Photo Printers

[gatorsmg]

I've been looking for a good photo printer for my digital camera and would like to hear some suggestions.

What I'm looking for:
I have a HP printer/scanner that is only 6 or 7 months old and I really like it so I'm not looking to replace it. I would prefer a separate printer dedicated to photos. It would still be connected to my computer for editing.

Since this would be a second printer I would like something on the smaller side.

I would like to be able to print from wallets up to 8x10.

The more colors the better (I've been looking a six color cartridge printers) separate cartridges would be nice.

Of course something high resolution and with small droplet size.

Price is obviously going to be a major factor since there are lots of possiblities here so let's say around $200.

I've looked at the small Epson photo printers and some of the "regular sized" Cannonn printers (IP4000 and IP6000).

What do you guys think?

 

[AVB]

The wife has a Canon I950 that makes REALLY good 4x6 and 5x8. A little weak on the 8x10 but for a $175 printer I sure was impressed overall. I guess it has been replaced since last year with a newer model. I would think the IP6000 would be a step up though.

 

[Captain B]

I recently bought an Epson R300 and think its the best. :thumbs:
I went to Best Buy and they had a rep from Epson there. Of course he says his is the best. But when he went on a break, he left the card he was using to print pictures. I took it and tried a Canon, an HP, and Epson. I printed out the same picture on each. I took the 3 pictures and went around the store asking anyone that would talk to me, and asked their opion of which was best. They were close, but the Epson won every time. So I purchased the Epson.
I have experimented, and find I get the best results on Epson photo paper, and the poorest results with HP photo paper. I love HP products, but for the price and quality, the Epson R300 is the best, IMHO. When I print pictures and show people, the cannot believe I printed them myself at home with it.

-Brian

 

[Matt R]

I have a Canon i9000D and love it.

 

[gatorsmg]

Thanks for the thoughts guys :thumbs:

If it weren't considerably more money for the Cannon 9000, my search would probably be over.

Thanks to Brian, I'm leaning towards the Epson R300. It's a little bigger than what I wanted but hey you can't have EVERYTHING your way right.

The Cannon 6000 is pretty nice too and is the other printer I'm thinking about at this point. It seems like the R300 and the IP6000 are pretty similar other than the following: The Cannon has a smaller droplet size (2 picoliters vs 3 picoliters in the Epson) but the Epson has a higher resolution (5760 vs 4800 in the Cannon). The Epson can also print directly to a CD/DVD where the Cannon models in North America do not (not sure exactly why the North American models don't). There are a few other small differences that don't favor one printer over the other.

The prices are about the same but I belive the ink and paper is cheaper for the Epson.

Anbody know anything about the significance of droplet size and resolution?

I'm probably being too anal about this but I don't want to wish I bought somehting else after the fact.

 

[Rod]

To be honest with you, I think all photo printers are a huge waste of money. If you are looking to print pictures from your digital camera, than why don't you just go to Savon or any similar drug store and use their printing facilities? I get all my digital camera prints done at Savon, and the quality is even better than prints made from film.

When you print at home, you actually spend a lot more money:
- Ink to buy (and you'll go through ink fast)
- Pricey photo paper (better not make any mistakes)
- The printer itself (may not be too expensive, but the ink and paper sure is)

Price of printing at Savon:
- 29 cents per picture
- Prints come off a professional Kodak photo machine
- Quality is uncomparable to home printers


I would NEVER go back to owning my own photo printer. The cost is outrageous. You'll save a lot of money by going to a drug store, and the quality is flawless. No home photo printer can compare to the quality of an actual print using the Kodak machine.

If you don't want to drive to a drug store, then check out www.shutterfly.com

Just my opinion, I think printing pictures at home is a huge waste of money and the quality simply sucks. While it may look good from a distance, look closely, you'll see what I'm talking about...

Hope this helps.

 

[slowhand]

Price of printing at Savon:
- 29 cents per picture
- Prints come off a professional Kodak photo machine
- Quality is uncomparable to home printers

Another good thing about the drug store way, is that if the picture doesn't come out well, or the printing is bad, you don't pay anything at all. At home, you paid to print it no matter if you like it or not.

 

[gatorsmg]

Good point Rod

Although it's been getting cheaper, the costs of a home printer are high. I guess I have to ask myself if the convenience is worth the slightly higher cost compared to a drug store (more realistically I have to ask my wife ). I guess another problem (which is inevitable with technology) is that in a few months a better and more cost effective printer will come out and I'll be pissed.

Sticking with the drug store printing is something my wife and I talked about. It seems the drug store printing is becoming more convenient especially with the online services now available. We probably wouldn't stop using the "professional" developing all together but rather use the home printer as a supplement for when we just want a few copies of a particular photo or "need" a print quick. I'm not too familiar with the editing options at a drug store or online but at home I know I can edit at will.

Wait a minute....if I don't buy the printer maybe my wife will let me buy more cigars

Now I have no idea what to do...THANKS ROD

 

[BrownDevil]

Can't go wrong with any HP photo printer :thumbs: