to replace it with one of these newer ones?


Only the following:

1: R800: red and blue inks for wider gamut,
gloss optimizer, pigment inks for longevity
2: 2200: pigment inks, 13" wide, standard
CMYKcm (six color) ink set.
3: 4000: pigment inks, 17" wide, seven
color inkset (CMYKcm with two types of
black ink.)


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 4:28:32 PM

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

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:u0lnv09oif04mjtirqegn0u2jergnvkvpd@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:50:28 -0800, Matt Austern <austern@well.com>
> wrote:
>
> >David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
> >
> >> Jerry <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
> >>> printer?
> >>
> >> Well, yes. There's one in the living room upstairs still in its
> >> original shipping box (it arrived this afternoon).
> >>
> >> Ask again in a week, and I imagine I'll have *more* experience :-).
> >>
> >> IMHO the choice is between the R800, the 2200, and the 4000. The big
> >> differences are in size of print (and of course in price).
> >
> >I have an older Epson printer (the Stylus Photo 780). Is there any
> >reason why I would want to replace it with one of these newer ones?
>
>
> Only the following:
>
> 1: R800: red and blue inks for wider gamut,
> gloss optimizer, pigment inks for longevity

And 1.5-picoliter drop size (invisible grain, down to a 10x
loupe).
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 8:32:13 PM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:

> "Matt L" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >I have an older Epson printer (the Stylus Photo 780). Is there any
>> > >reason why I would want to replace it with one of these newer ones?
>> >
>> > Only the following:
>> >
>> > 1: R800: red and blue inks for wider gamut,
>> > gloss optimizer, pigment inks for longevity
>>
>> And 1.5-picoliter drop size (invisible grain, down to a 10x
>> loupe).
>
> Really. Flipping amazing. Feed it a quality 645 scan for really flipping
> amazing.

I've just looked at some reviews. I think I'm convinced.
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 10:04:28 PM

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

"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:m23bwkd49y.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
>> Jerry <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> writes:
>>
>> > Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
>> > printer?
>>
>> Well, yes. There's one in the living room upstairs still in its
>> original shipping box (it arrived this afternoon).
>>
>> Ask again in a week, and I imagine I'll have *more* experience :-).
>>
>> IMHO the choice is between the R800, the 2200, and the 4000. The big
>> differences are in size of print (and of course in price).
>
> And IF you're considering the 2200 (which IS nice), you'd probably
> better be considering the Canon i9900 which is $200 less, has
> cheaper ink costs, AND has even nicer output. Isn't competition
> great? Now, if Canon would just bring their i9950 (South Pacific,
> Asia, Europe sales only) to the U.S.

I'm not as happy with the archival properties of the Canon photo
printers.
--
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;
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 10:06:22 PM

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

Matt Austern <austern@well.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> Jerry <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> writes:
>>
>>> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
>>> printer?
>>
>> Well, yes. There's one in the living room upstairs still in its
>> original shipping box (it arrived this afternoon).
>>
>> Ask again in a week, and I imagine I'll have *more* experience :-).
>>
>> IMHO the choice is between the R800, the 2200, and the 4000. The big
>> differences are in size of print (and of course in price).
>
> I have an older Epson printer (the Stylus Photo 780). Is there any
> reason why I would want to replace it with one of these newer ones?

The printers on the list above use their Ultrachrome pigmented inks,
producing *much* more permanent prints on the right papers. The 780 is
one of the dye ink generations, isn't it? So we're talking 6 months
to 10 years, depending on which dye ink system it uses, vs. 80 or so
years for the Ultrachrome.

They also do B&W prints much better than the early generation printers
do.

