I'm not sure what is annoying you about your old R800 but if it is frequent clogging of the print heads I can tell you that the new Epson models have improved greatly to reduce this problem. In fact the 5 Epson printers I have in operation rarely clog if never at all.
You don't give us any info about your budget but I would first of all tell you that Epson has decided to pretty much phase out their A4 photographic printers and going to 13" printers. I would recommend the R1400 (dye ink, not fully archival) or the R2000 for starters. If you want something that can perform better with fine art matte papers as well as glossy and luster photo papers and gives you excellent black & white performance try the R2880 or R3000.
Ernesto Santos esartprints.comErnesto Santos Photography Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"
I have. 2880 and am extremely pleased with the print output. I also have a WF1100 for everyday printing. Getting the Epson inks at 15% discount direct from Epson and only using Epson paper, especially at 40% discount makes photo printing quite favorable. The 2880 is currently on sale. I would recommend that printer.
I had to replace my R800 and I replaced it with a R2000. I think you can get them (when they had a rebate recently) for $350. I have not done a lot of printing on this machine because I have a 7800. But what I have seen so far I am impressed with. These machines with their lower capacity ink tanks can be costly to operate. The R800 was especially bad due to clogging issues and that the inks became harder to find and thus more expensive too. I had to have a printer that printed on CD/DVD media. The R2000 does this nicely. Too bad there aren't color profiles for my media though.
Hi Roy. Like you, I am so fed up and frustrated with trying to reliably print my photos at home.
I have an HP 4215 All-in-one printer, which is quite old now.
A typical attempt to print photos means several hours trying to get the print heads unclogged and the settings right so that a reasonable quality of picture can be obtained. I usually don't succeed!
I am also thinking to replace my printer and believe, from reading what others have said on Nikonians forums, that Epson lead the field for quality and reliability with a range to suit just about any budget.
Alternatively, I wonder whether it best not to put myself through the hastle of even attempting to print and perhaps I should just send my photos to a printing lab instead and let them worry about it. I have an account with PhotoBox and have always found them to provide a great quality print and good service.
I'd welcome other views!
BTW Roy, I see we are almost neighbours as I live in Letchworth. - the next town to you in Hitchin, UK!
I picked up my Epson 2880 a few months ago and simply hooked up the USB cords and without even having any software installed I used Windows to print my first 5X7. I printed the same file that I had originaly printed at the camera shop. The results were better .. there was only a very slight insignificant difference in color between the two images.
Unless you print very infrequently I think you will like printing at home. To me it's an addiction if i don't print at least a few times a week I start cracking up.
Buying ink though is no fun but hey 4X6 prints look great and are fun to print.
AKA : Sal Ficarrotta in some parts of the universe.
So I'm not the only one with the R800 blues. I'm about ready to throw mine off my third floor balcony, and wishing I was on the 44th floor so the crash would be more satisfying. I have another set of cartridges to burn through then this printer is history, except for the occasional printed letter.
In the meantime, Atlex.com has R800 cartridges for the same 14.95 they've been for a few years now.
I've been studying up on the R3000 for the archival inks and larger cartridges. Everything I've read about it has been positive, and I'm ready to try printing larger than 8x10. Sorry, I don't have the $K's for larger prints.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye." Miss Piggy
>So I'm not the only one with the R800 blues. I'm about ready >to throw mine off my third floor balcony, and wishing I was on >the 44th floor so the crash would be more satisfying. I have >another set of cartridges to burn through then this printer is >history, except for the occasional printed letter.
Do it! My girlfriend got totally frustrated with a printer a while back, so after buying her something more reliable, we took the old one out and tossed it at the garbage can from 25ft. After missing a few times and smashing it on the driveway, we felt much better. A very therapeutic experience!
I love my new Epson 3880, and still have an R1900. The R1900 needs head cleaning a every 6 months or so. I am not printing daily. The Epson 3000 is a nice compromise between the two.
Wed 12-Oct-11 12:48 AM | edited Wed 12-Oct-11 01:07 AM by rhelliott626
I have a 3880 that I use to print on canvas and some b&w, other than that I seldom use it for anything else. I was able to buy a Canon Pro 9000 mk2 off craigs list for around 180.00. After I used the first set of carts, I went to 3rd party ink, I been refilling with image specialist ink now and I find that the quality is equal to Canon ink and I tend to print more 5x7 and 8x10 than I did with the Epson due to the lower cost. With the canon I'm not trying to get a print that will last 200 years. I have the pigment based machine for that. Epson makes good quality printer, but they are not the only game in town. Being from the UK take a look at Octoinkjet.com web site for 3rd party ink, or better yet give him a call. I was always againt refilling carts, till I found out how easy the Canon carts are to refill using the german method. I figure my ink cost is down around 50 cents a cart and never a clog.
I moved from the R800 to the R1900 only because I wanted the ability to make larger prints. My R800 gave me years of great service and I passed it on to a friend. The R1900 also consumes the small cartridges quickly. When the R1900 dies I'll move to the Epson 3000 or its successor.
Hedley Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas
The R800 was designed as a photo printer, using Epson’s higher quality, and more expensive, photo inks, and you are also using it for general household purposes. You do not say what the percent uses are, or how much of your household printing is done in color. I cannot help but wonder if you might not be happier with a general purpose B&W printer, or one using less expensive 4-color inks, as an additional, household printer, saving the Epson Stylus Photo R800 exclusively for photos.
It is not clear why you want to use an 8-color photo printer for general purposes. It does not seem that with a new photo printer you will be using less ink. You might only be able to buy it in larger, more expensive carts, and that should bring the cost per Ml down. By how much will depend on a number of factors, and you can run those numbers.
My recommendation is to explore the option to keep the R800 for now, and look for a general purpose (document) printer. The savings in ink should be greater over the long haul, and the initial outlay for a household printer less than that for a new photo printer.
Good suggestion Fred. I have an HP LJ6 which must be a dozen years old that just keeps going and going. It needs a new cartridge every 12-18 months at about $100. I use it for anything that does no require color, and keep the R1900 and 3880 for mostly photos.
One thing to think about, if you get a second printer for non-photo use, and use the R800 less, will it tend to clog more and use more ink because of a higher frequency of cleaning cycles?
At the moment I have an old HP4215 Allin One printer that is fine for document printing but a long way from any good for photo printing.
So a good quality photo printer is required.
From my research I have now arrived at two photo printing candidates, both Epson: R2000 or PX830FWD
The R2000 is the superior photo printer I believe (8 ink), however it would have to sit alongside my HP4215 and space in my back bedroom is at a premium.
Whereas the PX830FWD (6 ink) would REPLACE my HP5215.
My quandary is whether the difference in photo printing quality between the R2000 and PX830FWD is worth putting up with the inconvenience of having to have two printers?
Another point is that the R2000 can print at A3+ and the PX830FWD is limited to A4. but so far I have never asked a lab to print anything larger than A4 and can't see me ever wishing to print larger than A4.
Your usual wise views and advice would be most welcome please?
I suggest you spring for R2000. You can still print A4 on it, and who knows you might get seduced by bigger brighter and more beautiful creations - or you can leave a nice wide white border around your A4's which adds a professional touch to the presentation. Don't limit yourself.
My wife and I decided to buy a pro printer and decided in the Canon Pixma Pro 100. Our decision was based on customer reviews not reviews by professionals. We wanted to know how users reviewed the printer on average use. Well to tell the whole truth its a true photo lab for gallery worthy prints. We tested a print we had taken with a reliable 7 year old hp 525 6 mp camera I still use for macro work since I have classic cars I always work on ( excellent pics). It was a pic of my wife and me outdoors on a sunny day and the picture came out the most vivid you could ever imagine. NO photo touchup just a straight pic. I would highly recommend this printer for the best possible quality prints ever.
Mon 20-Jan-14 02:06 PM | edited Mon 20-Jan-14 02:06 PM by Bob Chadwick
I have a 2 year old Epson R3000 that is in the shop due to, I'm hoping, clogged print heads. It prints beautiful images but I'm a low volume printer. I spent a lot of time cleaning the heads due to this. If I have to replace it I'm going to look at some other options as this raised my ink costs and was generally frustrating.
I was talking to a hp rep and he said the main reason for clogged heads was with little usage. When I talked to the Canon rep he suggested with little use of the PRO 100 to use the manual cleaning of head routine every couple of weeks when the printer isn't used. From user reviews of the PRO 100 I didn't come across any negative ones and that's another reason I got it. Simple wi fi set up and the canon rep on the phone was very professional stayed on the phone for a hour and even waited until the printer printed.
In reality ALL inkjet photo printers clog. That is mostly unavoidable. What one should do is exactly what the Canon rep suggested. Run a test print once or twice a week and check for clogs. Clear as necessary. If you do this it will be unlikely you will end up with severely clogged heads that may never clear without an expensive service call. I have owned many different Epson printers (and a few HP and Canons) over the last 12 years. Every one of them clogged when I didn't do my part by following this simple maintenance routine.
Today, printer manufacturers use a variety of methods to minimize clogging - from disposable print heads to ionized (negatively charged) pigment particles in their ink solutions. Personally, I steer clear of printers with user replaceable heads simply because they cannot be linearized for dot placement accuracy. They also do not use micro piezo technology which gives you very precise ink dots. Couple these two features and the advantages are very smooth color transitions and gradations, very fine resolution, and less printer screening induced grain. By contrast thermal inkjet heads are limited as to the inks that can be used because of the heat involved. And since the print heads are replaced each time the cartridges are changed head alignment is recommended.
The downside to fixed piezo head technology is obviously when things go wrong it can quickly become expensive to correct. And in fact at times it makes more economical sense to simply replace the printer with a new one.
Ernesto Santos esartprints.comErnesto Santos Photography Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"
>I have a 2 year old Epson R3000 that is in the shop due to, >I'm hoping, clogged print heads. It prints beautiful images >but I'm a low volume printer. I spent a lot of time cleaning >the heads due to this. If I have to replace it I'm going to >look at some other options as this raised my ink costs and was >generally frustrating.
I have a 2880, which is an older model than the 3000, but I print sporadically -- perhaps twice a week, sometimes once. In 3 years I have never had to run a nozzle cleaning. Once in a great while it will do it when it start up, but 90% of the time it just starts up and prints. I had a problem with feeding on the 2880, and so was looking at my options -- one was to move up to the R3000, but the 2880 is at a very very good price and had I not been able to correct my feed problem, I think I would have gone that direction.
After taking quite a while in deciding which photo printer to go for I ended up with the Canon Pro-1 and have not regretted it. I was originally thinking of an Epson (i.e. 4900) but after all the forum(s) responses warning of excessive head clogging it made my mind up for me.
Problem is that when you print big, you want to print even bigger.