If you had to buy a photo printer, say <$500...

[evil4blue]

What would you get?

I maybe in the market for a photo printer soon, and was wanting some opinions...maybe personal experiences.

I like the look of both the Canon i9900 and the Kodak 1400.

The Kodak is a dye-sub and can print upto 8x12 borderless. The Canon can do 13x19 borderless, but is an inkjet (So you get those headaches).

The Canon is a little cheaper, but it costs more per print.

Anybody, anything...Help!?!

[jeffkohn]

I think it depends on how big you want to print, what type of paper surfaces you like, whether you want to do B&amp;W printing, and how important print life is. Inkjets have significantly better resolution and larger color gamut than dye-subs, plus you have your choice of different papers. You also have the flexiblity to print different sizes by just changing the paper, no hassles with cutting 4x6's from 8x10 paper, etc. Bottom line IMHO is that the inkjets offer greater flexiblity and better print quality.

With dye-based inkjets such as the Canons you have to worry about fading. You can address this by using resin-coated papers which have a better print life, the only downside being RC-coated prints are not waterproof and take a bit longer to dry. Epsons top models use pigment inks for improved print life, but these have their own issues which are addressed to varying degrees depending on the model.

Here's my take on the current inkjet models in the 13x19" size:

Epson R2400. Pros: archival pigment inkset has longer print life than even consumer based dye-subs; new K3 inkset supposed to have improved gamut and DMax; multiple black/gray inks for truly neutral B&amp;W printing. Good support for panoramic printing. Cons: pigment inks are great on matte papers but glossy papers have tradtionally been a problem and may still be with the 2400 (Epson claims it's not but reviews are mixed so far).

Epson R1800. Pros: archival pigment inkset for long print life; "gloss optimizer" for much better glossy printing than pigment inks have traditionally be capable of. Good support for panoramic printing. Cons: No gray inks for B/W printing, matte printing supposedly not quite as good as the 2400.

Canon i9900. Pros: excellent color gamut thanks to red/green inks, fast printing, excellent resolution. Ink cartridges slightly less expensive than the competition. Cons: print life is an issue if you choose the wrong paper; no gray inks for B&amp;W printing, poor panorama printing support.

HP Photosmart 8750. Pros: large color gamut thanks to blue ink. Multiple gray inks for B&amp;W printing, panoramic printing support; supposedly better print life than Canon despite still using dye inks. Cons: lacks individual ink cartridges, slow printing, need to use resin-coated papers for optimimum print life.

As you can see all the printers have their issues, both positive and negative. The best choice will depend somewhat on what you want to do with it. The only thing holding me back from the HP 8750 is the lack of individual ink tanks, but HP has announced plans to move to invididual tanks on future models. Canon also supposedly has an improved inkset coming out in the future that should give better print life (how much better remains to be seen). The Epson models are still pretty new, I don't you'll see any significant changes coming from them for while.

[evil4blue]

Wow, thanks! That's some good info.

So do you completely rule out Dye-subs? 13x19 would be new, but no deal breaker. Anything crucial would still be sent to my pro lab for printing, and I'm not adverse to using whcc.com or mpix.com for poster sized prints.

[janetg]

i've got the canon 9900 and have had no fading issues yet...but someone on the dpreview forum suggested spraying with a clear varnish - they had some test results - seemed to work well...

also, if you purchase at compusa - and get the return protection - it's like an extra $30 - if something goes wrong, or breaks within 1 year - take it back, get a new one - or get an epson...they don't care - it's store credit..

i have used this once for a print head clog i couldn't clear...

janetg

[ndsimm]

I like the idea of being able to do 11x14 but the bottom line is going to be actual cost per print including paper and ink replacement, have you figured that out yet?

[evil4blue]

That really hard to do nowadays since all these new printers have umpteen different color wells that all run out at different times. The Dye-sub works out to ~1.80/print. Once you work in the price of the printer, you have to order something like 150 11x14 from an online site to break even.

[chloew]

Check out this article in Rangefinder this month which compares the Canon i9900, Epson Stylus Photo R1800, and Hewlett Packard Photosmart 8750 Pro.

http://www.rangefindermag.com/Magazi...y05/output.tml

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by evil4blue

Wow, thanks! That's some good info.

So do you completely rule out Dye-subs? 13x19 would be new, but no deal breaker. Anything crucial would still be sent to my pro lab for printing, and I'm not adverse to using whcc.com or mpix.com for poster sized prints.

I just don't really see any advantage to the dye subs at this point; the technology doesn't seem to have changed significantly in several years, meanwhile inkjet technology has been getting better and better. The Kodak 1400 can't even do borderless printing from what I can tell, and keep in mind that if you want to print a single 4x6 or 5x7 your print cost is still $1.80 due to the fixed paper size. If all you're wanting to do is letter-sized or 8x10 proofs on glossy paper maybe dye sub would be OK but otherwise it just seems like you're giving up an awful lot of flexibility.