Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
Safetymom123 wrote:
> Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and
> 2200 will outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge
> resistant that the Canon isn't.
>
From my memory only Canon's black is water proof (but not photo black one).
That part is true.
I also know (i did write it) about that famous Epson ink which should be
longer lasting, but - didn't try myself though - i've heard that it ain't
much better than others...just commercial stuff mainly... also a lot of
people refill, and after that this longevity thing is excactly the same.
BTW...if i (that's when i need my next printer) come to any other brand of
printer (this doesn't include Lexmark) which carts are cheap and quality is
great - durability is not a high issue for me, as i can always print a
second photo after 10 or 20 years, and i also don't keep them in sunlight),
i'll gladly but it. Waterproof is again not imporant, since i don't plan to
wash my photos...
🙂))
Why do i hate Epson? looong story...
but, to keep it short, my friend once had Epson - some medium range one -
and after less than one year all output started to look faded, without any
contrast, quality bad... He took it to a service where they said it's all
ok...supposely (as they say) what did i expect from that printer, and if i
wanted better, i should pay at least double etc...
Now, maybe it's not Epson, just service personell in my country...doesn't
really matter...but it shows how (maybe) totally innocent company (any
product) can become the one to blaim for all...because of some idiots in the
service...
But it does have cheap carts, though...(Epson, i mean). i wonder, if the
price is similar to ip4000...?
Finally, (to William mainly)...it's good to defend your printer (i do the
same for mine). At the end, if you don't do that, you'd be stupid for buying
it...right? If you are certain that your product is the best, then you're
certain that you bought just "the right thing" for you...otherwise, you'd
always complain, like "damn, i should of buy that one..."
>
>
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:Bzkzd.7403$F6.1296200@news.siol.net...
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>> R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.
>>
>> Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of
>> Canon and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are
>> suppose to last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink,
>> which really didn't prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to
>> really last that long as they claim. For this we'll have to wait a
>> few decades... It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like
>> always...damn!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:2yhzd.7397$F6.1296174@news.siol.net...
>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:40:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>>>>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William Bell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite
>>>>>>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And does not use Long last inks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to
>>>>>> last 100 years...
>>>>>
>>>>> And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100
>>>>> years..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with
>>>> proper paper and proper storage.
>>>> Epson however claims 100 years...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have
>>>>>> such gloss, so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means
>>>>>> additional cart and higher cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type
>>>>> used..
>>>>
>>>> So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't
>>>> have gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability
>>>> is the same as canon's...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the Print head Rots,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
>>>>>> clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head
>>>>>> failures... At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get
>>>>>> with ip4000, while quality is more or less the same.
>>>>>> It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed
>>>>>> and god know what else), but after that it prints very fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Capt Nud wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to
>>>>>>>>> print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book
>>>>>>>>> is photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing
>>>>>>>>> it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the
>>>>>>>>> printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with
>>>>>>>>> the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these
>>>>>>>>> books printed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster
>>>>>>>>> at printing on matte paper?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help....
>>>>>>>>> don
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram