View Full Version : Need a new printer -- advice please?
My Canon inkjet printer (i550) is on its last legs and needs to be replaced. I'd like to use the opportunity to take a further step in setting up a digital darkroom, but also need the printer to be able to print documents too.
So -- I'm looking for an inkjet printer that can produce quality color and bw prints as well as print documents, but don't want to go much over $500 on the purchase price. Most prints would be 8x10, occasionally 11x14.
Any suggestions, advice, or recommendations? In particular, I'd be interested to know what people think of the Epson 1400, Epson 1800, or HP 8750. Would any of these be suitable, or would these be overkill given my needs?
Hi Steve,
If you're looking to take a step further toward a digital darkroom, then I think you're looking at a dedicated photo printer, really. Get a good photo printed and a cheap office printer.
:)
Thanks, Ray. As you can tell, I'm a newbie on this. Assuming I get a dedicated photo printer, though, any recommendations or advice given the price range?
mfunnell
12-02-2007, 17:21
Its outside your stated price range, but I've recently "semi-retired" my Canon i560 into the role of office and document printer (and the occasional 6x4 photo) and bought a Canon Pro9500 - which I'm very happy with. (I looked longingly at the Epson 3800 but couldn't go there on price. Epson's smaller offerings haven't been updated in a while and didn't fit my criteria quite so well.)
I've had excellent results from the Pro9500 (after a fairly steep learning curve). Its a few hundred $US more than you've said but offers quite a lot if you can go there on price. My only real complaints are how long it took from product announcement to shipping (no longer an issue) and how few paper manufacturers supply ICC profiles for it (Ilford being a shining exception; but I imagine this will change over time).
...Mike
The HP8750 is your best bet - but I don't think you can find it for $500. For less than $500 I'd go for the Canon Pixma Pro 9000. It will do greyscale albeit slowly. The 9000 goes for $399 at Adorama. With a $100 rebate from Canon the final cost is $299. Now that's a deal for an 8 ink printer. I own an Epson R1800 and it's not the best for b&w - can you say bronzing and metamerism.
Bob Michaels
12-02-2007, 17:28
The Epson 2400 is one of the most popular photo printers for good reasons. The Epson refurbished ones are as good as new (most are new) and available direct from Epson for $599 including shipping. Now that is $99 over your budget but that will get you a printer that will never hold you back.
You can use the 2400 as an office printer or simply buy a cheap printer for way under $100 to serve that purpose.
benmacphoto
12-02-2007, 17:44
The Epson line are wonderful printers, Ive used the 3800, 4000, 4800, 7600, and 9800. Though I have not used the 2400 I would imagine it to be similar to the 3800, which is my new favorite printer for sheet paper. Id recommend the 2400 over the 1400 or the 1800 because the 2400 has 3 black inks rather than the 1400's or 1800's 1. So it will produce better black and white tones, and for under $800 it is a very good deal. Best of luck.
Thanks, Ray. As you can tell, I'm a newbie on this. Assuming I get a dedicated photo printer, though, any recommendations or advice given the price range?
It depends on what you wanted to do. I've got a dedicated Epson 2200 w/MIS b&w inks. It's a dedicated b&w printer at this point. I like it a lot (although, recently my densities have slipped out :( ). If you're interested in something like this then check out some of the ink suppliers (e.g., inksupply.com/) and see which printers they support (work backwards from there to your price range [new and used]). I don't know printer models really, but I favor Epson. I've been looking at the 2400 and the 3800, both fairly pricey.
:)
NOTE: the 2400 has a $100 rebate right now.
Thanks all. I need to keep the purchase price w/in the budget, so the Epson 2400 is out of reach for me.
@Wray -- Thanks for the suggestion on the Canon Pixma Pro 9000. It sounds interesting, particularly w/ the rebate. Slow greyscale printing is probably not a big issue for me at this early stage. On the HP 8750, B&H's latest catalogue advertises it for $499.00. But for someone easing into this, I wonder whether the Canon wouldn't be a better choice...
@Ray -- That's a good suggestion to work back from the inks, which means I'll have to do some further investigating.
Would the Canon or HP printers work equally well with color? Most of my photography is color at present.
