I am planing to buy an Epson photo printer. Something from 8xx or 9xx series, but I am confused with such variety of models which all looks similiar at the paper to me.
So what you suggest me to buy?
I am interested just in the best photo quality I can get for the money. I am not interested in speed, noise level, design or that without PC printing capabilities.....
Also, I dont want to buy just the expencier one (950, I dont even think about more expencier if it will give me the same photo output as, etc. 830.
Let me say what models I consider:
830, 895, 915, 925 and 950. Can you help me to compare and decide?
What is that 5700 DPI optimised oposite to just 2800x1440 950 has?
What I can recognize is that 950, oposite to others, has 96 nozzle head. Is this inportant? How is that better regarding print quality of photos?
#1. "Keep in mind that..." | In response to Reply # 0Sun 16-Mar-03 04:29 PM
...all the 6-color dye-based inkjet printers from Epson have similar print engines and all use identical inks. What you pay for is (1)speed and robustness, (2) accessories (like roll paper adapters and software bundles) and (3) wider format printing. Any of the Epsons will have sufficient dot density to make excellent prints. The ultra-high dot densities are probably more hype than real. I never print at more than 1440 dpi, as it is difficult for most papers to handle the extra ink, and the image quality does not improve enough between 1440 and 2880 (or higher) to justify the extra ink u$age.
If you just want to try your hand without spending much money, and don't care to go above letter-sized prints, then the 820 is the undisputed bargain at less than $100. It will make terrific prints, but will not be as robust or as fast as some of the more expensive printers. For more robustness you can get one of the 890 or 950 printers, but for just a little more than the 950 you can get the venerable 1280 printer which will print up to 13" wide. If you like your digital prints you will WANT to get the wide carriage sooner or later. It's cheaper to just get it up front. I had an 870 (the precursor to the 890) and wound up selling it and buying a 1280 within a year. At 1440 dpi the prints are simply outstanding. The 1280 will take a beating and keep on going.
Your only other options are to go with one of the pigment ink printers (like the 2200) but that is currently at another price level. I would not consider any 4-color printers. They simply won't have sufficient color depth for printing in small formats, although they are the standard for printing wall-sized images.
#2. "RE: Keep in mind that..." | In response to Reply # 1Mon 17-Mar-03 06:45 AM
thank you very much
>If you just want to try your hand without spending much money, and >don't care to go above letter-sized prints, then the 820 is the >undisputed bargain at less than $100.
I want to print A4 either. Why are you saying " up to letter sized prints" ? 830 is not good enough for A4?
#3. "A4 is fine, too..." | In response to Reply # 2Mon 17-Mar-03 12:31 PM
...I'm just stuck on U.S. paper sizes. The 8xx and 9xx printers can only print 8.5 inches wide. To go wider, you need a 1280. My old 870 printer made fabulous 8.5 x 23" panoramic prints, and can print up to 44" long if you have the patience.
#4. "RE: A4 is fine, too..." | In response to Reply # 3esantos Nikonian since 10th Nov 2002Mon 17-Mar-03 01:49 PM
I agree with RRowlett, if you can afford the 1280 now spend the extra cash. I started with the Epson 785epx which is limited to 8.5" width. I just bought the 1280 last week seven months after I got the 785 because I wanted to print larger formats. Both printers produce outstanding prints, but now I have more options on paper size. I just printed a portrait of my wife on 13x19 and see looks gorgious! Of course I am a little biased.
esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography
Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"
#5. "RE: A4 is fine, too..." | In response to Reply # 4bobj Charter MemberMon 17-Mar-03 01:52 PM
For dye based printing, the 1280 is the one to get.
Nature Photography from the Pacific Northwest and beyond
#6. "RE: A4 is fine, too..." | In response to Reply # 3Mon 17-Mar-03 06:43 PM
..ohh, sorry, letter size is actually A4
So, you, and others, are actually teling me to wait and save money for the real thing-1280
I know, I thought that myself too. I like to say that if you want to put something in the frame and on the wall, than A3 is minimum for proper effect.
Uhh, it is a big investment, maybe I will have to wait a little longer for it, but also judge if I realy need A3
#8. "RE: Or..." | In response to Reply # 7gogo Basic MemberTue 18-Mar-03 03:29 AM
is the 1280 any faster than the 820?
I have an 820 and have gotten to where I love the prints out of it and can get what i see on the screen to come out of the printer with a decent amount of predicatability. but, the speed is killing me. it takes nearly 15 minutes for an 8x10 to come out of this thing. i'd like to go for a larger size printer, but if the 1280 isn't any faster, then I may start seriously thinking about a Canon printer.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#10. "The 1280 is is probably slightly faster than the 820..." | In response to Reply # 8Tue 18-Mar-03 02:28 PM
...because it has more buffer memory, but I would suspect it's not so much faster that you would really notice. I can't say for sure since I don't own an 820. Compared to my old 870, the 1280 is about the same speed.
Print times are highly dependent on the configuration of your computer and the dpi setting of the output. My 1280 typically outputs 1440 dpi A3 prints in about 10 minutes, and 1440 letter-size prints in several minutes. If you print at 2880 dpi, or disable bidirectional printing, it will take much longer. The reason to get a 1280 is not to speed up printing, but to gain the capability to print up to 13" wide.
#11. "RE: Epson Photo printer sugestion" | In response to Reply # 0
I looked at most of these printers before buying the 830. My impression was that the only differences between them were in hardware features, rather than printing capability. For example, the 925 has a SmartMedia/CompactFlash interface so you can plug your digicam memory cards straight in. I don't have a digicam and I'd be unlikely to print directly off a camera without some manipulation on the PC first, so the feature wasn't needed yet it added about 50% to the price.
The 830 produces nice prints, slowly - hey, go read a book if you're bored! I've had a few where the black areas didn't come out on the first attempt, but that may be due to a bad cartridge. Cleaning the heads usually fixes it. There have been some reports that Epson heads clog too easily.
Other points: the 830 is cheap (price cut in the UK, down to 80-90 UKP) and popular (sold out over new year when I tried to get one).
Whether you want A3 prints depends on whether you want posters on your walls or are content with framed 8x10s.
"I got a Nikon camera, I love to take a photograph
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away"
- Paul Simon
#12. "RE: Epson Photo printer sugestion" | In response to Reply # 11N80 Charter MemberThu 27-Mar-03 02:03 PM
Here is another vote for the 820. My 'robust' 900 just bit the dust, which makes me very mad since I paid extra for it because it was supposed to be durable and have a long duty cycle....oh well. I want a 2200 but can't afford it now so I got the 820 until I can get the 2200. I'm very impressed with the print quality but the printer itself is very lightly built. I don't know how long it will last but at $99 I'm not too worried about that.
I don't like the fact that I can't get pre-filled Quadtone cartridges from MIS for B&W work. You can buy ink and empty cartridges from them and do it yourself though. I doubt this is an issue for very many people buying a $99 inkjet.
Overall, I'm very pleased with the print quality. Better and brighter than my old (supposedly durable) 900. I think the 820 is the perfect printer to get before moving up to a 1280 or 2200.
My Nikonians Gallery is here: