Epson R300 or... else.

Hello,

I'd like to buy a printer for photos.
I've seen some prints from R300 and they looked great.
But before I buy R300...
what other printers should I consider ?
I mean - are there any ofering the same (or better) quality
and possible to get for the same (or less) money?

Thank you,

latet

"latet" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I'd like to buy a printer for photos.
I've seen some prints from R300 and they looked great.
But before I buy R300...
what other printers should I consider ?
I mean - are there any ofering the same (or better) quality
and possible to get for the same (or less) money?

Thank you,

latet


If you don't need the card slots then the R200 is a 300 with no slots. Its
quite a bit cheeper and uses the same heads ans carts.

Peter.

I have compared many printers before I made my choice. The two
finalists were the Epson R300 and the Canon IP4000. I chose the Canon
IP4000. I had the privledge at Fry's of speaking to both the Epson and
Canon reps at the same time. Both were in agreement that Epson goes
through some ink priming cycle every time you turn it on and uses ink.
They said that the R300 uses less than previous Epson Printers.

Overseas both of these printers can print on CDs but not in the US.
Canon does not offer that feature in the US and if that is a must you
should buy the Canon but you will loose much of what the Canon offers.
Besides, my friend's primary purpose was to print on CD surfaces and
bought an R300. He had on replacement during the warranty period for a
malfunction of the CD feed system and now after a 6 months the
replacement acts up. Epson printers in general are ink hogs and
substantially slower than Canon.

The IP4000 is fast, does great on photos and a decent job on business
documents, has 2 paper feeds and prints in duplex more automatically.
It does better on ink and the cartridges cost less. Of all the Canon
printers the only other one to consider if you want narrow format is the
IP8500 but is costs more than double. Also the wide format i9900 is the
best of any under $500 printer.

Peter Seddon wrote:

"latet" wrote in message
...


Hello,

I'd like to buy a printer for photos.
I've seen some prints from R300 and they looked great.
But before I buy R300...
what other printers should I consider ?
I mean - are there any ofering the same (or better) quality
and possible to get for the same (or less) money?

Thank you,

latet




If you don't need the card slots then the R200 is a 300 with no slots. Its
quite a bit cheeper and uses the same heads ans carts.

Peter.

"Peter Seddon" wrote in message
...

"latet" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I'd like to buy a printer for photos.
I've seen some prints from R300 and they looked great.
But before I buy R300...
what other printers should I consider ?
I mean - are there any ofering the same (or better) quality
and possible to get for the same (or less) money?

Thank you,

latet


If you don't need the card slots then the R200 is a 300 with no slots. Its
quite a bit cheeper and uses the same heads ans carts.

Peter.


======================

In the UK the price differential ibetween the two is now down to about £15 -
and the R300 is much more robust than the R200 (better quality plastic,
nicer design, more solid control panel, etc) so it's worth paying the extra
to get the 300 even if you don't need the card slots and LCD display.

I picked up a 200 for £50 in the January sales - and, at that price, it was
worth having as a backup to my 300, but having seen the difference in
quality I certainly wouldn't pass the 300 for the sake of £15.

Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are now
down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a dozen
sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only fractionally
lower than genuine Epson ink.

U¿ytkownik "Pinky & Perky ham it up"
Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
now down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a
dozen sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only
fractionally lower than genuine Epson ink.

How about water-resistance?

I won't be using direct printing (CF card-- printer)
but it's nice to have some slots in case a friend visits
me with his/her strange cameras. I won't get R200.

R300 is my favorite type right time,
but maybe some HP machine would give me comparable
quality for less money? I don't know...

Another thing:
with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
does it good enough?

Thanks,

latet

"latet" wrote in message
...
U¿ytkownik "Pinky & Perky ham it up"
Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
now down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a
dozen sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only
fractionally lower than genuine Epson ink.

How about water-resistance?


Same with genuine and non-genuine iks - they're not waterproof, i.e., wil
smear if rubbed with a wet finger, even weeks after printing.

-----------------

I won't be using direct printing (CF card-- printer)
but it's nice to have some slots in case a friend visits
me with his/her strange cameras. I won't get R200.

R300 is my favorite type right time,
but maybe some HP machine would give me comparable
quality for less money? I don't know...

Even using refill kits for HP you would still be paying far more for your
ink than with an Epson

-----------------------------


Another thing:
with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
does it good enough?

I actually print relatively few CD's (mostly A4 brochures on 160 gsm paper).
but I have printed some demo CD's using my own designs. However, the photo
CD's that I've done using Print CD were automatically resized by the
software (including the photo that I used for the business card CD) and gave
excellent results.

I've never used the Canon CD printer but that is also supposed to be good.
However, the proven quality of Epson and the ready availability of cheap ink
makes me more than happy to stay with the Epson range.

Most of the threads in this forum where people have had problems with
clogging have been with cheap ink. That goes for all brands of
printer. At least with the Canon IP4000 you can remover the print head
and clean it or install a new one. They are user replaceable.

Pinky & Perky ham it up wrote:

"latet" wrote in message
...


U¿ytkownik "Pinky & Perky ham it up"


Don't forget that, whichever model you choose, compatible cartridges are
now down to £2 each (price on local Sunday market) - I've used about a
dozen sets so far with no clogging and print quality that is only
fractionally lower than genuine Epson ink.


How about water-resistance?




Same with genuine and non-genuine iks - they're not waterproof, i.e., wil
smear if rubbed with a wet finger, even weeks after printing.

-----------------


I won't be using direct printing (CF card-- printer)
but it's nice to have some slots in case a friend visits
me with his/her strange cameras. I won't get R200.

R300 is my favorite type right time,
but maybe some HP machine would give me comparable
quality for less money? I don't know...



Even using refill kits for HP you would still be paying far more for your
ink than with an Epson

-----------------------------



Another thing:
with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
does it good enough?



I actually print relatively few CD's (mostly A4 brochures on 160 gsm paper).
but I have printed some demo CD's using my own designs. However, the photo
CD's that I've done using Print CD were automatically resized by the
software (including the photo that I used for the business card CD) and gave
excellent results.

I've never used the Canon CD printer but that is also supposed to be good.
However, the proven quality of Epson and the ready availability of cheap ink
makes me more than happy to stay with the Epson range.

Another thing:
with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
does it good enough?

It does pretty good at this. I have printed an 8.5"x11" and a 4"x6" (inches)
from a memory card and it will auto-crop to fit the paper. You do have a
choice with "Advanced" turned on to custom crop - you select which of several
crop settings look best.
Lynn

In article ,
LLutton wrote:
Another thing:
with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
does it good enough?

It does pretty good at this. I have printed an 8.5"x11" and a 4"x6" (inches)
from a memory card and it will auto-crop to fit the paper. You do have a
choice with "Advanced" turned on to custom crop - you select which of several
crop settings look best.
Lynn


Can anyone confirn the statement made in this thread that the
R300 has better build quality than the R200 ?

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
LLutton wrote:
Another thing:
with R300 - do you need to scale (down) big pictures
yourself (to get better sharpness) or the printer's software
does it good enough?

It does pretty good at this. I have printed an 8.5"x11" and a 4"x6"
(inches)
from a memory card and it will auto-crop to fit the paper. You do have a
choice with "Advanced" turned on to custom crop - you select which of
several
crop settings look best.
Lynn


Can anyone confirn the statement made in this thread that the
R300 has better build quality than the R200 ?

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

yup R300 is more robust than the R200, R200 remids me of low end lexmark
build quality