 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / October 2004Which A3 inkjet printer
My Epson 1270 has just gone belly up. I'll probably try to get it fixed, but have the go ahead to buy a new replacement anyway. Anyone have a recommendation? Priorities are A3 capability and excellent photo quality. If does decent B&Ws without too much tweaking that would be a bonus. Printing speed and running costs are less of an issue, though the ability take seperate colour cartridges would be welcome. Anyone? Ta. In the new manuscript <2t7o6kF1t1nonU1@uni-berlin.de>, Willy Eckerslyke penned the following script... > speed and running costs are less of an issue, though the > ability take seperate colour cartridges would be welcome. > > Anyone? > > Ta. Epson 2100 or the Canon i9900, out of the 2 Canon is cheaper to buy and run but you may experience fading (I've yet to and some of my prints are not behind covers/glass. I use the i965 essentially it's smaller brother in regards to inks.) it's also one of the fastest printers on the market. Epson is more expensive but uses pigment inks which last longer but may suffer from metamerism. Canon have a replaceable head, Epson may or may not have a problem with clogged heads, some people report a lot of problems. http://www.computer-darkroom.com/epson2100/2100_1.htm http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_i9900.html Choose your poison as they say... Epson is apparently releasing a new A3 printer soon that supports RAW. Details are thin on the ground at present: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/px-g5000.shtml HTH.  SignatureOne man, One Camera and a Demented Vision: www.CelticShadows.co.uk > Epson 2100 or the Canon i9900, out of the 2 Canon is cheaper to buy and > run but you may experience fading (I've yet to and some of my prints are > not behind covers/glass. Can't find the i9900 listed anywhere, just the i9950 which is marginally dearer than the Epson. Presumably this has superceded the i9900. > I use the i965 essentially it's smaller brother > in regards to inks.) it's also one of the fastest printers on the > market. Epson is more expensive but uses pigment inks which last longer > but may suffer from metamerism. This now seems to be the crucial question for me. Move over to pigment based inks and learn to live with the metamerism and the less "punchy" lower contrast results or risk fading with the Canon. > Canon have a replaceable head, Epson may > or may not have a problem with clogged heads, some people report a lot > of problems. Previous experience suggests that this is only a problem if the printer is used infrequently, which it won't be in my case. > http://www.computer-darkroom.com/epson2100/2100_1.htm > http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_i9900.html Another good one here in case anyone else is interested: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Canon%20i9999/page_1.htm > Choose your poison as they say... Quite. > Epson is apparently releasing a new A3 printer soon that supports RAW. > Details are thin on the ground at present: > > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/px-g5000.shtml Nah, I want it _now_! Thanks for identifying two good choices Faolan. You've given me plenty to think about. As there's still a chance that I'll get the 1270 repaired and keep it as a spare, I'm erring towards the 2100 for a choice of pigment or dye based inks as needed. Anyone have any direct experience of the Epson 2100 or 2000? In the new manuscript <2t9j3dF1teockU1@uni-berlin.de>, Willy Eckerslyke penned the following script... <snip> My apologies, this is problem with Canon and Epson the i9900 and the i9950 is essentially the same printer. As is 2100/2200... I have used the Epson 2100, it's a nice printer but too slow. The costs of inks compared to Canon also turned me away from them, I suffered 2 head clogs in a week of heavy printing. I sent it back. The main reason I liked it was the cutter and roll feed, it was wonderful for panoramics. Also the monochrome prints where generally amazing. I used the i9100 the predecessor and did so for about a year when I made the switch back to A4, this printer performed flawlessly. The print quality was on par and sometimes better with Epson, I missed the roller feed and the cutter. That said the speed was phenomenal, the i9950 is even faster and uses even smaller droplets to give a smoother transition between colours. You can get a print sample done by Canon if you so wish to see their quality. I couldn't believe the time difference between the 2 printers, nearly 20 minutes! I could give a client a shot within 5 minutes of it being taken, unlike the Epson with took nearly 30 min and that's A3 prints! If you are using Third party inks, then your TCO will be different, but I have yet to find it cheaper than £9.70 per cartridge for the 2100 but the inks for Canon are £5.80. Also the 2100 is a *lot* more fussy about the paper you can print on due to it's pigments. Epson have some nice features, however I am now Canon man. The prints from last year have not faded, and a I know a lot of pros are starting to sell prints from this printer, it's still unrated however if the prints are looked after and behind glass I don't think there will be much difference. 30 years o so is the going rate for colour prints from Canon so far using the BCI 6 series. > I have used the Epson 2100, it's a nice printer but too slow. The costs > of inks compared to Canon also turned me away from them, I suffered 2 > head clogs in a week of heavy printing. I sent it back. Oh dear. I'd practically made my mind up before you said that! Do think this is a common problem or were you just unlucky? > The main reason > I liked it was the cutter and roll feed, it was wonderful for > panoramics. Also the monochrome prints where generally amazing. Serious plus points indeed. <speed> Not really worried about that. We have a colour laser if anyone's in a real hurry. > If you are using Third party inks, then your TCO will be different, but > I have yet to find it cheaper than £9.70 per cartridge for the 2100 but > the inks for Canon are £5.80. > > Also the 2100 is a *lot* more fussy about the paper you can print on due > to it's pigments. Again not a problem. Costs all get passed on, and anything'll be cheaper than sending me back into the darkoom. > The prints from last year have not faded, and a I know a lot of > pros are starting to sell prints from this printer, it's still unrated > however if the prints are looked after and behind glass I don't think > there will be much difference. 30 years o so is the going rate for > colour prints from Canon so far using the BCI 6 series. Have you come across any Canon prints (from this series of printers) that have faded? How extreme do teh conditions have to be? This is a serious issue for me. Thanks again for taking the time, there's no substitue for first hand experience. Panic's over, I just got my old 1270 working again! While doing a google search for blocked ink heads on the Epson 2100, I came across this useful page: http://www.mwords.co.uk/pages/printers/printersHowDoI.htm It explains how to reset Epson printers that have gone into an error mode where all the lights flash and the manual tells you to send it back to Epson. Thanks for the help, but perhaps I can delay buying a replacement for a little while longer. In the new manuscript <2ta1vpF1s7macU1@uni-berlin.de>, Willy Eckerslyke penned the following script... > Thanks for the help, but perhaps I can delay buying a replacement for a > little while longer. No problem it's a good printer, and I have noted the site for my own bookmarks ;o) Take care. > Panic's over, I just got my old 1270 working again! > While doing a google search for blocked ink heads on the Epson 2100, I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks for the help, but perhaps I can delay buying a replacement for a > little while longer. MWords do a stack of stuff including continuous ink systems and calibration kit. They have been developing the lines for about five years now and are a valuable source of info. David In the new manuscript <2ta07vF1surv4U1@uni-berlin.de>, Willy Eckerslyke penned the following script... > > I have used the Epson 2100, it's a nice printer but too slow. The costs > > of inks compared to Canon also turned me away from them, I suffered 2 > > head clogs in a week of heavy printing. I sent it back. > > Oh dear. I'd practically made my mind up before you said that! > Do think this is a common problem or were you just unlucky? I am not sure, if you lurk in Comp.Periphs.Printers you will see a lot of people complaining about blocked heads, how common I don't know. The reviews of the printers was favourable. You may want to visit this Usenet group for common faults on printers as well. > Have you come across any Canon prints (from this series of printers) > that have faded? How extreme do teh conditions have to be? This is a > serious issue for me. None, only problem and this a common to all ink jets is the water fastness of the ink on the paper. I have splashed water on some Canon prints and you get 'splotches' where the droplets have fallen. That aside I have no complaints what so ever regarding the prints on fading and one of them is in a hospital environment. > In the new manuscript <2ta07vF1surv4U1@uni-berlin.de>, Willy Eckerslyke > penned the following script... >>Do think this is a common problem or were you just unlucky? > I am not sure, if you lurk in Comp.Periphs.Printers you will see a lot > of people complaining about blocked heads, how common I don't know. The > reviews of the printers was favourable. You may want to visit this > Usenet group for common faults on printers as well. Will do. Ta. >>Have you come across any Canon prints (from this series of printers) >>that have faded? How extreme do teh conditions have to be? This is a >>serious issue for me. > None, only problem and this a common to all ink jets is the water > fastness of the ink on the paper. I have splashed water on some Canon > prints and you get 'splotches' where the droplets have fallen. That > aside I have no complaints what so ever regarding the prints on fading > and one of them is in a hospital environment. That's very encouraging. Now that the pressure's off I have time to collect a few sample prints so will definitely check out Canon. >Printing speed and running costs are less of an issue, though the >ability take seperate colour cartridges would be welcome. Why are separate colour cartridges an advantage? People who have these types of printers now complain that they are about 3 times as expensive on ink as the old combined type. The problems are: - the cost of five separate cartridges is much more than one combined cartridge - each time you change one of the separate cartridges the printer goes through a head cleaning cycle and wastes ink from all of the cartridges. In practice different ink colours tend to be used up at roughly the same rate, so the whole argument for having separate cartridges is false anyway. > >Printing speed and running costs are less of an issue, though the > >ability take seperate colour cartridges would be welcome. > Why are separate colour cartridges an advantage? People who have these > types of printers now complain that they are about 3 times as > expensive on ink as the old combined type. > The problems are: > - the cost of five separate cartridges is much more than one combined > cartridge It certainly needn't be much more expensive. My latest printer (Canon Pixma i4000) uses 5 at 6-7GBP each whilst my older printer (Canon BJC7100) uses 2 at 24-30GBP each. > - each time you change one of the separate cartridges the printer goes > through a head cleaning cycle and wastes ink from all of the > cartridges. Minimal and it happens in normal use anyway. > In practice different ink colours tend to be used up at roughly the > same rate, so the whole argument for having separate cartridges is > false anyway. Have you checked this? I doubt if it works in practice unless you use a wide mix of styles. Most people tend to use an excess of one or another. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines >> In practice different ink colours tend to be used up at roughly the >> same rate, so the whole argument for having separate cartridges is >> false anyway. > >Have you checked this? I doubt if it works in practice unless you use a >wide mix of styles. Most people tend to use an excess of one or another. I don't see how you can justify that statement. Isn't this the whole principle of white balance? I.e. using auto white balance with a digital camera, the overall levels of RGB are equalised? Occasional scenes will have an excess of one colour, e.g. a green field, a red dress etc., but on the whole they average out. > >> In practice different ink colours tend to be used up at roughly the > >> same rate, so the whole argument for having separate cartridges is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > I don't see how you can justify that statement. > Isn't this the whole principle of white balance? I.e. using auto white > balance with a digital camera, the overall levels of RGB are > equalised? Occasional scenes will have an excess of one colour, e.g. a > green field, a red dress etc., but on the whole they average out. OK if all you use the printer for is photographs and you don't concentrate on a particular subject area or use a particular set. My usage fails for both and I'm sure I'm not unique. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines >> Isn't this the whole principle of white balance? I.e. using auto white >> balance with a digital camera, the overall levels of RGB are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >on a particular subject area or use a particular set. My usage fails for >both and I'm sure I'm not unique. John If you're using a photoprinter for non photographic use you may be right. For photos you can easily check colour balance by looking at the RGB histograms in Photoshop or similar. You'll see that even a shot of a bright blue sky will contain a high proportion of red and green components and the same will hold true for other "real" colours. If you're using the printer in a graphics art context then that is a very different matter. I think Canon were the first to introduce separate cartridges for each color on their photoprinters, and