Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?

Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
drink, for you Brits).

But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.

So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
-"gloss" optimizer
- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)

In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...
So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
big deal
-"gloss" optimizer
needed for Epson ink
- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
always good for an A3 printer
- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
Canon will do 23"
- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)


Photo-i will have an R1800 review in next day or two

No we are not wronf to Ignore Epson. Everyone buy Cannon

MUCH MUCH less problems for you if you buy Canon.




On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:17:41 +1300, colinco
wrote:

In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...
So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
big deal
-"gloss" optimizer
needed for Epson ink
- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
always good for an A3 printer
- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
Canon will do 23"
- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)


Photo-i will have an R1800 review in next day or two

Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good.
Epson printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to
clog. The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon
i9900 while the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson
R1800.

That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less
to run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other
periodicals. The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I
use Surething labels for CD printing and have no problems.

I hope this post has been helpful.

Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:

Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
drink, for you Brits).

But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.

So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
-"gloss" optimizer
- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)

colinco wrote:

In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...


So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon


big deal


-"gloss" optimizer


needed for Epson ink


- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon


always good for an A3 printer



You are comparing apples and oranges. The Canon answer to the Epson
1800 is the Canon i9900, both wide carriage. The IP87500 competes with
the R800, both narrow carriage.

- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon


Canon will do 23"


- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)




Photo-i will have an R1800 review in next day or two

Personally, I think that a person considering purchasing an inkjet
printer should do research and consider Epson, HP and Canon. I feel
that the Canon is by far superior for many reasons. However, if I were
in the business of selling prints, I would have chosen Epson due to the
pigmented inks even though I feel the viewing quality of Canon prints
are better.

In that case reprinting is not an option and you have no control how the
customer will care for the print. You need longevity.

Plasma BOY wrote:

No we are not wronf to Ignore Epson. Everyone buy Cannon

MUCH MUCH less problems for you if you buy Canon.




On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:17:41 +1300, colinco
wrote:



In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...


So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon


big deal


-"gloss" optimizer


needed for Epson ink


- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon


always good for an A3 printer


- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon


Canon will do 23"


- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)




Photo-i will have an R1800 review in next day or two

First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not in the
US.WHAT? I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds
is less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I owned a
Canon i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks are more
vibrant,but at times that actually is a bad thing!That sometimes is
unrealistic!I also own an Epson R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It
uses pigment inks,and printed cds are more water resistant than ones done
with dye based inks.Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all
cases,and for all users,is pure bull!I have owned every brand of printer
made,and have had good and bad luck with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy
the printer that fits my needs,and by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the
main factor!
"measekite" wrote in message
om...
Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good. Epson
printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to clog. The
Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon i9900 while the
Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson R1800.

That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less to
run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other periodicals.
The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I use Surething
labels for CD printing and have no problems.

I hope this post has been helpful.

Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:

Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
drink, for you Brits).

But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.

So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
-"gloss" optimizer
- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)

Douglas wrote:

First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not in the
US.WHAT?

I believe I said or at least I meant that Epsons print on specially
priced CDs but the Canons do not in the US.

I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds
is less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I owned a
Canon i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks are more
vibrant,but at times that actually is a bad thing!That sometimes is
unrealistic!I also own an Epson R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It
uses pigment inks,and printed cds are more water resistant than ones done
with dye based inks.


Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all
cases,and for all users,is pure bull!

Canon Printers are better in all cases for all users EXCEPT for
professionals who need pigmented inks when they sell there prints. In
that case longevity is the number 1 concern and vibrancy and visual
quality are secondary. Epson prints still look good.

I have owned every brand of printer
made,and have had good and bad luck with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy
the printer that fits my needs,and by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the
main factor!
"measekite" wrote in message
. com...


Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good. Epson
printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to clog. The
Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon i9900 while the
Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson R1800.

That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less to
run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other periodicals.
The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I use Surething
labels for CD printing and have no problems.

I hope this post has been helpful.

Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:



Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
drink, for you Brits).

But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.

So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
-"gloss" optimizer
- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)

Here is your post! " Epsons print on
specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents"

Also,as I stated dye inks are vibrant,but sometimes they are too
vibrant,thus the photo is NOT as realistic as it should be.You have a very
closed mind,and very little real knowledge of the subject,printers! I think
I can even guess your age.Just for some insight on you,how many printers
have you owned in your life?
Yes,I sell prints,so the pigment inks are important.I also install systems
and networks and often push Canon printers!I have about 25 new printers on
hand,10 of those are Canons.My own network incudes 16 different printers,at
the moment.I have built and installed systems for 30 years.I know,for a
fact,there is NO one brand of printer that is that much better than all
others!Maybe when you finish highschool,you will have a chance to live and
learn!I just hope others that read your BS will check out the facts!
"measekite" wrote in message
...

Douglas wrote:

First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not in the
US.WHAT?
I believe I said or at least I meant that Epsons print on specially priced
CDs but the Canons do not in the US.

I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds is
less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I owned a Canon
i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks are more vibrant,but
at times that actually is a bad thing!That sometimes is unrealistic!I also
own an Epson R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It uses pigment inks,and
printed cds are more water resistant than ones done with dye based inks.


Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all cases,and for all
users,is pure bull!

Canon Printers are better in all cases for all users EXCEPT for
professionals who need pigmented inks when they sell there prints. In
that case longevity is the number 1 concern and vibrancy and visual
quality are secondary. Epson prints still look good.

I have owned every brand of printer made,and have had good and bad luck
with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy the printer that fits my needs,and
by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the main factor!
"measekite" wrote in message
.com...

Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good. Epson
printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to clog.
The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon i9900 while
the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson R1800.

That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less to
run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other periodicals.
The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I use Surething
labels for CD printing and have no problems.

I hope this post has been helpful.

Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:


Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
drink, for you Brits).

But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.

So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
-"gloss" optimizer
- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)

Douglas wrote:

Here is your post! " Epsons print on


specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents"



Also,as I stated dye inks are vibrant,but sometimes they are too
vibrant,thus the photo is NOT as realistic as it should be.You have a very
closed mind,and very little real knowledge of the subject,printers! I think
I can even guess your age.Just for some insight on you,how many printers
have you owned in your life?
Yes,I sell prints,so the pigment inks are important.I also install systems
and networks and often push Canon printers!I have about 25 new printers on
hand,10 of those are Canons.My own network incudes 16 different printers,at
the moment.I have built and installed systems for 30 years.I know,for a
fact,there is NO one brand of printer that is that much better than all
others!Maybe when you finish highschool,you will have a chance to live and
learn!

:-*

I have been responsible for over 4,000 computers, 2000 printers (inkjets
and lasers, and have been the lead on numerous programming projects as
well as a professional consultant since the days of the IBM PC when the
2 main printers were the Okidata and Epson dot matrix, and that was
before Canon developed the engine for the HP LaserJet I. I did this
after substantial business experience and after getting my BS from a
major university. Subsequent to that I got my MCSE (Microsoft Certified
Systems Engineer). I guess I need to finish High School! :-P

I just hope others that read your BS will check out the facts!


BS stands for Bachelor of Science. Is your degree from the school of
hard knocks?

"measekite" wrote in message
m...


Douglas wrote:



First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not in the
US.WHAT?


I believe I said or at least I meant that Epsons print on specially priced
CDs but the Canons do not in the US.



I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds is
less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I owned a Canon
i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks are more vibrant,but
at times that actually is a bad thing!That sometimes is unrealistic!I also
own an Epson R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It uses pigment inks,and
printed cds are more water resistant than ones done with dye based inks.



Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all cases,and for all
users,is pure bull!



Canon Printers are better in all cases for all users EXCEPT for
professionals who need pigmented inks when they sell there prints. In
that case longevity is the number 1 concern and vibrancy and visual
quality are secondary. Epson prints still look good.



I have owned every brand of printer made,and have had good and bad luck
with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy the printer that fits my needs,and
by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the main factor!
"measekite" wrote in message
y.com...



Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good. Epson
printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to clog.
The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon i9900 while
the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson R1800.

That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less to
run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other periodicals.
The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I use Surething
labels for CD printing and have no problems.

I hope this post has been helpful.

Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:




Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
drink, for you Brits).

But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.

So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
-"gloss" optimizer
- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)