Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

jdhindes · May 12, 2003, 08:51 PM

Ok, after trying to get my S L O W Lexmark X73 to print with OSX, I have decided I need a new photo printer. What is the best photo printer that won't break the bank that WORKS well with OSX and the Mac? The Lexmark has been somewhat of a disapointment. I will keep it for it's "all-in-one" capabilities to use with Windows XP.

I have been looking at the Canon i950 or the HP7550. I like the idea of being able to print directly from the Compact Flash Card when I'm in a hurry for snapshots.

Thanks for any helpl ya'll can give me.

Jim

maxhedrum · May 13, 2003, 09:22 PM

I've got a Canon i950 and am quite impressed. It's fast, quiet, and produces excellent photo prints.
I've also read many threads that people are getting good results with Weink and Inkjet Goodies refill kits with this machine. Going to give the Weink stuff a try.

dooger · May 13, 2003, 10:49 PM

I have to put in a vote for the Sony DPP-EX5. I don't have a Sony camera so I lose some of the Memory Stick printing options, but this printer does great with iPhoto. The dye-sublimation pics it produces are great quality and they're water as well as smudge proof. The cost of consumables may be a little higher than most, but for the amount of printing that I do, it's great. The printer is very compact and doesn't take up much of my precious desk space. I too had an old Epson "all-in-one", but I wanted a pure photo printer. All I really wanted to do was print 4x6's or 3.5x5's, which is what this model does. So, if you don't have the need to always print 8x10's, this may be a good option for you.

dooger

P.S. I've recently seen some price drops/rebates avaiable for this printer. Also, you can buy the printer and supplies at Wal-Mart.

TMLai · May 13, 2003, 11:22 PM

I have a Epson 780 for 2 years (cost ~$70 today). It produce very good result. But the color never get 100% right (look good to the eye but just don't match the screen.) The driver don't support any advance function like borderless printing.

I also just bought a Canon i950. When using Canon PPP paper, the color match perfectly to my screen. And it print a few times faster then the Epson. When print with other paper. There is a green color cast on the print that just don't look right and unusable. It driver support borderless printing.

(Print via iphoto and Photoshop only.)

OreoCookie · May 14, 2003, 02:23 AM

Canon i950 for A4, it's big brother for A3 printing. Excellent quality, faster than any of the rivalling printers in that category.

jdhindes · May 15, 2003, 07:34 AM

Thanks for your replies--I found a Canon i850s at Sam's Club for $239 --not sure what the s in the 850 means, but it comes with a USB cable and a Dazzle card reader, so I guess I'll go ahead and buy it.

Thanks for your help.

Jim

OreoCookie · May 16, 2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by jdhindes:
Thanks for your replies--I found a Canon i850s at Sam's Club for $239 --not sure what the s in the 850 means, but it comes with a USB cable and a Dazzle card reader, so I guess I'll go ahead and buy it.

Thanks for your help.

Jim

The i850 is the general purpose printer by Canon. While it offers good quality in its class, a dedicated photo printer will do a better job.

tooki · May 17, 2003, 11:59 AM

Yikes! $239 for an i850? That's a $150 printer (find online for less), plus a $7 USB cable and a $20-30 card reader.

The i850 makes a great all-round printer, but it still is a real photo printer. Despite the fact that it's only a 4 color printer, its printouts are comparable to last year's 6 color Canon (the s900).

The i850 is much faster than the i950, but the i950 prints slightly smoother photos. Some people prefer the somewhat more contrasty photos from the i850 though.

The i850s seems to merely include the USB cable.

tooki

tooki · May 18, 2003, 10:52 AM

I actually ended up at Sam's yesterday... $239 is for an i950s, not the i850s. So yeah, $239 for an i950 with cable and USB card reader is a great deal if the i950 is the right printer for you.

Sam's sells the i850s (with cable, no card reader) for $139, which is an OK price, but not spectacular when you factor in the cost of a Sam's membership.

tooki

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 18, 2003, 01:34 PM

Do NOT get an Epson. When they work they work well but every one I have ever owned including the new c80 is glogs and messes up all the time. It is actually busted now and I have to send it it (after it screwed over a bunch of photopaper)

jdhindes · May 18, 2003, 05:52 PM

Yes, I looked at a Canon 950, NOT an 850. I typed it in wrong. Thanks for the correction, though.

Jim

awcopus · May 19, 2003, 02:20 AM

Despite Skywalker's experience, the best color photo printer on the market right now is the Epson 2200. It's simply miraculous. 7-color printer, archival quality, every paper size in the book, firewire. Costs about $700 but is consistently back-ordered everywhere because pros LOVE it and it's that hot.

Canon cameras/lenses...Epson 2200....photo printing heaven.

Mastrap · May 19, 2003, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by awcopus:
Despite Skywalker's experience, the best color photo printer on the market right now is the Epson 2200. It's simply miraculous. 7-color printer, archival quality, every paper size in the book, firewire. Costs about $700 but is consistently back-ordered everywhere because pros LOVE it and it's that hot.

Canon cameras/lenses...Epson 2200....photo printing heaven.