The 2200 and especially the 4000 also print much wider than the 780.
--
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;
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 1:08:12 AM

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

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:39:51 -0800, "Matt L" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:u0lnv09oif04mjtirqegn0u2jergnvkvpd@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:50:28 -0800, Matt Austern <austern@well.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> Jerry <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo R800
>> >>> printer?
>> >>
>> >> Well, yes. There's one in the living room upstairs still in its
>> >> original shipping box (it arrived this afternoon).
>> >>
>> >> Ask again in a week, and I imagine I'll have *more* experience :-).
>> >>
>> >> IMHO the choice is between the R800, the 2200, and the 4000. The big
>> >> differences are in size of print (and of course in price).
>> >
>> >I have an older Epson printer (the Stylus Photo 780). Is there any
>> >reason why I would want to replace it with one of these newer ones?
>>
>>
>> Only the following:
>>
>> 1: R800: red and blue inks for wider gamut,
>> gloss optimizer, pigment inks for longevity
>
>And 1.5-picoliter drop size (invisible grain, down to a 10x
>loupe).

and Matt Black as well as Black.


***************************************************************

"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing."

John C. Keats
American Writer
1924-2000
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 9:51:14 AM

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

"Matt L" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >I have an older Epson printer (the Stylus Photo 780). Is there any
> > >reason why I would want to replace it with one of these newer ones?
> >
> > Only the following:
> >
> > 1: R800: red and blue inks for wider gamut,
> > gloss optimizer, pigment inks for longevity
>
> And 1.5-picoliter drop size (invisible grain, down to a 10x
> loupe).

Really. Flipping amazing. Feed it a quality 645 scan for really flipping
amazing.

And there's a Super-A3 version out in Japan already.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 9:51:15 AM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:cth16t$otj$2@nnrp.gol.com...
>
>
> Really. Flipping amazing. Feed it a quality 645 scan for really flipping
> amazing.
>
> And there's a Super-A3 version out in Japan already.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Super A3 what? David.

Doug
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 3:18:35 PM

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

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Really. Flipping amazing. Feed it a quality 645 scan for really flipping
> > amazing.
> >
> > And there's a Super-A3 version out in Japan already.
> >
> Super A3 what? David.

Super A3 (13x19) printer with the same same head/ink/gamut specs as the
R800. Actually, it's more complicated than that.

The R800 is called the PX-G900 in Japan. It's already been replaced (in the
Japanese market) by the PX-G920*, which Epson claims has a wider gamut. The
PX-G5000** (the 13x19 version) has the same head/ink/gamut specs as the
PX-G920.

*: http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/p...
**:
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/p...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 3:18:36 PM

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

In article <cthrac$vj7$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> *: http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/p...
> **:
> http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/p...

Not all of us read kanji :-)

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 3:18:36 PM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:cthrac$vj7$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> Super A3 (13x19) printer with the same same head/ink/gamut specs as the
> R800. Actually, it's more complicated than that.
>
> The R800 is called the PX-G900 in Japan. It's already been replaced (in
the
> Japanese market) by the PX-G920*, which Epson claims has a wider gamut.
The
> PX-G5000** (the 13x19 version) has the same head/ink/gamut specs as the
> PX-G920.
>
> *:
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/p...
> **:
> http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/p...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Ahhh. Now I understand.
I guess Australia will see the creature sometime this year.
My only gripe with epson is the cost of ink. Right now I get pretty clost to
r800 results with HP and the ink is half the price. All the stuff Epson went
on with about the 4000 being very economical sort of paled into the sunset
when it cost a grand for a full set of tanks!! My designjets have tanks 30%
the size of 4000's 'small' tanks but will print well over 40 metres of 600mm
wide photos before costing under $200 for a full refill. Do you know what
the running costs of these new printers are yet?

