May 21, 2005

I've been reading several topic about printers, but I can't make a solution.

Budget: 820$ - 1220$

Size: A4 (5" X 7") or A3 (11" X 14")

What I had in my mind: Epson R800, Epson R1800, Canon Pixma 5000, Canon Pixma 8500, Canon i990, Canon i9950

If you prefer something else, please write it down.

Please help me.

greets Sven
May 15, 2005
Real Name
Hi Sven,

Before I start, I admit I have become a little partial, ever since I bought my first Canon printer some 10 years ago. That time I noticed that the Canon paper feeder sucks - I've noticed that on all sorts of Canon products - inkjet printers, laser faxes, laser printers etc.

I myself own now an Epson 2100 (it's the 2200 in the USA). I am very satisfied with it - it prints up to size A3+ and this was the reason I got it, instead of the R300.

One advantage of owning the Epson 2100/2200 is the abundant information on how to get good results. This particular model has been very popular with photographers and graphic artists, so there are many color profiles for different papers. One limitation there is: it doesn't print well on glossy paper, only semi-gloss or matte.

In addition, the Epson 2100 comes complete with everything you may wish - detachable paper cutter for roll paper, even a tray for printing directly on CDs. The software includes an electronic manual, driver software and a gray balancer (check the instructions AND the Internet before installing it).

There are also some third-party continous ink systems that work well with it, although some may create problems after some time of use.

The Epson R series is supposed to be even better. Perhaps some owners will post their findings here.

All in all I'm very satisfied with the Epson 2100, and the A3+ size is really something I use. I had never any problem, except for some repeated head cleaning after longer idle times. Of course, I never had a paper misfeed.

Last not least, the Epson 2100 as well as some (or all?) of the newer R-series printers use pigment ink, which is supposed to be lasting many years more than any regular ink. I'm not sure the Canon has such inks, I believe not. If you want to keep your prints, this is a good reason to get an pigment ink printer.

Hope this helps.

May 8, 2005
Orlando, FL
I'll vote for the Epson R1800. Superb results up to 13x19". The Epson color profiles are very accurate. Glossy output is particularly stunning.
Mar 11, 2005
I've done an extensive search / a little testing on the subject a year ago (Canon 9900 Epson R800 and 2200, using a Kodak 8670PS that we have at work for reference). In short: there is no solution that have it all. Quality-wise: Canon is just outstanding. That is not to say that Epson's results are not very good, but the prints from the Canon comes incredibly close from what the Kodak does. However the prints from the Canon won't last unless you use specific papers (Ilford Pearl Gallerie Classic), and you are very limited in choice.

Additionally Canon cannot print very large posters, for the simple reason that Canon has put a limit on the paper length in the printer firmware, so that only its office printers can do posters (Canon and a firmware that locks a feature down. Reminds you of something ? :wink: ).

I did not compare B&W prints.

I've bought the Canon 9900 myself. But since technology evolves very quickly it is possible that Epson has leap frogged Canon in this area and its latest R1800 have filled the gap. I would not know since it was not out at the time.

Feb 7, 2005
Annandale, VA
I made some large-scale comaprisons between equivalent Epson and Canon printers. I printed the identical file on both. After making my choice I showed the two to numerous "non-techies" without comment. The unanimous concensus was the Epson image was preferred.

The single difference I saw was that the images were slightly oversaturated on the Canon; yellow was more gold-to-orange than the actual color.

Admittedly this is a datum of one point and there may have been some extenuating circumstances with the Canon printer.

What can you glean from this? Print some images on equivalent brands/versions and make your own decision. The next to worst choice would be "Rich likes I'll buy it."

May 5, 2005
Manchester, England
I find a major issue for me is the speed of printing. When I've done a major photographic excursion and returned with maybe 700-800 pictures I like to print off 30-40 5"x7" prints for my albums and a few A3 enlargements which my wife displays on her office walls.

I've had Epson printers in the past, and this volume of printing would be unbearably tedious with an Epson. My Canon (S9000) is far quicker. I can't put actual figures to it, but subjectively it feels like 5-10 times faster than the Epsons. I accept the Canon has now been eclipsed in terms of quality by the new Epsons, but the quality is quite acceptable to me and people who see my prints, and in terms of practicality it is streets ahead.

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji:
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY:
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom