What is the best photo printer.?

The Canon to consider is the i965, rather than the i850. HP has a new one
that is getting good reviews, the HP 7960.

The most comprehensive (accuracy is for you to judge) reviews are at
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html.

--

Jerry Schwartz
FidoNet 1:142/928
http://www.writebynight.com

"Eddie Wall" wrote in message
...
I am in the market for a new printer to update my HP950c. I have been
advised that the Epson950 and the Canon 850 are both the best in the
market and much better than HP's offerings.

Has anyone done an actual comparison ? or know the what the output of
the Epson and canon is Vs the HP...

This printer is not to be a dedicated photo printer , it will be used
for a small amount of normal plain paper printing.

Thanks

Eddie

Go back through this newsgroup and you will find a large amount of postings
on this subject. I'm partial to Canon's so that obviously taints my
recommendation, but I think you will have a difficult time finding any
unhappy Canon owners of either the s or i series (s820, i850, i950)
printers. The new models add additional features, but appear to give the
same high quality prints as the previous models but at a lower price. In
addition to the faster speeds, reliability and high quality prints, the
Canon models have easily refilled ink tanks which will save you quite a bit
(90%) on ink costs.
--
Ron Cohen

"Eddie Wall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:38:51 -0400, "Jerry Schwartz"
wrote:

The Canon to consider is the i965, rather than the i850. HP has a new one
that is getting good reviews, the HP 7960.

The most comprehensive (accuracy is for you to judge) reviews are at
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html.

Thanks for the replies guys......

Look at cold statistics does not really help me.. I was hoping that
someone had used a couple of the competing printers and could give
personal experience.

I am still not quite sure which way to go... HP, Canon or Epsom.! :-(

Eddie

"Ron Cohen" wrote in message
...
Go back through this newsgroup and you will find a large amount of
postings
on this subject. I'm partial to Canon's so that obviously taints my
recommendation, but I think you will have a difficult time finding any
unhappy Canon owners of either the s or i series (s820, i850, i950)
printers. The new models add additional features, but appear to give
the
same high quality prints as the previous models but at a lower price.
In
addition to the faster speeds, reliability and high quality prints,
the
Canon models have easily refilled ink tanks which will save you quite
a bit
(90%) on ink costs.

I've heard Canon inks are inferior to Epson and HP in terms
of print life, i.e. they fade within 2 years rather than 100.
Does anyone have any opinions of this?

I need a new printer i950? HP 7960? Epson 830?
hippy

I am very happy with my Epson printers. They make beautiful photos.


"hippy" wrote in message
...
"Ron Cohen" wrote in message
...
Go back through this newsgroup and you will find a large amount of
postings
on this subject. I'm partial to Canon's so that obviously taints my
recommendation, but I think you will have a difficult time finding any
unhappy Canon owners of either the s or i series (s820, i850, i950)
printers. The new models add additional features, but appear to give
the
same high quality prints as the previous models but at a lower price.
In
addition to the faster speeds, reliability and high quality prints,
the
Canon models have easily refilled ink tanks which will save you quite
a bit
(90%) on ink costs.

I've heard Canon inks are inferior to Epson and HP in terms
of print life, i.e. they fade within 2 years rather than 100.
Does anyone have any opinions of this?

I need a new printer i950? HP 7960? Epson 830?
hippy

It is the ink and the paper that determine the print life. Epson has a new
paper for scrapbooking that has been rated for 200 years and they are still
testing at Wilhelm for longer life. The paper people need to do more on the
paper to make it archival but ink does make a difference. They are also
revising the number of years of archival life based on storage methods. In
an album protected with a sleeve in dark storage and you are talking over
100 years with inks that are designed to be archival.


"Bill" wrote in message
...
hippy wrote:

I've heard Canon inks are inferior to Epson and HP in terms
of print life, i.e. they fade within 2 years rather than 100.
Does anyone have any opinions of this?

The ink is not the critical factor in print life...it's the paper that
makes the biggest difference.

No printer claims 100 year photo life, and even if one did, put the
photo in direct sunlight unprotected, and it will fade, even lab prints.

All of the main brands of paper will retain their original state for
many years if they are protected in some way, such as glass in frames or
plastic film in photo albums. I expect the photos in my albums and in
frames will outlive me.

I need a new printer i950? HP 7960? Epson 830?

I used to be an HP fan, but have converted to Canon after seeing them in
action. The have all of the best features, fast, high quality prints,
and low ink costs.

If photo quality was my main concern, I'd buy a Canon i950 or the latest
i960 model, use high quality photo paper like Canon, RedRiver or Office
Depot.

