What's the best all-around good photo printer?

Comments

• Reply 1 of 10

  tacojohn Posts: 980member

  December 1, 2004 2:52PM

  Quote:
  

  
  Originally posted by dferigmu
  
  I'm looking to buy a photo printer to go along with the iMac I'm buying and the Canon digital camera I have. The main models I am looking at are:
  
  
  
  Epson Stylus Photo R300
  
  Epson Stylus Photo R320
  
  Canon PIXMA iP 4000
  
  Canon PIXMA iP 6000D
  
  Canon PIXMA iP 5000
  
  HP Photosmart 8150
  
  HP Photosmart 8450
  
  
  
  I have heard that Epson's have the best paper, no fading, and good quality prints, but their ink is expensive and more prone to clogging. The Canon's I have heard are very fast, very high quality prints, have low-costing ink, but the ink is prone to gas and light fading. With HP, I have heard that the pictures are nice but the ink cartridges aren?t separate and are very expensive.
  
  
  
  As you see, each model has its pros and cons. I'm just not sure which one has better pros. I was leaning towards Epson because I don't want my pictures to fade and Apple has the Epson deal right now, but I'm still not sure.
  
  
  
  Can anyone give me some suggestions? Which brand is the best and which printer out of these is the best? I have been thinking about this for a while and it's time to decide! Also, I don't want to spend more than about $200.
  

  
  

  
  
  I have an Epson R300 and LOVE it! I think there is an updated version out now. I strongly recommend this printer. The print quality (if you're using Epson paper) kicks total ass.
  
  
  
  I'm printing pics from a canon digital rebel.
• Reply 2 of 10

  dferigmu Posts: 269member

  December 1, 2004 4:22PM

  Quote:
  

  
  Originally posted by tacojohn
  
  I have an Epson R300 and LOVE it! I think there is an updated version out now. I strongly recommend this printer. The print quality (if you're using Epson paper) kicks total ass.
  
  
  
  I'm printing pics from a canon digital rebel.
  

  
  

  
  
  Do you know what the difference is b/w the R300 and the R320? Also, how expensive is the ink for your printer?
• Reply 3 of 10

  superkarate monkeydeathcar Posts: 2,407member

  December 1, 2004 5:33PM

  the 320 is USB2, i think that's it.
  
  I ended up going for the 800, it's more cash but it's really nice.
• Reply 4 of 10

  tacojohn Posts: 980member

  December 1, 2004 6:38PM

  Quote:
  

  
  Originally posted by dferigmu
  
  Do you know what the difference is b/w the R300 and the R320? Also, how expensive is the ink for your printer?
  

  
  

  
  
  The ink isn't that bad- $12.95 each (including black). Actually- if you bring in the old cartridges into CompUSA they give you $2 off so it ends up being $10.95.
• Reply 5 of 10

  beigeuser Posts: 371member

  December 2, 2004 1:04AM

  I have a recent model Epson at home (PM-970, Japan-only model) and a Canon 9100 at work. Both are about 1-2 years old.
  
  
  
  The Epson drivers are messy and confusing. Some features don't seem to work properly. On the other hand, the Canon drivers can do everything without any hassle.
  
  
  
  If the image quality and print speed are good enough, (which they both are) I would go with the Canon. Maybe the Epson drivers for newer models may be better, but my next purchase will be a Canon. BTW, in case anyone asks, I have the latest driver downloaded from Epson's site.
• Reply 6 of 10

  buonrotto Posts: 6,368member

  December 2, 2004 9:07AM

  Yeah, Epsons fall down with their software -- the drivers, any apps, etc. I graduated from an Epson 740 that was quite old earlier this year and bought a Canon i860, which isn't the best photo printer, but it does an excellent job with them anyway. (The i860 has an extra black ink cartridge for text output and is marketed as more of an all-around printer than a photo printer per se.) The driver was already on my iMac, works well, and has plenty of good features. I'm not impressed with Canon's suport overall of Macs, but their printers seem to play ball nicely at least.
  
  
  
  While any printer in this day and age that costs at least $100 will do a good job with photo prints, these new dedicated Canon and Epson photo printers are damn close to lab quality, and you obviously have greater control than with a lab if you go through your computer first to tweak the exposures.
  
  
  
  What's the deal with their paper and ink though? One reason I went with the Canon is that it was on sale and offered independent ink cartriges and an accessory 4x6 paper feed. I'd have a hard time getting away from that now. I thought I heard that these new photo printers require some pre-packaged paper/ink bundle. Could be OK, but it might be best to look at these supply packages to see if it's a good deal or not. I just hope it's not like buying the makings for tomato sauce, where the cans of paste and cans of sauce don't add up to the right proportion. That is, I hope the the inks last long enough to use most or all the paper in the package, if it does come that way.
• Reply 7 of 10

  king elessar Posts: 22member

  December 3, 2004 11:20AM

  what's the difference between the Epson 320 and 800? and i'm guessing stay away from Lexmark and HP all together?
• Reply 8 of 10

  buonrotto Posts: 6,368member

  December 3, 2004 12:19PM

  HPs are very good printers. I just don't have any experience with them on Macs (or rather, on OS X) -- I don't know what their drivers are like.
  
  
  
  FYI, an interesting read in this department:
  
  
  
  http://www.it-enquirer.com/index.php...hoto_printers/
• Reply 9 of 10

  king elessar Posts: 22member

  December 3, 2004 5:16PM

  that was a pretty interesting and informative article. i've always liked Epson printers. i had two seperate models and didn't have a problem with either. then my mom bought me one of those HP All-in-One printers for xmas last year, which i didn't expect. i've had nothing but bad luck with it though. i've had to return 2 seperate printers of the same model. next time i'll be going Epson again...or maybe even Canon.
• Reply 10 of 10

  pyr3 Posts: 946member

  December 6, 2004 12:34PM

  Quote:
  

  
  Originally posted by BuonRotto
  
  I thought I heard that these new photo printers require some pre-packaged paper/ink bundle. Could be OK, but it might be best to look at these supply packages to see if it's a good deal or not. I just hope it's not like buying the makings for tomato sauce, where the cans of paste and cans of sauce don't add up to the right proportion. That is, I hope the the inks last long enough to use most or all the paper in the package, if it does come that way.
  

  
  

  
  
  If you are talking about those 4x6 dye-sublimation printers, then yes, there is enough. Those things use film sheets. If the package says '30 prints' then there are 30 4x6 blue sheets, 30 4x6 red sheets, and 30 4x6 yellow sheets. Then there's the 30 4x6 photo paper sheets, and (at least in the case of Kodak) 30 water-proofing seal sheets. It's basically just a little cartridge with all the stuff in it that you plug into the printer. But it only does 4x6 though. I've seen an Olympus Dye-Sub 8.5x11 printer, but it's $400.
  
  
  
  I've talked with the Kodak representative where I work, and he said that Kodak is going to come out with an ink photo printer. He wouldn't tell me how many colors of ink it would have, but I don't think that he really knew since he's basically just a sales rep for Kodak. The guy was also spouting off about how all the CCD technologies and Dye-Sub technologies are owned by Kodak, so Kodak gets royalties on every one of those printers or cameras sold, which I think is a load of BS. So I guess take that info with a grain of salt (he told me this back in July, and I still have heard nothing about this 'Kodak ink printer')
  
  
  
  As far as the HPs go, I haven't heard of any problems with them. And I haven't had any problems with them personally, but I haven't used them on my Mac (just over Samba).
  
  
  
  

  Quote:
  

  
  dferigmu
  
  With HP, I have heard that the pictures are nice but the ink cartridges aren?t separate and are very expensive.
  

  
  

  
  
  According to one of my co-workers, the HP cartridges have more ink in them than the Epson/Brother separate ones. I don't know too much about that, but it's something to look into in your research. I would also look into what the pages per cartridge is, but keep in mind that most of those numbers you will find are for 5% page fill.
  
  
  
  

  Quote:
  

  
  I have heard that Epson's have the best paper, no fading, and good quality prints, but their ink is expensive and more prone to clogging.
  

  
  

  
  
  I don't know about the clogging, but Epson's durabright ink used with their photo paper is supposed to be pretty good, and water-resistant, fade-resistant, etc. That's according to their marketing though. I would look into it a little more.
  
  
  
  As far as those HPs that you mention, you don't get much more as you go up the rung with the HPs. They are all 4800x1200dpi (aka 4800-optimised dpi) All the HPs do is keep adding features. They all even use the same ink cartridges. They just keep adding things like larger LCD screens, and extra slots for cartridges on the ink-assembly thing (so that you don't have to swap between the black cartridge and the photo cartridge to go between regular printing and photo printing). And I wouldn't care too much about their 'grey-scale' cartridge. I've seen a side-by-side comparison of a photo with and without it in HPs own marketing stuff and it's not that much different. I would assume that their own marketing department would try to choose a picture that would best show off the differences, so apparently they can't find one.