Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: msbc on September 13, 2006, 02:18:31 am
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
...it peaked my interest. ..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Diane: the word you wanted is "piqued".
-
Diane: the word you wanted is "piqued".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, so--checked my dictionary.
-
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.
-
Does Canon read these comments? Is there any news if they are working on an improved user interface?
Marc
-
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...
-
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...
-
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!
-
I'm hoping that fewer cleaning cycles and maybe the claimed lighter touch with the ink will do wonders.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=EP-T034320)
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right hand side as you are looking at the front of the box. (the cardboard box -- 21/2200 carts often ship with a second form-fitting plastic overwrap) I will post a photo when I get home today. It is not marked anywhere on the catridge itself.
-
Photo attached.
-
Interesting. The boxes I have do not look like the image you posted. First, the part that goes from the front of the box to the back (the part that is designed to hang on a display hook) is at a forty-five degree angle rather than straight (90º) back as yours.
My boxes have a round stick-on label that says "Genuine EPSON Color Shifting Label" that looks similar to the same on yours. I can't tell for sure if they are identical because of the lack of focus on yours.
In any event, the side of the box is completely different. Mine has a statement to the effect that Epson is a registered trademark in several languages and an image of the cartridge straight on. Nowhere is there mention of capacity.
I have two different boxes (old and new?). One is deeper (twice as) than the other but otherwise identical.
My source for these cartridges were Atlantic Exchange and CompUSA.
Ron
-
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...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Today there was a thread on another forum concerning the fact that a number of people had received an email from Epson about a new Pro printer to be announced/introduced 9/27.
To quote from the email text: (I did wonder who was targeted for this email)
"On September 27, we'll unveil our newest professional printer. We want to tell you
about a new printer that's going to get your adrenaline pumping, your heart racing
and your imagination soaring.
For starters, it looks cool. It's sleek, slim, stylish and space efficient. Think high-end
sports car.
But, it's what's inside that will really raise your pulse rate. This engineering
marvel incorporates several radical new technologies. And, of course, it takes
full advantage of our already industry-renowned Epson UltraChrome K3™ inks.
We've saved the best for last. Wait till you see the price. We think you'll be not
just pleased, but amazed.
So mark your calendar. Set a reminder in your PDA. And, put a note on your
computer monitor — SEPTEMBER 27 — it's the official release date of what
promises to be a huge new leap forward in professional printing.
This is going to be exciting. "
So--this may be what you and I are interested in--if its smaller than the Canon or 4800, newer technology than the 2400--and, for me, good mono printing and possible no swap of black carts.
Diane
-
I have bought many Epson 2200 cartridges over the past three years, all from U.S. sources (including B&H, Calumet, Staples, and several local stores), and all of them have the slanting top that Ron mentions. The older boxes are twice as thick, and mention Epson U.S.A., Epson Canada, and Eposon Latin America on the box, while the newer, thinner ones mention only Epson U.S.A. and Epson Canada (although all of them are made in Japan).
Nowhere on any of these boxes, old or new, is the capacity mentioned.
-Eric
-
In any event, the side of the box is completely different. Mine has a statement to the effect that Epson is a registered trademark in several languages and an image of the cartridge straight on. Nowhere is there mention of capacity.
I have two different boxes (old and new?). One is deeper (twice as) than the other but otherwise identical.
My source for these cartridges were Atlantic Exchange and CompUSA.
Ron
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, the front of the box says very specifically: "Printer: Epson Stylus Photo 2100", so there must be packaging differences between the 2100 and 2200 cartridges. You would think they would save a little money and have one box for both...oh, well...
-
So--this may be what you and I are interested in--if its smaller than the Canon or 4800, newer technology than the 2400--and, for me, good mono printing and possible no swap of black carts.
Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
!
Well now that is interesting...I am glad to see Epson respond quickly to the challenge!
The French magazine Réponses Photo has a comparison between the Epson 2400 & the HP 9180 in this month's issue. The HP scores higher, mostly because of its technical qualities -- easy maintenance, larger cartridges, dual-blacks, low ink usage and lower purchase price. The 2400 wins on image quality, but just.
Exciting times!! I can only imagine what this market space will be like in 2 or 3 years!!
-
Exciting times!! I can only imagine what this market space will be like in 2 or 3 years!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed! And I just hope my Epson 2200 lasts another 2 or 3 years so I can replace it with something I'll be happy with for a long time.
-Eric
-
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]
Hi Michael, just wondering whether anything's changed or are you still in training for the shot put? I'm still trying to decide between the Hp9180 and the 5000.
Bob.
-
The 4800 has been sold. I use the iPF5000 most of the time and the HP9180 occasionally. The main reason is wider gamut on the 5000.
If I didn't have the 5000, and didn't need 17", the 9180 would be a very reasonable choice though. It certainly is a friendlier printer than the Canon.
I'll have a 6 month update on the 5000 in a week or two.
Michael
-
The 4800 has been sold. I use the iPF5000 most of the time and the HP9180 occasionally. The main reason is wider gamut on the 5000.
