looking for a good digital printer

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by wildbill, Oct 12, 2003.

  1. wildbill

    wildbill Guest

    Looking for a good digital printer. Looking at the Epson 2200 photo printer
    ($700 retail). Have heard both good and not so good reports.

    All assistance would be appreciated.
    wildbill, Oct 12, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wildbill

    Savidge4 Guest

    >Looking for a good digital printer. Looking at the Epson 2200 photo printer
    >($700 retail). Have heard both good and not so good reports.
    >
    >All assistance would be appreciated.
    >


    The 2200 is a love hate thing for sure. great quality prints but they take so
    damn long. but just remember Rome was not built in a day hehehehe

    Anywyas overall it is a great choice, the longevity factor alone makes it a
    good choice.
    Savidge4, Oct 12, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wildbill

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "wildbill" <> wrote in message
    news:wWfib.4773$...
    > Looking for a good digital printer. Looking at the Epson 2200 photo

    printer
    > ($700 retail). Have heard both good and not so good reports.
    >
    > All assistance would be appreciated.


    I just went through the same selection process. I rejected the 2200,
    primarily because of the head-clogging issues I've heard reported. Instead,
    I got a Canon i9100, which I love. It's wide-carriage, like the 2200, and
    produces extremely high-quality photos. I got mine for around $525 from
    J&R.


    >
    >
    PTRAVEL, Oct 12, 2003
    #3
  4. wildbill

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "wildbill"

    >Looking for a good digital printer. Looking at the Epson 2200 photo printer
    >($700 retail).


    I have the 2200, I think it's a great printer, especially if you need the
    longer print life and want to print on a variety of papers from semi-gloss to
    luster to arty papers with ICM support. The only thing I'd mention is that if
    you want to print on the glossiest paper (PGPP) there's a problem with 'gloss
    differential', but the Semi-Gloss is excellent.

    >Have heard both good and not so good reports


    I've heard a lot of good reports, very few 'not so good' ones, especially if
    you limit it to people who've actually owned one.

    The other two wide-carriage models to look at would be the Epson 1280 and
    Canon's latest 13x19" model (i9100?). I have the 1280 also and greatly prefer
    the 2200.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Oct 12, 2003
    #4
  5. wildbill

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "PTRAVEL"

    >I rejected the 2200,
    >primarily because of the head-clogging issues I've heard reported.


    I've had my 2200 for about 15 months and never once had clogging problems. I
    think I've only had to run one cleaning cycle. The earlier models like the
    1270/870 seem to have had more problems, especially when people used 3rd party
    inks, but the 2200 runs fine, even when I've left it unused for up to 6 weeks
    while traveling.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Oct 12, 2003
    #5
  6. wildbill

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: "PTRAVEL"

    >
    > >I rejected the 2200,
    > >primarily because of the head-clogging issues I've heard reported.

    >
    > I've had my 2200 for about 15 months and never once had clogging problems.

    I
    > think I've only had to run one cleaning cycle. The earlier models like

    the
    > 1270/870 seem to have had more problems, especially when people used 3rd

    party
    > inks, but the 2200 runs fine, even when I've left it unused for up to 6

    weeks
    > while traveling.
    >
    > Bill


    I've heard that the clogging issues are a function of how often you use your
    printer. My use is strictly casual. FWIW (and not to launce a
    my-printer-is-better-than-your-printer thread) two other concerns are
    consumables cost and speed. My understanding is the 2200 can be quite slow
    and is rather expensive to operate, at least as compared to the i9100. I've
    seen the output of the 2200, though, and it is quite spectacular. However,
    the i9100 certainly approaches it (and, perhaps, equals it). As you
    mentioned in another post, though, there are more paper choices and ICM
    profiles available for the Epson, though Canon offers two grades of glossy,
    a nice matte paper, and some specialty papers such as canvas. I've found
    that, rather than depend on manufacturer-supplied profiles, I get better
    results creating my own by calibrating with Colorvision software (and a
    Spyder to calibrate the monitor).

    The bottom line, though, is anyone would be well-served with either printer.
    PTRAVEL, Oct 12, 2003
    #6
  7. wildbill

    Flycaster Guest

    "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
    news:bmc2sh$ko8ns$-berlin.de...
    > I just went through the same selection process. I rejected the 2200,
    > primarily because of the head-clogging issues I've heard reported.

    Instead,
    > I got a Canon i9100, which I love. It's wide-carriage, like the 2200, and
    > produces extremely high-quality photos. I got mine for around $525 from


    Interesting. The 2200 is the one Espon printer I've never heard *any*
    "head-clogging" complaints about, nor have I experienced this problem and
    I've [very] occassionally left it unused for a month or so at a time. FWIW,
    the 2200 caps the print head when it's parked, unlike earlier models.
    Additionally, it automatically runs a cleaning cycle when you first print
    after a long interval of non-use.