I would also go along with you regarding Epson Photo Printers. They are
without doubt the masters when it comes to photo printing.
Much of their deserved reputation comes from the unique printing head they
use as well as the make up of the inks.
I have just purchased an Epson 900 upgrading from an 830u. The 900 offers
the same top resolution, i.e. 5760 x 1440 dpi, it also come with a paper
roll feed to allow for panoramic and banner printing and, the clincher for
me, the ability to print directly to suitable cd's. I compile a lot of cd's
in my business and long have been fed up with printing cd labels and then
trying to centre them onto cd's. With this printer I no longer have to do
that.
I would recommend this printer to anyone.
Regards
Stick
"Safetymom123" wrote in message
...
It is the ink and the paper that determine the print life. Epson has a
new
paper for scrapbooking that has been rated for 200 years and they are
still
testing at Wilhelm for longer life. The paper people need to do more on
the
paper to make it archival but ink does make a difference. They are also
revising the number of years of archival life based on storage methods.
In
an album protected with a sleeve in dark storage and you are talking over
100 years with inks that are designed to be archival.


"Bill" wrote in message
...
hippy wrote:

I've heard Canon inks are inferior to Epson and HP in terms
of print life, i.e. they fade within 2 years rather than 100.
Does anyone have any opinions of this?

The ink is not the critical factor in print life...it's the paper that
makes the biggest difference.

No printer claims 100 year photo life, and even if one did, put the
photo in direct sunlight unprotected, and it will fade, even lab prints.

All of the main brands of paper will retain their original state for
many years if they are protected in some way, such as glass in frames or
plastic film in photo albums. I expect the photos in my albums and in
frames will outlive me.

I need a new printer i950? HP 7960? Epson 830?

I used to be an HP fan, but have converted to Canon after seeing them in
action. The have all of the best features, fast, high quality prints,
and low ink costs.

If photo quality was my main concern, I'd buy a Canon i950 or the latest
i960 model, use high quality photo paper like Canon, RedRiver or Office
Depot.

"Safetymom123" wrote in message
. ..
I am very happy with my Epson printers. They make beautiful photos.

So they do when they are actually firing on all nozzles (which is not that
often even using genuine Epson carts) and also if you can afford the
extortionate cost of the carts. I have had several Epson printers and I
have had trouble with them all. The last one was a 950 Photo, it never had
anything but genuine Epson carts ( the cost was crippling ) and it needed a
new head at 15 months. The printer cost £350, I'll never as long as I live
buy another Epson printer.

Regards Ian Kay

I have been using Epson's for the past 7 years. I have never broken one or
had one clog that I couldn't clear within a cleaning cycle or two. I don't
have a problem with using the original inks. The cost of the cart. doesn't
bother me when I get such great output. I passed the printers along to
others that are still very happy with them.



"Ian Kay" wrote in message
...

"Safetymom123" wrote in message
. ..
I am very happy with my Epson printers. They make beautiful photos.

So they do when they are actually firing on all nozzles (which is not that
often even using genuine Epson carts) and also if you can afford the
extortionate cost of the carts. I have had several Epson printers and I
have had trouble with them all. The last one was a 950 Photo, it never
had
anything but genuine Epson carts ( the cost was crippling ) and it needed
a
new head at 15 months. The printer cost £350, I'll never as long as I
live
buy another Epson printer.

Regards Ian Kay

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:27:56 +0100, Eddie Wall wrote:

I am in the market for a new printer to update my HP950c. I have been
advised that the Epson950 and the Canon 850 are both the best in the
market and much better than HP's offerings.

Has anyone done an actual comparison ? or know the what the output of
the Epson and canon is Vs the HP...

This printer is not to be a dedicated photo printer , it will be used
for a small amount of normal plain paper printing.


Any late model Epson or Canon should give you excellent
photo quality results when used properly. Almost no difference
between them, based solely on the quality of the prints.

Some factors to consider, however:

Canon

* no pigment inks (dyes only)
* user-replaceable print heads (but not cheap)
* non-chipped carts (not too hard to refill)
* very fast
* thermal heads (bubble jet)

Epson

* pigment or dye inks (depends on model)
* non-replaceable print heads
* chipped carts
* slower than Canon or HP
* piezo carts
* prone to clogging with infrequent use


The pigment vs. dye issue is a big one, if you
are concerned about the longevity of your prints.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Rafe B. writes:

The pigment vs. dye issue is a big one, if you
are concerned about the longevity of your prints.

Which of them lives longer?
-is