Doug
January 30, 2005 4:07:58 PM

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

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2fz0jbucj.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> writes:
>
> > "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> > news:m23bwkd49y.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> >> Jerry <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo
R800
> >> > printer?
> >>
> >> Well, yes. There's one in the living room upstairs still in its
> >> original shipping box (it arrived this afternoon).
> >>
> >> Ask again in a week, and I imagine I'll have *more* experience :-).
> >>
> >> IMHO the choice is between the R800, the 2200, and the 4000. The big
> >> differences are in size of print (and of course in price).
> >
> > And IF you're considering the 2200 (which IS nice), you'd probably
> > better be considering the Canon i9900 which is $200 less, has
> > cheaper ink costs, AND has even nicer output. Isn't competition
> > great? Now, if Canon would just bring their i9950 (South Pacific,
> > Asia, Europe sales only) to the U.S.
>
> I'm not as happy with the archival properties of the Canon photo
> printers.
> --

Really? They aren't as good as Epson? OTOH, does it really matter
with digital images? After all, in twenty to fifty years, dust off your
CD/DVD
backup and print another...the color wouldn't have shifted like it does with
old negatives/slides. (Even if CD/DVDs don't exist by then, you'd likely
have
transferred the file, converting file format if necessary, to whatever is
the
media du jour.) BTW, it is my understanding that the R800 doesn't enjoy
the archival properties of the 2200...correct?

George

> 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;
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 4:07:59 PM

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

"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message news:zv9Ld.28080$mV7.15002@fe07.lga...
> media du jour.) BTW, it is my understanding that the R800 doesn't enjoy
> the archival properties of the 2200...correct?

No.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 5:11:58 PM

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

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:07:58 -0500, "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com>
wrote:


>Really? They aren't as good as Epson? OTOH, does it really matter
>with digital images? After all, in twenty to fifty years, dust off your
>CD/DVD
>backup and print another...the color wouldn't have shifted like it does with
>old negatives/slides. (Even if CD/DVDs don't exist by then, you'd likely
>have
>transferred the file, converting file format if necessary, to whatever is
>the
>media du jour.) BTW, it is my understanding that the R800 doesn't enjoy
>the archival properties of the 2200...correct?


Of course there's the off chance that the DVDs themselves
may be unreadable -- but that's a whole 'nother topic.

The R800 and 2200 use the same basic Ultrachrome inkset
as far as I know -- except that the R800 as two additional
colors.

Canon desktop printers use dye inks which, in general
can't match the longevity ratings of pigments. On
certain Canon media, ratings of approx. 30 year
longevity -- but I'm not sure if that rating is
from Canon or Wilhelm.

An interesting "new" player in the field is HP, who
now offer 80 year (Wilhelm) print longevity with
dye inks -- but only on certain HP media.

In a nutshell: if you like making prints on glossy
or satin media, and don't mind the restriction of
using only HP media, check out the HP DesignJet
printers (30 and 130) and some of their destop models.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 7:55:07 PM

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

"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:m2fz0jbucj.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
>> "George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> writes:
>>
>> > "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
>> > news:m23bwkd49y.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
>> >> Jerry <99ca_knot36@sbcglobal.not.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Does anyone in this group have any experience with the Epson Photo
> R800
>> >> > printer?
>> >>
>> >> Well, yes. There's one in the living room upstairs still in its
>> >> original shipping box (it arrived this afternoon).
>> >>
>> >> Ask again in a week, and I imagine I'll have *more* experience :-).
>> >>
>> >> IMHO the choice is between the R800, the 2200, and the 4000. The big
>> >> differences are in size of print (and of course in price).
>> >
>> > And IF you're considering the 2200 (which IS nice), you'd probably
>> > better be considering the Canon i9900 which is $200 less, has
>> > cheaper ink costs, AND has even nicer output. Isn't competition
>> > great? Now, if Canon would just bring their i9950 (South Pacific,
>> > Asia, Europe sales only) to the U.S.
>>
>> I'm not as happy with the archival properties of the Canon photo
>> printers.

> Really? They aren't as good as Epson? OTOH, does it really matter
> with digital images? After all, in twenty to fifty years, dust off
> your CD/DVD backup and print another...the color wouldn't have
> shifted like it does with old negatives/slides. (Even if CD/DVDs
> don't exist by then, you'd likely have transferred the file,
> converting file format if necessary, to whatever is the media du
> jour.) BTW, it is my understanding that the R800 doesn't enjoy the
> archival properties of the 2200...correct?

Well, what I'll say with some confidence is that the Canon permanence
isn't *as well attested* as the Epson. The numbers I've seen quoted
are lower, too, though not hugely (the Canons are *not* a return to
the bad old days of 6-month fading).

For a picture on my walls, reprinting is a reasonable option. For a
picture I've sold, though, it isn't really. Especially if I have to
do it free for the customer because they (or the court) feels it was
unreasonable for it to fade too soon.

Epson cites "over 100 years" for the R800, but does not mention any
independent test lab results. For the 2200, they cite a range of
numbers from 61 to 108 years depending on paper, and refer you to the
Wilhelm Research numbers for the Epson 4000 which they say uses
identical inks to the 2200.

And, when I go to the Wilhelm Research site, I find both an article on
the 4000 *and* an article on the R800, which have significantly
different numbers. So that seems to say that the inksets aren't
identical (which we pretty much knew already). But the Wilhel
Research information on the R800 lists most papers as >200 years in
dark storage or in an album (when Wilhelm says >x years, it means the
tests are continuing generally, and *so far* they project at least 200
ears of life), and generally numbers over 100 years for prints
displayed under glass or a UV filter. There are downloadable PDFs
with considerably more detail, currently linked from the front page at
<www.wilhelm-research.com&gt;.

So I'd say that the R800 roughly partakes of the archival permanence
of the other Ultrachrome ink printers in Epson's lineup, the 2200 and
the 4000.

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any reports on the Canon inks
there. I can't find anything on the Canon web site, either, so I've
got nothing to cite for permanence on that side. Pparently they're
not marketing them based on their permanence, anyway.
--
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;
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:26:31 PM

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

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>My only gripe with epson is the cost of ink. Right now I get pretty clost to
>r800 results with HP and the ink is half the price.

Which HP is that?

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:37:04 PM

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

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>So I switched to Epson and head-clog hell. Sigh. (The R800 has has
>no head clogs yet, but it's an Epson.)

That's my prob, with an old stylus colour 660. It's not worth my
buying new ink if the head clogs can't be cleared (and presumably
the 'clean head' routine burns ink like hell). If HP has new heads
with each ink change, I'd think that would be well worth it.

>As people keep pointing out, getting lab prints makes more financial sense
>than inkjets. I like making my own prints, so the added expense is worth it,
>but if I were going to worry about price, walking up to the station with a
>memory card would save money. (Please, don't tell our CEO<g>.)

There is the convenience for one-offs, as well as not having to
learn how to make sure prints come out exactly the size you want
from the lab, etc.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:27:15 PM

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

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> Ahhh. Now I understand.
> I guess Australia will see the creature sometime this year.

Epson is quite slow about releasing printers outside Japan. Don't hold your
breath.

> My only gripe with epson is the cost of ink. Right now I get pretty clost
to
> r800 results with HP and the ink is half the price.

Roger Clark here has mentioned the excellent resolution he gets from his HP
printers. I didn't like the paper path in the A4 HP I had many years ago
(for plain-paper, I prefer HP's paper drawer under the printer design, but
for thick glossy paper, it would put nasty scratches in the surface of the
paper). So I switched to Epson and head-clog hell. Sigh. (The R800 has has
no head clogs yet, but it's an Epson.)

> All the stuff Epson went
> on with about the 4000 being very economical sort of paled into the sunset
> when it cost a grand for a full set of tanks!! My designjets have tanks
30%
> the size of 4000's 'small' tanks but will print well over 40 metres of
600mm
> wide photos before costing under $200 for a full refill. Do you know what
> the running costs of these new printers are yet?

Expensive. The cartridge tanks are tiny and it wastes an amazing amount of
ink (all colors) each time you change a single cartridge. Grr. Oh, yes. The
PX-G5000 uses the same tiny cartridges.

As people keep pointing out, getting lab prints makes more financial sense
than inkjets. I like making my own prints, so the added expense is worth it,
but if I were going to worry about price, walking up to the station with a
memory card would save money. (Please, don't tell our CEO<g>.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:27:16 PM

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

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:27:15 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Ahhh. Now I understand.
>> I guess Australia will see the creature sometime this year.
>
>Epson is quite slow about releasing printers outside Japan. Don't hold your
>breath.
>
>> My only gripe with epson is the cost of ink. Right now I get pretty clost
>to
>> r800 results with HP and the ink is half the price.
>
>Roger Clark here has mentioned the excellent resolution he gets from his HP
>printers. I didn't like the paper path in the A4 HP I had many years ago
>(for plain-paper, I prefer HP's paper drawer under the printer design, but
>for thick glossy paper, it would put nasty scratches in the surface of the
>paper). So I switched to Epson and head-clog hell. Sigh. (The R800 has has
>no head clogs yet, but it's an Epson.)
>
>> All the stuff Epson went
>> on with about the 4000 being very economical sort of paled into the sunset
>> when it cost a grand for a full set of tanks!! My designjets have tanks
>30%
>> the size of 4000's 'small' tanks but will print well over 40 metres of
>600mm
>> wide photos before costing under $200 for a full refill. Do you know what
>> the running costs of these new printers are yet?
>
>Expensive. The cartridge tanks are tiny and it wastes an amazing amount of
>ink (all colors) each time you change a single cartridge. Grr. Oh, yes. The
>PX-G5000 uses the same tiny cartridges.
>
>As people keep pointing out, getting lab prints makes more financial sense
>than inkjets. I like making my own prints, so the added expense is worth it,
>but if I were going to worry about price, walking up to the station with a
>memory card would save money. (Please, don't tell our CEO<g>.)


We're in agreement as usual.

And at the risk of agreeing with Ryadia, I'll
put in a good word for HP printers, in particular
the DesignJet 30 (my first HP.) Excellent print
quality and very stingy on ink consumption. This
after oh, a half dozen Epsons and a Canon 9000.

I don't particularly care for its paper handling
and paper path, but that's really the ony flaw
worth mentioning.

I'll never again buy a "tiny ink cart" printer.
The DesignJet 30 has an ink delivery system
that's more like to Pro Epson models.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:56:27 PM

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

Hi
Ive had mine for a couple of weeks now and I love it. I was really
struggling to find any outlet that could print my digital photos anywhere
near half decently. They were coming back washed out, colourless and
extremely disappointing. I thought I had a problem with my digital camera.
I bought the Epson R800 for AUD $555, so far I have replaced two tanks of
ink, cyan & magenta. At the time of replacing those two tanks my prints
worked out to be costing me approx: 75cents per print (AUD) , as against
..49 cents per print from a Camera Store. The prints coming off my Epson are
far and away superior in every way to those I have had done at varied labs.
Its worth the extra 25 cents per print to me to have really good photos and
to be able to control their colour saturation, clarity and longevity. I
make memory albums, and Epson Premium Glossy paper with this printer is
said by Wilhelm Imaging to produce prints which last over 200 years in an
album.
I dont know about the ink head,but so far so good :-)
Annette

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:05:40 AM

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

I am in new zealand and i am extremely pleased with my R800 as well,am
getting some absolutely awesome printouts from my G6
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:09:09 AM

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

I am able to get the catridges and paper at trade price here,the
cartridges are NZ$19,about NZ$24 retail price
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:28:20 PM

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

"Mary-ME" <you@at.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:co882191m0hh1ckf6dn5m0hubnjdb44vi7@4ax.com...
>I am able to get the catridges and paper at trade price here,the
> cartridges are NZ$19,about NZ$24 retail price

Each or for a set?
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 6:51:22 AM

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

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:28:20 GMT, "Piemanlager"
<simon.nospamevans2@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Mary-ME" <you@at.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:co882191m0hh1ckf6dn5m0hubnjdb44vi7@4ax.com...
>>I am able to get the catridges and paper at trade price here,the
>> cartridges are NZ$19,about NZ$24 retail price
>
>Each or for a set?
>
>
Each
!