    I dunno, but I think you "heard" wrong.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
    Flycaster, Oct 12, 2003
    #7
  8. wildbill

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >>> I rejected the 2200,
    >>> primarily because of the head-clogging issues


    >> I've had my 2200 for about 15 months and never once had clogging
    >> problems.



    >From: "PTRAVEL"
    >
    >I've heard that the clogging issues are a function of how often you use your
    >printer.


    I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that for the earlier models (the other two
    causes often mentioned are 3rd party inks and not parking the heads properly at
    power-down), but Epson seems to have fixed the problem with the UltraChrome
    inks used on the 2200. At least I've never heard of any one experiencing
    problems, and I've left mine off for weeks at a time.

    Most all of the people who mention clogging as a 2200 problem are people who
    don't own the printer and are repeating things relevant to earlier models, I
    think.

    >My understanding is the 2200 can be quite slow
    >and is rather expensive to operate, at least as compared to the i9100.


    The S9000 and i9100 have a large number of nozzles (over 3,000?) and do indeed
    print a lot faster than the Epsons. I'm not so sure about consumables ... ink
    cost for the 2200 is generally around $1.50 per 8x10" print and the paper costs
    vary by type, ranging from 30 cents for Enhanced Matte, 70 cents for Luster, 85
    cents for Semi-Gloss and $1.65 for Somerset Velvet Fine Art Paper (at least
    where I buy mine). I thought the Canon premium photo paper was about the same
    as Semi-Gloss or higher? Anyway, the 2200 is certainly cheap compared to wet
    prints of comparable quality.

    >The bottom line, though, is anyone would be well-served with either printer.


    Personally I think the i9100 competes directly with the Epson 1280, and the
    2200 is in a different class, meant for those who need extra long print life.
    I've always bought Epson (Stylus Photo, EX, 1280, 2200 are ones I've owned and
    I'm sure I'll buy a 4000 when it's available) because they are always first to
    market and HP and Canon don't bring out competing products until a year or two
    later (I think the S9000 came out 2 years after the Epson 1270 and a year after
    the 1280, for example, and the i9100 a year after that, and there's still no
    direct competition for the 2200's pigment inks).

    I think if I were buying a dye ink printer today I'd probably get the i9100
    instead of the 1280 (which is to say I agree with you on the i9100), but I
    still prefer the 2200 to either because of the multiple papers and the longer
    print life.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Oct 12, 2003
    #8
  9. wildbill

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "PTRAVEL"

    >My understanding is the 2200 can be quite slow ...


    My wife was just printing out a series of 8x10's @ 360 ppi on Luster paper and
    I timed three of them to see just how long it takes ... 4:09 to 4:44 were the
    actual print times (~ 30 Mbyte files printed at 1,440 dpi via USB 2). I think
    the i9100 is a lot faster than this, but under 5 minutes isn't that long to
    wait to me. (Note there are three different ports available, USB 2, Firewire
    or Parallel, and the Parallel port is about 4x slower than the other two).

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Oct 12, 2003
    #9
  10. wildbill

    George Kerby Guest

    On 10/12/03 5:42 PM, in article
    , "Bill Hilton"
    <> wrote:

    >> From: "PTRAVEL"

    >
    >> My understanding is the 2200 can be quite slow ...

    >
    > My wife was just printing out a series of 8x10's @ 360 ppi on Luster paper and
    > I timed three of them to see just how long it takes ... 4:09 to 4:44 were the
    > actual print times (~ 30 Mbyte files printed at 1,440 dpi via USB 2). I think
    > the i9100 is a lot faster than this, but under 5 minutes isn't that long to
    > wait to me. (Note there are three different ports available, USB 2, Firewire
    > or Parallel, and the Parallel port is about 4x slower than the other two).
    >
    > Bill
    >
    >

    You know how ridiculous complaining about waiting five minutes for a *color*
    8" x 10" would have sounded 12 to 15 years ago? A *b/w* 8" x 10" from the
    darkroom would have been at least a half-hour, that is, if you had a print
    dryer that would have cost you more than a good color inkjet printer today.
    My, how times have changed...


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
    George Kerby, Oct 13, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Victor Law

    Looking for a good photo printer

    Victor Law, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    534
    Turbinator
    Jul 31, 2003
  2. leo

    Looking for a good phot printer

    leo, Nov 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    287
  3. SH

    Looking for a good photo Printer. HELP!!

    SH, Feb 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    358
    Mark Herring
    Feb 21, 2004
  4. Bob
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,034
    JMooreTS
    May 22, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    838
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page