they made great claims about how this would save us money, and this claim was blindly passed on by reviewers and sales staff. Unfortunately Epson are now following this route. However, these claims of big savings just don't seem to be being achieved in practice for photo use. Now photographers are writing to the magazines saying these claims are rubbish and complaining of having to bear greatly increased ink costs with such printers (3x according to one user who wrote to AP). We need to bear in mind that the manufacturers make much more money out of selling inks than printers, so it's in their interests to force us to buy separate cartridges. I just hope that when Epson bring in their 1290 replacement it will retain the combined colour cartridge, but somehow I don't think it will. In the new manuscript <41714334.23083022@news.freeserve.net>, Tony H penned the following script... > I just hope that when Epson bring in their 1290 replacement it will > retain the combined colour cartridge, but somehow I don't think it > will. I will jump in here, I use 2 Photo Magenta/Cyan cartridges to the 1 CYMK cartridge. So in principle what you saying that the photo M/C cartridges should be incorporated? That would cost more in the long run. Canon have tackled this in their new printers by introducing a smaller print 'dot' (1 PicoLitre) which should help reduce ink wastage. It also helps negate the need for Photo inks. There is more knowledgeable people in Comp.Periphs.Printers if you want to discuss the advantages of single ink cartridges over the cost to 'all in one' cartridges. >I will jump in here, I use 2 Photo Magenta/Cyan cartridges to the 1 CYMK >cartridge. So in principle what you saying that the photo M/C cartridges >should be incorporated? That would cost more in the long run. I don't quite get your point here. Does your printer have both separate and combined cartridges? Or are you saying you use twice as much magenta & cyan as yellow? >Canon have tackled this in their new printers by introducing a smaller >print 'dot' (1 PicoLitre) which should help reduce ink wastage. It also >helps negate the need for Photo inks. But surely, if they're using a smaller ink dot they'll just have to print more dots to give the same coverage. How will this save ink? However, I take your point that by using smaller dots they might be able to do without the light inks, which will be helpful. >There is more knowledgeable people in Comp.Periphs.Printers if you want >to discuss the advantages of single ink cartridges over the cost to 'all >in one' cartridges. I had a look at this but couldn't find any discussion on this topic. But I'll keep watching. Thanks In the new manuscript <41725923.5623542@news.freeserve.net>, Tony H penned the following script... > >I will jump in here, I use 2 Photo Magenta/Cyan cartridges to the 1 CYMK > >cartridge. So in principle what you saying that the photo M/C cartridges [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > separate and combined cartridges? Or are you saying you use twice as > much magenta & cyan as yellow? Ok use twice as much of each Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta cartridges for any other CMYK colour. Basically it's a 2 to 1 ratio for photo vs normal. My bad grammar. Hence why I have 2 of each photo cartridge and 1 each of the CYMK colours when I re-order them. I have a i965 printer which uses 6 cartridges, the 4 normal CMYK carts, and 2 Photo carts. I don't completely understand the theory of smaller droplets, but from what I remember smaller droplets means less ink is wasted essentially. As to C.P.P group do a Google groups search there was a discussion a few months back iirc. >In the new manuscript <41725923.5623542@news.freeserve.net>, Tony H >penned the following script... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >As to C.P.P group do a Google groups search there was a discussion a few >months back iirc. OK, I understand now. I'm not familiar with the HP system, but I guess the Photo Cyan and Photo magenta are the light colours? Do they have the same capacity (i.e volume) as the normal CMY colour inks? Incidentally, I seem to recall from reviews that this printer is especially good for B&W work. Have you used it for B&W? My Epson 1270 really struggles with B&W photo prints, so I have to resort to toned prints. In the new manuscript <4173971a.1440254@news.freeserve.net>, Tony H penned the following script... <snip> > OK, I understand now. I'm not familiar with the HP system, but I guess > the Photo Cyan and Photo magenta are the light colours? Do they have > the same capacity (i.e volume) as the normal CMY colour inks? Yes all the Canon cartridges are a standard size, and compatible with most of the current range which makes it easier to order cartridges... I can't talk about HP due to hideous costs of cartridges that put me off researching the printers. I am of the mind I will pay for manufacturers ink in that they are designed for the job and probably will outlast most of the 3rd party inks. > Incidentally, I seem to recall from reviews that this printer is > especially good for B&W work. Have you used it for B&W? My Epson 1270 > really struggles with B&W photo prints, so I have to resort to toned > prints. The Canon i965 is pretty good at avoiding colour casts, I just adjust the magenta by about -5 I get pretty neutral prints from it. I know what you mean about the colour casts from the 1270 I know a few people who have it and they often end up with a B/W print with a cyan cast. The HP printer is also good due to it's dedicated black cartridge, but as I rarely do monochrome shots I couldn't justify the cost. The Epson 2100 also has the same facility with it's 2 types of black cartridge. On 18/10/04 12:20 pm, in article MPG.1bddb73f408a2ce09897e3@news.individual.net, "Faolan" <celticshadows@NotMail.com> wrote: <snip> > The HP printer is also good due to it's dedicated black cartridge, but > as I rarely do monochrome shots I couldn't justify the cost. The Epson > 2100 also has the same facility with it's 2 types of black cartridge. It's hard to get a good B&W print from a 2100 unless you use a RIP like Imageprint or QTR, but very easy to get excellent prints with the HP printers using the 59 grey cartridge. The only downside is A4 max and the 59 cartridge doesn't last long, it gulps ink. Steve Bell >In the new manuscript <4173971a.1440254@news.freeserve.net>, Tony H >penned the following script... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Yes all the Canon cartridges are a standard size, and compatible with >most of the current range which makes it easier to order cartridges... Ok, this is a good point you've identified. My argument on ink costs was that on average the use of the different colours should even out, and I still maintain that this is the case. However, you're saying that on a photo printer with light (photo) cyan and magenta inks, these will be used up faster than the normal inks. I can see that this might well be true, in which case the argument for separate photo inks is well justified. Thanks for pointing this out. > But surely, if they're using a smaller ink dot they'll just have to > print more dots to give the same coverage. How will this save ink? > However, I take your point that by using smaller dots they might be > able to do without the light inks, which will be helpful. Don't know how it works but the Canon Pixma i4000 has smaller dots and, using just 3 colours (+2 blacks), manages colour photographs as good as older 5 colour + black printers. Usage of ink so far does seem light and paper doean't appear to get as saturated. Further up the range models have even smaller dots and more inks. So is anyone using those higher models? SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines In the faraway land of uk.rec.photo.misc, John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> said: >> But surely, if they're using a smaller ink dot they'll just have to >> print more dots to give the same coverage. How will this save ink? > >> However, I take your point that by using smaller dots they might be >> able to do without the light inks, which will be helpful. My 600dpi HP deskjet printer uses smaller dots, the idea is it overlays up to 4 quarter-size splots of ink in each dot position. If you think about it this should give the same result as a 1200dpi printer. In practice it's certainly better than my old 720dpi Epson, so it seems to work. The main trouble inkwise is you can't get own-brand cartridges for HP printers, only recycled ones, which are a bit hit and miss in my experience. The black pigment ink used is very good for plain paper printing, but is iffy on gloss as the pigment sits on the surface giving an uneven finish, and confers no advantage over dye-based ink for other special ink jet papers. Also you can't get pigment ink refills, and refilling with dye based ink gives terrible spreading on plain paper. Signature______________________________________________________ While money doesn't buy love, it puts you in a great bargaining position. ______________________________________________________ Take a break at the Last Stop Cafe: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/ Reply-to address for email: mailreply AT xerez.demon.co.uk > In practice different ink colours tend to be used up at roughly the > same rate, so the whole argument for having separate cartridges is > false anyway. Not in my experience, but then working in a marine science department, my photos do tend to be predominantly blue. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.