Difference between Epson 820 and 890....
As far as I can tell, it's just that the 820 is ever so slightly slower, has a 32KB buffer instead of a 256KB buffer, doesn't accept roll paper, and is rated for 16,000 cycles instead of 25,000. So, my question is, does this justify paying $200 more for the 890? How important is the buffer size? Just wondering, cause I'm thinking of entering the photo printing realm with the 820.
"Film is cheap, opportunity is expensive."
#1. "RE: Difference between Epson 820 and 890...." | In response to Reply # 0Bob_H Nikonian since 09th Feb 2002Wed 15-May-02 06:20 PM
I have the 890 and and I understand the differences between the 820 and the 890 same as you do. That's what an Epson rep told me at a store demo not to long ago so it must be true <grin> There was no 820 when I bought my 890 and I was faced with the 890 or the 1280 Double the price so I said 890. There are times when it would be nice to be able to print larger. But only sometimes. If I was you I would buy the 820, buy it somewhere you can return it, if its too slow, take it back.
The cartidges are the same for the two printers and they can be refilled but you need a chip resetter.
Good luck with your purchase.
The Edmontonian Nikonian
Visit my Nikonians gallery.