If I didn't have the 5000, and didn't need 17", the 9180 would be a very reasonable choice though. It certainly is a friendlier printer than the Canon.
I'll have a 6 month update on the 5000 in a week or two.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael will you be receiving one of the new 12 ink HP printers for testing? If the quality is there I think this would be a perfect printer for someone who wants a no hassle way of making their own profiles and dealing with them.
Thomas
-
I expect to receive a 24" HP Z3100 for testing some time later this month. I'll let people know when it arrives.
Michael
-
True the calibrations and profiles couldn't be easier.
Calibrating is a one button operations hinted or suggested at any new media set up, or any media listed in the presets that has not yet been calibrated. Profiling asks only what type of paper is loaded, and if you want Gloss Enhancer or not.
What to do with the profiles is less clear though. Menus are populated with the media set ups , and the profiles. If you use Printer Color Management , it will not apply the profile though , just a LUT. I'd like to see this change, but so far no luck. Basically one must use the traditional Photoshop Application color management and no color conversions in the driver.
Please be aware that the Z3100 is STILL beta and things will be changing often , and may even change quite a bit on a software +/or firmware update when all is ready.
There was a wonderful gallery at PPE in front of all seminar rooms printed on Z3100's. Very nice photography perfectly printed. They were so good the technique becomes transparent and all you see is the image, not the printing technique.
-
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]
Hi Michael, My Canon 5000 does the same thing. Iam in the process of getting Canon to take the piece of crap back. palderm
-
Hi Michael, My Canon 5000 does the same thing. Iam in the process of getting Canon to take the piece of crap back. palderm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow, I'm sorry that the experience has been so poor. I have a Canon iPF 5000 en route to me now and hoping to be able to get past some of the frustrations that some users mention. There's so little meaningful info available so far, that it's difficult to get excited about buying any of these new offerings.
Hopefully, Canon will be providing improved software soon. It's obvious that they wish to be in this space and I can't believe they're going to ignore the numerous reports of software/firmware complaints.
I guess that Monday I'll know what all the fuss is about, eh?
-
Wow, I'm sorry that the experience has been so poor. I have a Canon iPF 5000 en route to me now and hoping to be able to get past some of the frustrations that some users mention. There's so little meaningful info available so far, that it's difficult to get excited about buying any of these new offerings.
Hopefully, Canon will be providing improved software soon. It's obvious that they wish to be in this space and I can't believe they're going to ignore the numerous reports of software/firmware complaints.
I guess that Monday I'll know what all the fuss is about, eh?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84539\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have faith, and remember your experience may be different. I did, and I am glad I did because the output is fantastic, and I find the grumblings about the user interface do not apply to me personally. I find the software and the UI no worse than any other printer I have used, they are all cryptic and unfriendly. Myself being in my thirties may give me an advantage with non-user friendly technology, as I was brought up during the tech boom. Either way it is no excuse for poor UI, but in my opinion they are all poor, although still manageable.
-
Yes, TiX, that's generally my attitude. I'm looking forward to receiving the printer on Monday, and like you, find many UIs less than perfect though serviceable.
I very much appreciate reading about user experiences here, but of course realize that those who are happily printing without difficulty less frequently post to boards like this one.
Cheers
-
I agree with this! (and I am older).
Gary
Have faith, and remember your experience may be different. I did, and I am glad I did because the output is fantastic, and I find the grumblings about the user interface do not apply to me personally. I find the software and the UI no worse than any other printer I have used, they are all cryptic and unfriendly. Myself being in my thirties may give me an advantage with non-user friendly technology, as I was brought up during the tech boom. Either way it is no excuse for poor UI, but in my opinion they are all poor, although still manageable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I agree with this! (and I am older).
Gary
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Heehee. So am I, Gary.
-
The 4800 has been sold. I use the iPF5000 most of the time and the HP9180 occasionally. The main reason is wider gamut on the 5000...I'll have a 6 month update on the 5000 in a week or two.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael, in May you were hoping to do a formal review of the iPF5000 (5/26) which I must have missed (I travel a great deal) and on 11/8 you were hoping to give an update. Although gamut is a strong positive for the Canon printers, there are many negative comments on the internet about the user interface, documentation and support.
We're looking forward to your review.
Thank you for the Epson 3800 vodcast. You provide us a great service.
-
Michael, in May you were hoping to do a formal review of the iPF5000 (5/26) which I must have missed (I travel a great deal) and on 11/8 you were hoping to give an update. Although gamut is a strong positive for the Canon printers, there are many negative comments on the internet about the user interface, documentation and support.
We're looking forward to your review.
Thank you for the Epson 3800 vodcast. You provide us a great service.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=87625\")
Fred: Did you happen to catch this? [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-ipf5000.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/prin...n-ipf5000.shtml[/url]
Michael has said in these fora that he'll also be offering a formal update, having now used the printer for a several months.
Edit: From page two of this thread on November 8th, so perhaps it's coming soon:
"I'll have a 6 month update on the 5000 in a week or two. Michael"
Regards,
Dale
-
Fred: Did you happen to catch this? http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/prin...n-ipf5000.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-ipf5000.shtml)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Dale.