If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr Jessop" wrote in message k... I think you'll find that genuine canon inks are cheaper than epson. You will also find that the best canon paper is also the dearest. If using all third party consumables even without refilling a3 printing is comparatively cheap than lab prints. labs win on the high quantity small prints 10pence over here for 50 6x4 or 6.99 for 50 7x5. But colour profiled quality a3 is hideous prices. MInd you, you have to churn out alot on a regular basis to justify the initial purchase prices. All in all for quality gallery purposes i would find a pro lab that uses a fuji frontier or an agfa d lab1. Real photopaper but with laser precision. Heavy canvas printing on the other hand has to be an epson. Yes.....I understand that Epson has a newer printer than the 2200 out that will take heavy canvas, so you can make prints that look like paintings, but I don't know the model and/or the price....... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Donald Specker" wrote in message news:BpPmd.13927$2V4.8896@trndny06...
Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me. Any comments on merits of each? I want the best looking output for potential gallery use, shows. Thanks! This is 35mm equipment. What the **** is that question doing here? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mr Jessop wrote:
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message ... From: "Donald Specker" Below is a link to a comparison of the i9100 (previous Canon equiv to the i9900), So you chose to ignore the warning posted by me here? i9100 uses exact the same paper and inks fo the S9000: BCI-6, 13ml tanks. See: http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2...2_s9000_fading Canon has refused to even look at the images with the argument that the many different factors make it irrelevant why it happened in my particular case. Image hit counter was 0 up to now, as I made *today* the gallery public. I wanted get the issue settled without any public bashing. Steve Sanders of Steves Digicams gave Canon printers a raving review. Many people bought the printers partly because of such reviews. On his own photo forum a few users have reported problems comparable to mine. See: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...38&forum_id=40 message by RobK send on "Sat May 17th, 2003" and replied to by Steve Sanders himself. I was (fore?)last weekend at http://www.kspphoto.com/ and I stumbled into a Canon rep presentation of their cameras and lenses at the digital sto http://www.kspphoto.com/activepages/digitalstore.html Prior to talking to them, I spoke to the Keeble and Shuhat personnel. I was browsing large demo prints made with diverse Epson and Canon printers and looked at the printers. I plan to get the Epson 4000, except that my wife protests... I wanted her to see the big monster :-) I asked about Canon printers, and if K&S have received reports of problems. He said, yes, and that he knows about Canon people are not replying or not looking at the images. That's because they (Canon) knows for a long time about the issue and its drastic proportions!!! The devices come from Japan and they have to face angry customers here in the US and cannot do much about it except to reassure you they did not meant to deceive anybody. You will hear from Canon arguments like: Only the Photo Paper *Pro* (not *plus*) is a four layer paper and could hold for up to 28 years, if put behind glass, and if, if, if... I will post a summary soon of details under which Canon believes to warranty their anyway inferior durability. One of the Canon reps told me that Canon will bring next year "something" to improve the fading problem. Currently, since I have a legal insurance, I have an appointment with consumer rights lawyer in Dec. I demanded from Canon to take back the S9000, but they do not answer. I will also that they *PRINT* on the box of their printers "CAN FADE AWAY DURING 12 MONTHS on following Canon papers with our Canon BCI-6 'durable ink.'" Their photo paper and the inks are sinn expensive, I wonder how many people would than buy their printer with such label in place and knowing about such performance!! Thomas I am seriously considering the i9100 myself. Unless you view the i9950 prints next it the i9100 are more than satisfactory and the i9950 only looks marginally better. It basically comes down to better reds and greens. Some say too bright red. The latest pixma using the 8 ink system seems to over do the red in skin tones. I am basically hovering over the the i9100 and i9950. i have broached the subject on the appropriate newsgroup. There are anti HP. PRo HP. anti epson and pro canon and anti canon. Most people say espon yeah great but head clogs like mad and is not a user serviceable part. canon yeah but heads burn out after the warranty expires. and longevity is issue HP is yeah great pictures yeah longevity not bad and no head issues due to disposable head in cartridge. but.. bloody hell are they expensive cartridges. Lexmark just suck! For me i don't do 5000 pages a month and i paid extra for the 3 eyar warranty so head burn outs aren't an issue. also i don't sell my prints and any prints i do have are carefully stored. Displayed stuff is under glass out of direct sunlight. Also third party running costs are so good that longevity isn't an issue for me. Just churn out another one. CAnon also very fast. 6 and 8 ink colour management is practically spot on out of the box. minor adjustments required if you use third party consumables. Final stumbling block is that i9100 may be out of production, getting hard to locate. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mr Jessop wrote:
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message ... From: "Donald Specker" Below is a link to a comparison of the i9100 (previous Canon equiv to the i9900), So you chose to ignore the warning posted by me here? i9100 uses exact the same paper and inks fo the S9000: BCI-6, 13ml tanks. See: http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2...2_s9000_fading Canon has refused to even look at the images with the argument that the many different factors make it irrelevant why it happened in my particular case. Image hit counter was 0 up to now, as I made *today* the gallery public. I wanted get the issue settled without any public bashing. Steve Sanders of Steves Digicams gave Canon printers a raving review. Many people bought the printers partly because of such reviews. On his own photo forum a few users have reported problems comparable to mine. See: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...38&forum_id=40 message by RobK send on "Sat May 17th, 2003" and replied to by Steve Sanders himself. I was (fore?)last weekend at http://www.kspphoto.com/ and I stumbled into a Canon rep presentation of their cameras and lenses at the digital sto http://www.kspphoto.com/activepages/digitalstore.html Prior to talking to them, I spoke to the Keeble and Shuhat personnel. I was browsing large demo prints made with diverse Epson and Canon printers and looked at the printers. I plan to get the Epson 4000, except that my wife protests... I wanted her to see the big monster :-) I asked about Canon printers, and if K&S have received reports of problems. He said, yes, and that he knows about Canon people are not replying or not looking at the images. That's because they (Canon) knows for a long time about the issue and its drastic proportions!!! The devices come from Japan and they have to face angry customers here in the US and cannot do much about it except to reassure you they did not meant to deceive anybody. You will hear from Canon arguments like: Only the Photo Paper *Pro* (not *plus*) is a four layer paper and could hold for up to 28 years, if put behind glass, and if, if, if... I will post a summary soon of details under which Canon believes to warranty their anyway inferior durability. One of the Canon reps told me that Canon will bring next year "something" to improve the fading problem. Currently, since I have a legal insurance, I have an appointment with consumer rights lawyer in Dec. I demanded from Canon to take back the S9000, but they do not answer. I will also that they *PRINT* on the box of their printers "CAN FADE AWAY DURING 12 MONTHS on following Canon papers with our Canon BCI-6 'durable ink.'" Their photo paper and the inks are sinn expensive, I wonder how many people would than buy their printer with such label in place and knowing about such performance!! Thomas I am seriously considering the i9100 myself. Unless you view the i9950 prints next it the i9100 are more than satisfactory and the i9950 only looks marginally better. It basically comes down to better reds and greens. Some say too bright red. The latest pixma using the 8 ink system seems to over do the red in skin tones. I am basically hovering over the the i9100 and i9950. i have broached the subject on the appropriate newsgroup. There are anti HP. PRo HP. anti epson and pro canon and anti canon. Most people say espon yeah great but head clogs like mad and is not a user serviceable part. canon yeah but heads burn out after the warranty expires. and longevity is issue HP is yeah great pictures yeah longevity not bad and no head issues due to disposable head in cartridge. but.. bloody hell are they expensive cartridges. Lexmark just suck! For me i don't do 5000 pages a month and i paid extra for the 3 eyar warranty so head burn outs aren't an issue. also i don't sell my prints and any prints i do have are carefully stored. Displayed stuff is under glass out of direct sunlight. Also third party running costs are so good that longevity isn't an issue for me. Just churn out another one. CAnon also very fast. 6 and 8 ink colour management is practically spot on out of the box. minor adjustments required if you use third party consumables. Final stumbling block is that i9100 may be out of production, getting hard to locate. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
4x6 printer... | CNT | Digital Photography | 41 | January 18th 05 11:10 AM |
Try DVD Photo Album version 3.01 to make digital photo album playable on TV with DVD player | Michael Shaw | Digital Photography | 2 | September 24th 04 10:10 AM |
Choosing a printer | Morton Klotz | Digital Photography | 16 | August 7th 04 12:22 AM |
Printer question: multipurpose vs. dedicated photo, fixed head vs.on-cartridge | not really me | Digital Photography | 0 | July 19th 04 03:28 AM |
Best photo printer mostly borderless 6" x 4" 's. | Warren Jones | Digital Photography | 6 | July 1st 04 05:47 PM |