Topic: P800 Report (Read 31117 times)

Schewe · « **Reply #60 on:** July 14, 2015, 08:32:39 am »

Quote from: tnargs on July 14, 2015, 03:30:09 am

I would like to touch on the old war of Canon vs Epson.

No thank you...not part of this thread...please!

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #61 on:** July 14, 2015, 08:41:18 am »

I agree with Bob and Jeff. And I would add - the wrong way of looking at this question is through the eyes of "war". These are just competing machines using different technologies. Each technology has its own merits and issues, and some of these aspects will be more or less important to different people for different reasons. So yes.......another thread please.

tnargs · « **Reply #62 on:** July 14, 2015, 08:50:53 am »

Perhaps I'll rephrase the question -- I didn't mean to open a whole new thread, I only want to know where the P800 stands.

Does the P800 stand alone in the market or does it have any worthy competitors beyond Epson that are truly deserving alternatives? And what models might they be?

I thought Mark might be well-informed enough to help me. His review seems to ignore all other brands -- that would normally be considered quite an oversight in most product reviews. Is that because Epson is the only worthy choice?

Bob Rockefeller · « **Reply #63 on:** July 14, 2015, 08:57:21 am »

Quote from: tnargs on July 14, 2015, 08:50:53 am

Does the P800 stand alone in the market or does it have any worthy competitors beyond Epson that are truly deserving alternatives? And what models might they be?

What are your requirements and desires for a photo printer? What sort of images will you print? How often? On what papers? Etc.

From there, choices can be made.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #64 on:** July 14, 2015, 08:58:45 am »

Quote from: tnargs on July 14, 2015, 08:50:53 am

I thought Mark might be well-informed enough to help me. His review seems to ignore all other brands -- that would normally be considered quite an oversight in most product reviews. Is that because Epson is the only worthy choice?

On whose authority is it an "oversight"? Reviews can be cast in many different ways depending on the purposes of the review and the means of the reviewers. I have never owned or used a Canon printer and no-one is paying me to write reviews or equip myself to do so - this is all voluntary based on what we have access to. So your assumption that I am well-informed enough to help you on a choice between Canon and Epson is I regret incorrect. I would be pleased to help where I have in-depth knowledge of the product, but in the case of Canon I don't. Sorry. Perhaps there are other resources on the Internet comparing these products.

Nora_nor · « **Reply #65 on:** July 14, 2015, 10:24:41 am »

The SC P800 might typically appeal to photographers who go off travelling for some weeks now and then, and do not print huge volumes of prints when they print. The roll thing is not powered, and the inks are small.
Therefore it might be interesting if some other types of printers are trouble-free when one comes home after being away for a few weeks, and not just the first year or the second, but the third year too.

The SC P800 looks promising so far

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #66 on:** July 14, 2015, 10:28:45 am »

Quote from: Nora_nor on July 14, 2015, 10:24:41 am

The SC P800 looks promising so far

I was careful in my review not to make any firm predictions on the clogging issue. I think it could reveal itself as promising once enough users have left them off for weeks at a time and can resume printing with no more than one or two rounds of nozzle cleaning. Those reports have yet to come in because the product is so new, so time will tell.

Jager · « **Reply #67 on:** July 14, 2015, 10:47:36 am »

Quote from: Mark D Segal on July 14, 2015, 10:28:45 am

I was careful in my review not to make any firm predictions on the clogging issue. I think it could reveal itself as promising once enough users have left them off for weeks at a time and can resume printing with no more than one or two rounds of nozzle cleaning. Those reports have yet to come in because the product is so new, so time will tell.

Indeed. The problem is that the prints it makes are so nice that it's hard to leave off!

free1000 · « **Reply #68 on:** July 14, 2015, 05:28:36 pm »

Having moved from the 3800 which had a permanently blocked magenta channel... (I've tried it all over the last year) I got the p800, this review was helpful in making me press the trigger.

So far I'm delighted with the printer, some thoughts, reflections and questions...

1. When setting up a custom paper size setting I was surprised to find that the p800 permits a border of 0mm on custom sizes. I wondered if this indicates a higher degree of accuracy in the operation of the print head. I was pleased to see this as it means I could print close to the edge of the custom size.

2. I experimentally printed a square image from my iPhone over WiFi. The default behaviour was to then stretch the image to print borderless, in my case on A4 paper. The image had insufficient resolution so I ended up with a poor borderless image. As I had intended to avoid borderless printing because of the mess it made to my 3800 I was a bit irritated and worried about ink mess inside the printer. Exploration of the ink pads on the platen with my finger didn't find any ink. Instead the end of my finger was just picking up some light oil. Maybe I'd need to print more borderless prints to see the overspray appear. I wonder if the overspray is less with this printer.

3. :-) There is a dedicated iPhone app for printing direct to the printer I discovered after doing this.

4. Prints are substantially more impressive than those printed with the 3800, a big upgrade. I'd read that the 3800 to 3880 difference wasn't that big, similarly from 3880 to p800, but two jumps together is impressive. One image I printed has a strong orange object on silver, the print looks amazing on Hahnemule matt paper, like a hexachrome print.

5. Initially I found the front loading of anything other than a few papers to be very irritating at first, initially the loading process seemed onerous, but wasn't so bad after a couple of goes. However it isn't convenient that you can't print sheet art media of any reasonably thickness from the sheet feeder. For some of my uses I want to print sheets not from a roll as I make hand made books and for cost reasons wish to use paper manually cut from a 24" roll so that I get 17" width sheets with the grain running in the short direction. Hahnlemule art paper with short grain is up to 3x as expensive as long grain. I can't understand why the sheet feeder cannot accommodate a matt art paper of the same weight and thickness as a standard heavyweight matt paper. I'm going to try working around this by selecting the same setting as for my heavyweight matt paper and then custom setting the paper thickness etc. in the driver settings. I can't see why this won't work. Anyone think this won't work?

6. I really like the way that the paper output support is separate from the printer front door. My 3800 front door eventually became worn from opening and closing and it looks like the p800 is more sturdy.

7. Overall the quality level of the printer and its output appears well improved. The size of the printer is compact for a machine that can print a decently large print.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #69 on:** July 14, 2015, 05:45:02 pm »

Quote from: free1000 on July 14, 2015, 05:28:36 pm

I can't understand why the sheet feeder cannot accommodate a matt art paper of the same weight and thickness as a standard heavyweight matt paper. I'm going to try working around this by selecting the same setting as for my heavyweight matt paper and then custom setting the paper thickness etc. in the driver settings. I can't see why this won't work. Anyone think this won't work?

When you use the sheet feeder on top, the paper needs to bend from a near vertical to a horizontal position for the print head to move across it, and this process is not suitable with thick heavy papers. That's why those papers are fed through the front paper feed. This is a purely "paper-mechanics" issue that driver settings won't affect one way or another. Those driver settings are for situations such as head strikes, to make sure there is enough clearance between the paper and the head.

John Caldwell · « **Reply #70 on:** July 15, 2015, 10:36:07 am »

Mark and others: Has anyone tried printing greeting card stock with the 800? I'm thinking of something in the 7x10 Red River or Moab walk of life.

I've been wondering about buying either the Canon Pixma Pro 1 or the Epson 800, principally for printing cards. I don't really understand if either printer copes well with stock the dimension of pre-scored cards, and whether the pre-scoring would prevent loading a stack of cards into the feeder transport. The Canon Pro 1 makes very nice prints, apparently.

I do know that our 4900 and 9900 do not make card printing easy.

Many thanks,

John Caldwell

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #71 on:** July 15, 2015, 10:38:47 am »

I can't advise on this as I did not test it.

Nora_nor · « **Reply #72 on:** July 17, 2015, 07:19:11 am »

I have seen the SC P800 demonstrated with a stack of moab paper for photo book.
Like make a photo book in Lightroom, save as jpg, open again in Lightroom, and print uneven pages from the top tray all at once, turn the stack and print the other sides.

free1000 · « **Reply #73 on:** July 18, 2015, 07:49:10 am »

Hey Nora, sounds good, I'll have to check out the Moab papers. I know that they have some short grain papers. I think has to be ordered from the US.

I like the 'drum leaf' binding, you get a really solid book without stitching and only need one sided paper which is easier to find.

Nora_nor · « **Reply #74 on:** July 19, 2015, 07:49:37 am »

Moab has books ; I thing they are meant for wedding albums and portfolios for photographers. They have several types of double sided paper that is made for the albums. There are screws holding the paper when you put the paper in the book. This is in Europe.
The idea is that you make the book in Lightroom, including the background . The P800 prints borderless and the whole stack, and you turn the stack (best to practice on plain paper...) and print the other side, and you are finished and just need to put it in the cover and fix the screws.

Nora_nor · « **Reply #75 on:** July 19, 2015, 08:59:51 am »

How is the P800 with glossy type papers, like Luster? Since it does not have gloss optimation ink.
How is black and white on luster paper?

cortlander · « **Reply #76 on:** July 19, 2015, 09:47:16 am »

Quote from: Nora_nor on July 19, 2015, 08:59:51 am

How is the P800 with glossy type papers, like Luster? Since it does not have gloss optimation ink.
How is black and white on luster paper?

I have been very satisfied with Black & White prints using ABW on Canson Baryta Photographique with the P800.

Bob Rockefeller · « **Reply #77 on:** July 19, 2015, 09:49:40 am »

Quote from: Nora_nor on July 19, 2015, 08:59:51 am

How is the P800 with glossy type papers, like Luster? Since it does not have gloss optimation ink.
How is black and white on luster paper?

Some time ago I wrote up my informal results obtained with the 3880: http://www.robertrockefeller.com/2010/07/18/a-gloss-differential-study-for-the-epson-3880/.

It will be interesting to see what others find about the P800. I'm sticking with the 3880 (for now).

Nora_nor · « **Reply #78 on:** July 19, 2015, 10:41:02 am »

I need to print bw on cheap Luster or pearl paper, not expensive baryta

rdonson · « **Reply #79 on:** July 19, 2015, 01:03:31 pm »

Quote from: Nora_nor on July 19, 2015, 08:59:51 am

How is the P800 with glossy type papers, like Luster? Since it does not have gloss optimation ink.
How is black and white on luster paper?

I've only used Epson Premium Luster but both B&W and color performed well at 1440 dpi. Perhaps not quite as well as my Z3100 with GLOP but I didn't see anything to complain about. I did not have any side by side comparisons though.

Author Topic: P800 Report (Read 31117 times)