Steve,
I think the new Epson ultrachrome K3 inks are supposed to be really good, for both color and b&w. If I were to get a 2400 or a 3800 with the extra cartridges and K3 inks, I don't know that I would go with third party b&w inks.
anyone here using the new Epson ink?
ray
mfunnell
12-02-2007, 18:42
Would the Canon or HP printers work equally well with color? Most of my photography is color at present.I think each of the manufacturers would argue that their ink is the best ;) I'm convinced that all are good but the big choice, for colour, is whether to go with dye-based or pigment-based inks. If you want lots of "punch" on high-gloss paper then dye-based inks are probably best (although the aesthetics of lots of super-saturated colour can, and no doubt will be, argued from all sorts of angles). At the present state of the art, as I see it, you might go for dye-based inks if you want to use high-gloss media for colour printing. What you lose (compared to pigment inks) is resistance to fading and colour shifts, reducing the overall life of the print. That may or may not concern you. The other trade-off is a reduced ability to get good results on matte-surface / fine art papers, where pigment inks seem to perform better.
As you can guess, the trade-offs for pigment inks are the inverse: better print life, better on matte papers, not-so-good on high-gloss paper.
The only other thing to consider here is that, according to reports I heard somewhere but can't place, Epson has abandoned further serious R&D into dye-based inks preferring to concentrate on their long-standing market advantage in pigment inks. Canon is pushing ahead on both the dye and pigment front (their "Chromalife" dye inks are said to be long-lasting). I'm not quite sure where HP sits in this.
...Mike
I think each of the manufacturers would argue that their ink is the best ;) I'm convinced that all are good but the big choice, for colour, is whether to go with dye-based or pigment-based inks. If you want lots of "punch" on high-gloss paper then dye-based inks are probably best (although the aesthetics of lots of super-saturated colour can, and no doubt will be, argued from all sorts of angles). At the present state of the art, as I see it, you might go for dye-based inks if you want to use high-gloss media for colour printing. What you lose (compared to pigment inks) is resistance to fading and colour shifts, reducing the overall life of the print. That may or may not concern you. The other trade-off is a reduced ability to get good results on matte-surface / fine art papers, where pigment inks seem to perform better.
As you can guess, the trade-offs for pigment inks are the inverse: better print life, better on matte papers, not-so-good on high-gloss paper.
Mike -- Thanks much. I think I will want to experiment w/ both pigment- and dye-based inks, as well as different kinds of paper, so a printer that can handle both is of great interest.
mfunnell
12-02-2007, 19:51
Mike -- Thanks much. I think I will want to experiment w/ both pigment- and dye-based inks, as well as different kinds of paper, so a printer that can handle both is of great interest.I'm not sure that anyone makes printers for both dye and pigment ink. You pretty much make your choice when you buy your printer. Pigment inks dominate in the larger "pro" end of the market, with dye inks mostly (only?) available in A3+ (13"x19") and smaller. That A3+ size seems to be the "crossover point" between the classes of printer.
...Mike
Mike -- Thanks much. I think I will want to experiment w/ both pigment- and dye-based inks, as well as different kinds of paper, so a printer that can handle both is of great interest.
Printers use either dye based inks or pigment based inks, no printer I know of can use both. Unless there is something new out there that I don't know about.
I would use only the inks manufactured by the printer manufacturer. Others tend to give trouble. Another thing worth considering is whether the print heads can be replaced on a printer. Every inkjet printer I have ever had (about 8 of them from different manufacturers) has ultimately died because of a clogged print head that would not open up no matter how many "deep cleaning" print head cleaning cycles you performed. Except the Epson 4000 which just keeps on truckin'
Red Rock Bill
12-02-2007, 20:32
I'll have to agree...get the 2400 or 3800 Epson and don't look back...I just gave my 1280 to a friend (a very decent printer by the way) and have been working with my Epson 3800 with the K3 inks...I'm amazed at the b/w and the color is unbeatable........My friend has an Epson 2400 ..same inks....if you print small that's the way to go.... save for awhile longer... do whatever you have to do.....Oh and by the way if you really want to have a good time sell your soul for an Epson 7880 another friend printed his first print yesterday...holy smoke...now that's a printer...regards,Bill
We go through printers faster than digicams. If you can live with 8x10, get an Epson R380 for $85 from buy.com. I think the R1800 and R2400 is about 5-10 year old technology.
mfunnell
12-02-2007, 20:53
I think the R1800 and R2400 is about 5-10 year old technology.The matte versus photo black ink thing was what inclined me against these and favourably towards the Canon (that and more general ink consumption issues). I couldn't tell you if these Epson printers produce better-looking prints than the Canon. I can tell you that my Canon Pro9500 produces very fine looking prints.
But if I'd had the extra dollars for the Epson 3800, it would have been a very different story, as would a release of a smaller Epson with the same technology during the long, long wait between the Canon being announced and available for sale.
...Mike
Thanks. Good suggestions above, although the selection process is not getting easier...
This printer purchase would mark my initial foray into ink jet printing of photos. I want a decent printer to learn on, and to discover what I really want in a print. In time, an upgrade will likely be in order.
The Epson R380 suggestion is intriguing. This printer uses Claria Hi-Definition ink. Am I correct in assuming this is an older line of (dye-based) inks?
Are K3 inks an Epson product? Are these pigment- or dye-based? How are these different from HP's Vivera inks?
Again, please pardon the newbie questions... Thanks!
older inks compared to what?
They make prints that last for 200 years. Is there something newer that lasts longer??
Thanks. Good suggestions above, although the selection process is not getting easier...
This printer purchase would mark my initial foray into ink jet printing of photos. I want a decent printer to learn on, and to discover what I really want in a print. In time, an upgrade will likely be in order.
The Epson R380 suggestion is intriguing. This printer uses Claria Hi-Definition ink. Am I correct in assuming this is an older line of (dye-based) inks?
Are K3 inks an Epson product? Are these pigment- or dye-based? How are these different from HP's Vivera inks?
Again, please pardon the newbie questions... Thanks!
mfunnell
12-02-2007, 23:44
They make prints that last for 200 years. Is there something newer that lasts longer??I just checked http://www.wilhelm-research.com and those seem like hard numbers. If printed on the right paper and stored correctly (a universal caveat). Dye inks have come a long way! (Maybe Epson is right to have slowed R&D here: perhaps they're good enough already.)
...Mike
I just bought an Epson 1400 to replace my limping 1280. Price was also a big reason for my choice. Let's face it. Most photo printers are good. At a certain point you really start splitting subjective hairs. Here is my impression of the 1400 vs 1280.
1400 is faster and quieter
1400 has individual inks
1400 seems to only work well with glossy or luster papers, matte does not seem to
work well, unless I've not figured it out yet. I'll continue to search, but if
anyone has suggestions, I'm listening.
1400 does a better job with BW using black only ink. Despite only having one
black cartridge, it's a big improvement over the 1280 in this regard. And the
black actually looks close to being black instead of green.
1400 uses Claria Inks, which after checking the Wilhelm web site rates its
permanence at 98 years on Glossy and Luster papers. The others using
pigment based inks only are archival if you use fiber based matte papers. This
could be a bunch of hooey-we'll have to wait 98 years to find out.
On first loading the ink into the printer, charging the heads uses about 1/4 of the
ink in each tank. I made one 8x10 print and got a message that the cyan
cartridge was empty. Quite a dissapointment, but I took a chance... Removed
the cartridge, put it right back in and resumed printing. So far, so good.
Apparently, consequent changes of cartridges will not result in massive usage
of ink at $19 per color.
So far I like the printer a lot. My eye is not as good as some of the other members here and I wouldn't be able to see the minute differences between this and some other printers, but the 1280 was good enough for me to display in galleries, and my impression is that the 1400 is better. For the price, you can't beat it.
Thanks, Rhoyle, for your review of the 1400.
@Ray -- Sorry, I see from post #10 that you already answered my question about the K3 ink.
older inks compared to what?
Ampguy -- Fair question, I should have been clearer. I was thinking about the comment in #12 above about continued development in dye-based and pigment-based inks, not about the longevity of the inks themselves.
So am I correct in thinking that the less expensive printers that don't print larger-sized prints tend to use dye-based inks, while the larger Epson printers use pigment inks?
...
So am I correct in thinking that the less expensive printers that don't print larger-sized prints tend to use dye-based inks, while the larger Epson printers use pigment inks?
basically, yes. although, higher-end printers have other features/enhancements (e.g., more ink cartridges, software, etc.).
In the R380 vs R800/1800/2400 you have 6 ink cartridges, vs 8 in the r800+ based versions.
The R380 uses dye based inks that last 200+ years, while the R800 based printers use 8 legacy pigment ink cartridges last < 100 years, so IMHO, it's natural to continue R&D on a profitable ink technology to get it to a level of a more advanced less profitable ink technology.
If you understand the primary color wheel, you'll realize that more is not better, and possibly more expensive, especially if the "more advanced" software is printing your pure b&w images with colors which the R800+ based line of printers are known to do.
Thanks, Rhoyle, for your review of the 1400.
@Ray -- Sorry, I see from post #10 that you already answered my question about the K3 ink.
Ampguy -- Fair question, I should have been clearer. I was thinking about the comment in #12 above about continued development in dye-based and pigment-based inks, not about the longevity of the inks themselves.
So am I correct in thinking that the less expensive printers that don't print larger-sized prints tend to use dye-based inks, while the larger Epson printers use pigment inks?
amateriat
12-03-2007, 09:20
I've been working with an HP 8750 for a few years now. Prior to this, my printing setup consisted of a pair of Epsons: a 2200 for color work, and an 1160 with third-party inks (Lyson Quad Black Neutral) for black-and-white, because the 2200 was a dog in terms of b/w printing (and marginally better with color, depending on the paper used), with bronzing and gloss-differential galore. The following generation of Epsons (2400/4800/etc.) certainly improved on this a good deal, but still not entirely to my satisfaction.
The 8750, from my experience, pretty much eclipses all the above in terms of gloss differential and bronzing on HP's on Premium/Premium Plus papers, which is to say these problems are largely nonexistent. Better still, the resulting prints, if Mr. Wilhelm's word is to be taken (and I for one am taking it), have lightfast qualities within striking distance of pigment-ink prints. Which is great, because I've long preferred prints created with dyes to pigs, for aesthetic as well as technical reasons. I no longer regard dye inks as being a distant second to pigs in terms of longevity. Most important, the prints, both b/w (true b/w, with three black/grey inks and no color inks involved unless you want 'em) and color, are gorgeous. (And, no need to use a RIP to relentlessly tweak.)
I got my printer for well under $400, shipped, two Christmases back, online. HP has periodic rebate programs and/or free shipping if you buy direct. But check around online for a potential better price.
- Barrett
Ray, ampguy, Barrett -- Thanks for your responses. These are most helpful. I think I can now do some more informed online searching re: inks and printer prices.
Check ink prices, vendors and cartridge capacity.
I happened across a new HP 9180 on Craigslist... just out of the box and ran the print alignment. The folks then moved and decided to sell the printer. Stupendous deal at $375. I bought it at nearly half the HP retail price. Incredible prints from the printer. Then reality set in. Cartridges were $33 per cartridge. Close to $200 a set. I did the math on prints I could expect. Sold the printer to a member of the local camera club for what I paid for it. Cartridges were also not in stock locally. I live in a community of 80,000, but merchants tend not to carry limited supply stock and high end supply.
I purchased a used R2200 from a local who found he did not do enough printing to justify the wide platform, so he sold it for $150 (and threw in at least $150 worth of glossy and satin paper). The cartridges are $12 and available locally.
Now, I am sure that the 9180 would have been better, but I am truly pleased with the output of the R2200, and ecstatic about the ink prices. However, I am also not sure I do enough printing to warrant the wide carriage.
I just set up a printer for a customer (I consult on computer systems and small networks). I set up an HP color printer which we paid $149 for and it kicked but on his previous Canon IP5000 and looks as good as anything I've printed on the R2200. But, the 5 ink cartridge are tiny and I think ink will be a shock pricewise, as this customer owns an art gallery (very high end) and prints out glossy handouts at a surprising clip.
My whole point here is to ask yourself the hard questions up front.
What format will you really use (not desire). How many times will you print over 8.5X11? Is the ink situation conducive to your actual need for output. Remember that most mfrs void the warranty on printers if you use aftermarket inks and/or refill cartridges. And, they can tell if this happens.
One of the printers I feel is very capable and affordable in the small format, reasonable dye ink category is the Canon IP6700 series. Two tray feed, good mix and prices on cartridge, etc.
It's a lot easier to justifiy a wrong choice on an under $200 printer that gets used, than a $500 printer that doesn't get used as it should. Then the ink and replacement print heads for unrecoverable clogs blows your budget to hell.
I'm quite happy about my good fortune in finding a wide (tabloid 13X 19plus) printer, with reasonable ink expense, but I worry that I don't really use the large capability.
I also know that some people say the 2200 does not do great b&w, but I do keep reading that other Epsons have captured the lead in B&W in later printers like the R2400, so that would probably be my next move IF I needed that capability.
Just one more man's experience.
Don't beat it into the ground. In the court of human advice, and with the myriad of choices, you can't begin to hope to make a perfect choice.
Someday Your Prints Will Come!
LOL! :D
Kuzano - I appreciate the advice and the recommendation on the smaller format Canon.
I think my approach will be to search for a small format (i.e. 81/2 x 11) printer now that produces good results, try to develop some printing skills in that size/format, and then reassess needs in a year or so once I have more experience. I do expect to print both color and bw, so a printer that has the capability to handle both is obviously a plus. I also want to be able to experiment w/ a variety of papers.
amateriat
12-03-2007, 17:46
Kuzano: Some good points here, but I wanted to offer a detail or two
One of the printers I feel is very capable and affordable in the small format, reasonable dye ink category is the Canon IP6700 series. Two tray feed, good mix and prices on cartridge, etc.
Canon and HP printers have replaceable heads. In the case of HP printers (including the 8750) the heads are actually built into the ink carts. Change the carts, you get new heads. (Just as an FYI, I haven't had a single clog with the 8750 since installing it.)
As far as formats go: I'd rather have A3+ capability and rarely need it, than need it one week and not have it.
- Barrett
My Canon inkjet printer (i550) is on its last legs and needs to be replaced. I'd like to use the opportunity to take a further step in setting up a digital darkroom, but also need the printer to be able to print documents too.
So -- I'm looking for an inkjet printer that can produce quality color and bw prints as well as print documents, but don't want to go much over $500 on the purchase price. Most prints would be 8x10, occasionally 11x14.
Any suggestions, advice, or recommendations? In particular, I'd be interested to know what people think of the Epson 1400, Epson 1800, or HP 8750. Would any of these be suitable, or would these be overkill given my needs?
Hi,
I'm really into inkjet printing and have 5 printers. I have the HP8750 and I must say it prints beautifull color and also B&W prints all the way up to 13" x 19".
Some say it's among the very best B&W printers as it uses a tri-color ink cartridge: light grey, grey and black ink all in one cartridge. I use it to print my Leica B&W film prints.
Color prints are excellent and it prints portraits and landscapes so very nice.
I have seen the HP8750 for as little as $350 and $399 this past month, but you need to do a lot of searching to find that deal. I paid $500 and it's worth it. If you want it and if you want to pay full price of $499 then buy it from the HP site.
Kuzano: Some good points here, but I wanted to offer a detail or two
Canon and HP printers have replaceable heads. In the case of HP printers (including the 8750) the heads are actually built into the ink carts. Change the carts, you get new heads. (Just as an FYI, I haven't had a single clog with the 8750 since installing it.)
As far as formats go: I'd rather have A3+ capability and rarely need it, than need it one week and not have it.- Barrett
Thanks for the added info. This printer discussion is like ordering fresh abalone at a seafood restaurant.... Priced Daily. Printer information and equipment changes so fast. I overlooked the print head in the cartridge point because the canons and epsons I have become used to are separate ink tanks from the print heads. Yes, the HP options do include new print heads with every cartridge.
My choice was also to have the A3 capability, but I also could have everything over 8x!0 printed at Kits, about a half mile from my home.
It's complicated and thanks for the added information.
Thanks again for all of the advice. After further investigation, it looks like either the Epson R380 or the Canon Pixma iP6700 would fit my needs at the present time. Is there an HP printer that is comparable to these too?
I appreciate the recommendations on the HP 8750, Canon Pixma Pro 9000, and Epson 2400. Probably more than I need at the moment, but good suggestions for upgrade time.
As a follow-up to this thread, I am now the proud owner of a new Canon ip6700D printer (thanks to my wife and daughter and based in part on the recommendations above -- thanks, Kuzano!). I've been trying out different papers, mainly from Ilford. I'm very pleased w/ the results so far. Obviously, as a small format printer, I can't print larger than standard letter size, but that's ok for now. I think this will be a good printer to learn on. I'm also looking forward to trying out the Canon ChromaLife inks.
If their inks were actually 3 times better, as are there prices 3 times more, Maybe.
I've been impressed by other peoples Canons. I use an Epson R2200 and am very happy with it, "regardless of the 5-6 year old technology". I have a semi professional photographer friend who very happily uses a "5 year old technology" R2400. He seems to be having no problem selling his images in the art market. If I printed more, and used more ink then I'd look at the Epson R3800. However the $9 cartridges (OEM) I am buying for my R2200 "6 year old technology" printer aren't breaking me up wallet wise.
By the way, Most of my cameras are 30 to 60 year old technology. My 8 Mp DSLR is 5-6 year old technology. I've been working on computers for $20 years and love the people who have to have cutting edge. I let them pay the R&D, and I wait for the "Sweet Spot" in pricing to buy. I paid $150 for my R2200 (low mileage) and the guy threw in $125 worth of 13X19 glossy photo paper.
Does anybody know if HP uses gold dust or platinum dust in their inks.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.