| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/18/2003 11:33:14 AM · #1 |
I am looking at buying one of the two following printers. Canon S9000 Inkjet or the Epson Stylus Photo 1290, both are within my budget.
Does anyone have an experience with either of these? Any advice would be much appreciated
thanks
Rob
|
|
|
|
06/18/2003 11:41:53 AM · #2 |
Canon has a replacement for the S9000, the i9100. It was supposed to be released in early May.
From what I have read Epson should be chosen if you need longevity of your prints and Canon for speed. Both apparently have equal quality.
Check out sites like dpreview for forums and reviews.
I have the Canon i950 (narrow carriage version of i9100). I an very happy with the print quality and the speed is amazing, an 8x10 in under a minute.
Message edited by author 2003-06-18 15:43:24.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2003 12:23:41 PM · #3 |
I've had several Canon printers, and was pleased with them EXCEPT for a few picky things: a) the individual ink tanks SOUND great, but evaporate for no reason whatsoever. I could go 3 months never using color, and when the black ran out, you can bet the colors would need replacing within a week. :( b) If I didn't use Canon papers, I got photos hat looked dreadful! Yuccch! Too picky for me!
A friend kept bragging on his HP960, showing me amazing photos on a variety of papers. I ended up buying the HP DeskJet 5550. When you use the photo inks, it is good for 63 years without fading. It is EASY to use, impossible to break and gives 4800 dpi. With rebate, it's currently running about $89.99 in the local stores.
I'd ABSOLUTELY recommend this printer for a great value that's easy to use!
Good luck! |
|
|
|
06/18/2003 12:45:49 PM · #4 |
Robro,
I bought a Canon S900 (8x10 little brother of the S9000) and found that it produces absolutely stunning prints. I'm very happy with it so far but I am bumping into a few issues like f-32. I like being able to replace only the empty cartridge but the thing does seem to go through the photo magenta and photo cyan cartidges pretty quickly. His observation on paper is turning out to be pretty accurate too. I can get "adequate" prints on non-Canon paper but the best prints are on the Canon Pro paper. I also have the Lexmark Z52 printer and while both printers have the same resolution capability a side by side comparison of the same prints has everyone choosing the Canon. As to the Ink life I've yet to find anyone who can explain how ANY company can prove their inks will last 60 years or whatever since the printer/ink combos have only been out for a year or so. Besides, what are they going to to when you go to them after 15 years and say "My print faded!"? I figure with a digital printer I'll print a new one when/if the old one ever fades. One thing about the speed aspect of the Canons. I just spent the past couple of weeks doing portraits. I gotta' tell you when you're producing 60-70 4x6 prints and 10-15 8x10 you're gonna' want all the speed you can get, trust me. . .
|
|
|
|
06/18/2003 01:30:04 PM · #5 |
usually epson printers leave dots next to my text. So thats what strayed me away from the epson brand. I went out and bought an HP 7550. The no computer processing really turned me on to it.
-Tony- |
|
|
|
06/18/2003 01:37:35 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Seeker:
As to the Ink life I've yet to find anyone who can explain how ANY company can prove their inks will last 60 years or whatever since the printer/ink combos have only been out for a year or so. Besides, what are they going to to when you go to them after 15 years and say "My print faded!"? I figure with a digital printer I'll print a new one when/if the old one ever fades. |
Typically, they pay a company like Wwilhelm Research a large amount of cash to do accelerated aging tests.
Many people will not buy inkjet prints if they are printed with a dye based ink, mainly because the colours mess up really quickly (a year or so) compared to pigment based inks. The main disadvantage of pigment inks other than their cost is the reduced gamut. The dye based inks are able to achieve much higher saturation and more vibrant colours in general. |
|
|
|
06/18/2003 10:41:44 PM · #7 |
Whoa. . . ask and ye shall receive. . .
The information at the link Gordon posted has got me so bummed out on all the different methods of print degradation it's almost not worth it I knew prints faded but this is the first time I've ever seen anything on someone with 25+ years of experience with trying to protect photos, film, etc.
I'm still kinda wondering about "accelerated testing" though. I found it funny that the military finally admitted that the very tests they forced suppliers to put their equipment through to certify mil-spec capabilities was damaging and shortening the life of many components to the point they failed when actually needed.
Anyway, till Wilhelm Research comes up with information on more than one desktop photo printer I'm gonna stick with the S900 for now.
Thanks for the info Gordon, quite the eye opener.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2003 11:40:00 PM · #8 |
| Interesting that one of the few printers Wilhelm Research specifically mentions IS the HP5550. I found that Canon-printed photos, attached to the fridge by magnets, will show NOTICEABLE fading within 6-8 months. (When taken off the fridge, the spots covered by the magnets were MUCH darker.) Just my experience with grandbaby pix. Nothing my wife or I value much. NOT!!! |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:17:27 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by f-32:
Interesting that one of the few printers Wilhelm Research specifically mentions IS the HP5550. I found that Canon-printed photos, attached to the fridge by magnets, will show NOTICEABLE fading within 6-8 months. (When taken off the fridge, the spots covered by the magnets were MUCH darker.) Just my experience with grandbaby pix. Nothing my wife or I value much. NOT!!! |
Most print lifetime numbers are if the picture is kept in a cool, dry environment, in the dark for 23 hours of every day and viewed under UV glass out of direct sunlight. I doubt your fridge comes close to those conditions (unless you stored the picture inside)! Even these 60 year estimates for pigment based inks are based on similar types of viewing conditions. Certainly these are the numbers you usually see from companies like Epson who are trying to sell the printers. The WR numbers at least look at 3 or 4 typical use scenarios but the results are wildly different
Message edited by author 2003-06-19 09:20:22. |
|
|
|
06/19/2003 05:55:03 AM · #10 |
Inkjet prints fade much faster then regular film, especially if hung in warm and humid areas exposed to a lot of light, such as the fridge :) This is why I've opted for printing everything at the lab rather then doing it myself. I do all the post processing, color correction and sharpening (took me 2-3 times to figure out the cropping, saturation and brigtness needed to achieve desired results) put the photos on a CF card take them in and have them printed. Last week I printed 100+ 4x6 (10x15) prints at the cost of about 30 Euro and a walk across the street. For larger prints I go to a different lab, which has better printers (Fuji Frontier as opposed to Noritsu) and give more personal attention to achieve better results. The larger prints are the ones I really care about, so it is worth the time and monetary investment. The quality of prints made by a lab normally surpasses those made at home with inkjet printers. Outsourcing the printing makes even more sense if you print in large numbers as I do with my 4x6 (10x15) printing. Just image printing 50 pages (COLOR 1200+ dpi) from your inkjet ... just the noise would drive anyone crazy and if the ink runs out midway and you end up with a wasted page ....
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 04:03:48 AM EDT.
