Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael - Which one(s) to keep...  (Read 15881 times)
msbc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« on: September 13, 2006, 01:18:31 AM »
ReplyReply

So, Michael you have been using the 4800 for a while, the iPF5000 for a month or so and the B9180 for a couple of weeks. If you need to make a 11x17" print (or smaller) which do you use? Whats your first instinct? Maybe this is different depending on Color vs B+W or gloss vs matte?
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4864



« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2006, 07:07:31 AM »
ReplyReply

The Epson 4800 is gathering dust. I hardly use it any longer and will likely sell it.

The HP9180 is the most straightforward to use. Quality is great. I use it when I need to make a one-of print.

The Canon 5000 produces the highest image quality and is the most versatile, but the user interface is so poor that there are days that I want to throw it out the window. It's too heavy to throw, and won't fit through the window, so it sits on its bench with me using it, but cursing it every step of the way).

Michael
« Last Edit: September 13, 2006, 07:08:23 AM by michael » Logged
mikeseb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 482



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2006, 08:14:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael, your work area must look like my crazy aunt's attic!  I think about what my office would look like with three printers in it the size of my Epson 4000!

Are software or firmware upgrades forthcoming from Canon to ease its users' frustrations?

It'll be interesting to see if Photokina brings any new printer developments to give the 7800 or 9800 some competition. I've thought that would be the next printer acquisition for me, rather than upgrading from the 4000 to a same-size successor.
Logged

michael sebastian
Website  |  Blog
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2006, 08:33:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Epson 4800 is gathering dust. I hardly use it any longer and will likely sell it.

The HP9180 is the most straightforward to use. Quality is great. I use it when I need to make a one-of print.

The Canon 5000 produces the highest image quality and is the most versatile, but the user interface is so poor that there are days that I want to throw it out the window. It's too heavy to throw, and won't fit through the window, so it sits on its bench with me using it, but cursing it every step of the way).

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is interesting to me.  I'm thinking about replacing my 2200--and have no need to buy one of the larger format printers.  I've used an Epson, both dye and pigment, for quite a number of years.  Now--we do have choices but I'm still hesitant to move to another printer, but the HP 9180 does intrigue me since I'm interested in it for both color and b/w.  I read Michael's review---and it piqued my interest.  Since there is really no way I'll be able to compare a 2400 to a 9180, I'm going to have to rely on reviews.

 So---I'm waiting to hear more about 2 things that are of the most interest to me---both metamerism (compared to a 2400--for monos in particular) and the ability to print toned monos.  Michael states that he sees no appreciable metamerism---is this with mono printing also?  For mono printing, from what I understand, you choose the b/w option in the 2400 and then adjust the tonality within the driver dialog.  Reading Michael's review of the 9180, it appears that you just print mono---and do the toning in PS (as I did with the 1280, often using duotones to get a better mono on that printer).  I use QTR with the 2200 but I'm limited to the profiles/curves offered by the RIP and I'd much rather do my own toning and print 'as is' so to speak (from what I see on my calibrated monitor) and not deal with a RIP.  Do I understand that this is the way to print monos with the 9180?

I'm going to wait until after PHotokina to make a decision, but the HP9180 is certainly making me look at another printer mfg. for the first time in years.

Diane
« Last Edit: September 13, 2006, 03:25:35 PM by picnic » Logged
russell a
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 389


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2006, 02:35:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...it peaked my interest. ..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Diane:  the word you wanted is "piqued".
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2006, 03:26:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Diane:  the word you wanted is "piqued".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah, so--checked my dictionary.
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5744



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2006, 01:18:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ah, so--checked my dictionary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76251\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, if you consider 'peak' as in mountain peak, or a height of attainment, 'peaked' might work too!

Okay, no need to drag this even further off topic (or is that farther....)

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2006, 01:50:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Does Canon read these comments? Is there any news if they are working on an improved user interface?
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Frere Jacques
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2006, 02:38:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is interesting to me.  I'm thinking about replacing my 2200
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Me too...I held off on the 2400 and was seriously considering the ipf5000, but apartment living is definitely not conducive to large-format printing   The HP cartidge prices look to be half of what the 2100 carts cost...SO...I think I will be making a purchase in October!!

Now...let's see about turning the 2100 into a dedicated monochrome printer...
Logged
Frere Jacques
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2006, 03:10:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The HP cartidge prices look to be half of what the 2100 carts cost...SO
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whoops...strike that...they are 60% MORE than 2100 cartridges, but hold 27ml of ink instead of 17ml...
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2006, 02:16:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Whoops...strike that...they are 60% MORE than 2100 cartridges, but hold 27ml of ink instead of 17ml...
And 27 ml is, incidentally, almost 60% more than 17 ml.

The bastards!  
Logged

Jan
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2006, 02:27:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm hoping that fewer cleaning cycles and maybe the claimed lighter touch with the ink will do wonders.
Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2006, 02:04:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And 27 ml is, incidentally, almost 60% more than 17 ml.

The bastards! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whoever told you the Epson cartridges are 17ml?
In Europe the cartridges are 28ml for the 9180 if that adds a lot to the equation.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2006, 02:53:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Whoever told you the Epson cartridges are 17ml?
Keep your attributions straight; I'm not the one making the claim.

However, I took the bother to google for it, and found this info on an 18 ml compatible cartridge:

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=EP-T034320
Logged

Jan
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2006, 01:21:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Keep your attributions straight; I'm not the one making the claim.

However, I took the bother to google for it, and found this info on an 18 ml compatible cartridge:

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=EP-T034320
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I hit reply and  the quote came from the post that generated that quote.

Your url for generic rcompatible cartridges doesn't mean anything. Find an official Epson statement on capacity to do calculations. Don't forget to remove the wasted remaining ink if you do.
Logged
Frere Jacques
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2006, 02:23:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hit reply and  the quote came from the post that generated that quote.

Your url for generic rcompatible cartridges doesn't mean anything. Find an official Epson statement on capacity to do calculations. Don't forget to remove the wasted remaining ink if you do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


17ml is marked on the side of the cartridge box.
Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2006, 02:50:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
17ml is marked on the side of the cartridge box.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably is around that then. Many of the compatible carts are 16-18 so 17 ml should be in the ballpark.

Yet I can't find any Epson statements on part numbers or other of actual capacity. Shipping regulations in most contries require a contents but surprisingly it is missing from the cartridges on Epson small printers.

Some curious  users went to the trouble of weighing them full, empty, then calcualting the assumed weight with a specific gravity of 1 as they thought the ink formulation was essentially water.
That figure would be the more reasonable number to use , or simply run the carts dry. Is that what Epson users do or is there a chip block at a certain level?
Logged
RonBoyd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2006, 03:10:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
17ml is marked on the side of the cartridge box.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Where! I have looked at a number of Epson Cartridge Boxes (for my 2200) and can find no indication of capacity anywhere. Nor is it mentioned anywhere on the cartridges themselves. Are you sure you are looking at the authentic Epson product?

Ron
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2846



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2006, 02:54:08 AM »
ReplyReply

After messing with the Canon printer for a couple of months, the work necessary to get good profiles and the difficulty I'm having in holding fine details in certain green areas (a problem I've seen in the r800 as well) I think mine is going out the window.  Well, not yet ... I'll hang on and hope Canon actually gives us some new firmware.  But I find myself going to my 9800 almost exclusively now, and wishing my 4800 was still around.

While its true the gamut may be technically bigger, I just can't see enough difference to make it worth the trouble.

I would only recommend this printer if you must use both gloss/lustre papers as well as matte papers.  To me this only real advantage that makes it worth all the extra work is not having to switch out the matte/photo blacks.

I think Epson is just about to address that ... so it may be worth waiting for a couple more weeks.
Logged

neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2006, 03:39:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
After messing with the Canon printer for a couple of months, the work necessary to get good profiles and the difficulty I'm having in holding fine details in certain green areas (a problem I've seen in the r800 as well) I think mine is going out the window.  Well, not yet ... I'll hang on and hope Canon actually gives us some new firmware.  But I find myself going to my 9800 almost exclusively now, and wishing my 4800 was still around.

While its true the gamut may be technically bigger, I just can't see enough difference to make it worth the trouble.

I would only recommend this printer if you must use both gloss/lustre papers as well as matte papers.  To me this only real advantage that makes it worth all the extra work is not having to switch out the matte/photo blacks.

I think Epson is just about to address that ... so it may be worth waiting for a couple more weeks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wayne, you are right in every way and you're sincere.
The K3 inks have an image quality that is so close to perfection , that both HP and Canon are going to have offer improvements in other directions even to come close to the well established current K3 inks.
This week I brought back more samples from the iP5000 and I'm sorry to say but I'm underwhelmed by the image quality. Yes the gamut is very large in many areas, much larger than some areas vs. Epson, but comparing the bottom end of the gamut Epson still have a huge advantage in shadow chroma and saturation under L50. The linearity on the Epson is very smooth, the resulting graduations are what are needed for photography. A large gamut is nice, but if it causes output to look like a plastic painting then it's not well conceived.
So I think the new competitors printers should offer features and software well conceived , that simply work without gotcha's and print with photographic excellence and permanence over trying to sell how big a gamut is. If Epson add an exension to the K3 inkset other than the 4th K cart****** ! I would hope that it be just enough to round out the already beautiful rendering they have.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad