Another anti Canon rant

measekite wrote:



Frank wrote:

birdman wrote:

...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
another Canon.

Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.

Frank



Good. I hope it gets clogged. You deserve it.

What a childish response. You're mentally deranged and very psychotic.
Get help and get lost.
idiot.
Frank

frederick wrote:

Frank wrote:

birdman wrote:

...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
another Canon.

Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.

I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400 had
it been released when I was in the market.
Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected, the
B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
Review is far from finished.
I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than most.
IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.

Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very lacking. The epson
2400 look very promising.
Frank

Frank wrote:

frederick wrote:

Frank wrote:

birdman wrote:

...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
another Canon.

Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.

I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
had it been released when I was in the market.
Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
Review is far from finished.
I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.


Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The epson
2400 does not look very promising.
Frank


I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.

measekite wrote:


Frank wrote:

frederick wrote:

Frank wrote:

birdman wrote:

...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
another Canon.

Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.

I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
had it been released when I was in the market.
Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
Review is far from finished.
I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.



Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The epson
2400 does not look very promising.
Frank



I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.

Oh...so you've got one right?
Frank

measekite wrote:



Frank wrote:

frederick wrote:

Frank wrote:

birdman wrote:

...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
another Canon.

Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.

I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
had it been released when I was in the market.
Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
Review is far from finished.
I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.



Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The epson
2400 does not look very promising.
Frank



I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.

????
If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other matte
media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you want gloss
colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On the contentious
dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have answered the question
themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide format pro printers.
Best value must take a user's needs into account.

frederick wrote:

measekite wrote:



Frank wrote:

frederick wrote:

Frank wrote:

birdman wrote:

...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
another Canon.

Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.

I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
had it been released when I was in the market.
Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
Review is far from finished.
I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.




Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The
epson 2400 does not look very promising.
Frank




I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.


????
If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other
matte media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you
want gloss colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On
the contentious dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have
answered the question themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide
format pro printers.
Best value must take a user's needs into account.


The only reason that I can see for getting a pigmented ink printer is if
you intend to sell your print.

LOL ... Which printer? Maybe it's bad? Have you called Canon? For
sure you're not double profiling?

measekite wrote:


frederick wrote:

measekite wrote:



Frank wrote:

frederick wrote:

Frank wrote:

birdman wrote:

...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
another Canon.

Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.

I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
had it been released when I was in the market.
Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
Review is far from finished.
I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.





Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The
epson 2400 does not look very promising.
Frank





I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.



????
If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other
matte media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you
want gloss colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On
the contentious dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have
answered the question themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide
format pro printers.
Best value must take a user's needs into account.



The only reason that I can see for getting a pigmented ink printer is if
you intend to sell your print.


Or display it, or use matte papers.

Or display it, or use matte papers.

Or actually want to keep it around a while longer than typical dye.

In article u1hue.163$go.37@fed1read05, says...
measekite wrote:
I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.

Oh...so you've got one right?
Frank

Even a parrot is right sometimes.