Exactly. Ignore skywalker's personal vendetta (wich is getting old) about Epson and go ahead if that is still in your budget. It is a sensational printer.

I've still got an old Epson 750 Photo kicking around which after three years of heavy usage still works like a charm.

Nawoo · May 19, 2003, 12:00 PM

Either i850 or i950 man
there should be no other choices

these 2 are the best photo printers in the market today

No other brand comes near them

awcopus · May 19, 2003, 12:25 PM

Nawoo, I wouldn't go as far as to say the Canon printers you allude to aren't worth considering. They're less expensive and produce beautiful pictures. But I've seen their output, and, if one can afford the difference, the Epson 2200 is, in fact, the best sub-$1000 photo ink jet on the market. For color-accuracy and photo-smoothness and longevity.

Don't take my word for it. Professional photographers sing its praises in the DPREVIEW.COM forums. What's really special about the Epson 2200 is its use of Archival quality inks, special inks that will last 100 years.

Canon printers are faster, generally speaking, but I could care less about speed. Quality or bust.

I Bent My Wookiee · May 19, 2003, 01:33 PM

No personal vandetta with Epson. Do a search on this topic here and you will see many people here saying the exact same thing. Epsons CLOG like nuts and you can NEVER replace the ink head. Every time you replace the ink cart on an HP it also replaces the ink head.

kster · May 19, 2003, 02:54 PM

I was also looking for photo printer. I settled on the HiTi Photo Printer 630PS. Its a dye sub that prints 4"x6" prints. It has slots for memory cards and usb. Looked good and found one online for $170. Should arrive in a few days.

emdash · May 19, 2003, 03:16 PM

Yes, the Epson 2200 is astounding. I was a die-hard HP guy for a long time, but this printer switched me.

I do worry about the ultimate lifespan of the printheads, since you don't replace them with the cartridge as you do in HP-world.... I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

It really seems like HP has dropped the ball on photo printing. I have a DeskJet 1220c/ps, and it's really, really poor in the photo department. I'm sure their dedicated photo printers are better, but they don't even make a tabloid-sized one. They also don't make an archival-ink one, nor do they make a FireWire one. They seem to be concerned with snapshots only.

Anyway: Epson 2200 all the way!

Nawoo · May 20, 2003, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by awcopus:
Nawoo, I wouldn't go as far as to say the Canon printers you allude to aren't worth considering. They're less expensive and produce beautiful pictures. But I've seen their output, and, if one can afford the difference, the Epson 2200 is, in fact, the best sub-$1000 photo ink jet on the market. For color-accuracy and photo-smoothness and longevity.

Don't take my word for it. Professional photographers sing its praises in the DPREVIEW.COM forums. What's really special about the Epson 2200 is its use of Archival quality inks, special inks that will last 100 years.

Canon printers are faster, generally speaking, but I could care less about speed. Quality or bust.

We're looking at a price differnce of a few hundred dollars here man

With Canon photo paper pro, u can get 25 years. With Epson's paper, i don't know how long it would last but if its as good as you say it is, WOW. (Has anyone even lived for 100 years to see it last that long?LOL)

But the price difference between the i950 and the 2200 is way Huge

That is why only the professionals will invest in the 2200. because normal amatuers up till serious photographers would be more than pleased with the i950's performance

There's no doubt the 2200 is a fantastic printer. I read reviews and opinions of it on Dpreview and other websites.

But ordinary people don't want to spend that sum of money just for a Photo printer. The i950 has charmed many a photographer's life as you can see on dpreview.

So for 400 dollars less, i think the i950 would fit the bill for mr Jdhindes don't you think? He isin't exactly a professional photographer isin't he?

awcopus · May 20, 2003, 09:10 AM

I was responding to your "there should be no other choices" comment, and the flame-worthy comments that followed.

You're right that the guy is not a pro. But a hobbyist can be as (if not more) concerned with quality as a pro, simply without the baggage of clients, deadlines, purchase orders. And today, hobbyists can afford the tools the Pros use thanks to the free market.

Regarding the price difference, I qualified my remark: "...if one can afford the difference..."

By no means a wealthy guy, am I. Still, I have always found that I forget the price I pay for things over time ONLY when the product I get is overwhelmingly satisfying.

This is why I spend money on Macs as opposed to PCs. The difference in price is substantial, but worth every penny.

Mr. jdhindes specifically asked: "What is the best photo printer that won't break the bank?" Well, the first part is easier to answer than the second part, since we don't know what it would take to break his bank. The price difference is $250 (i950) vs. $700 (2200)...so $450. I doubt that would break his bank or that of most professionals on this board.

Mr. jdhindes and the others who will read this thread seeking advice should consider all of the options available to them, even those above their preset budget limits. For some, stretching the budget for the 2200's advantages (Firewire, a 7-color process, true paper-size flexibility, optional use of included 4x6 roll paper system [includes cutter], superior image quality, archival inks) will prove worth it. For others, the i950 perfectly fits the bill.

OreoCookie · May 20, 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by awcopus:
...

Mr. jdhindes specifically asked: "What is the best photo printer that won't break the bank?" Well, the first part is easier to answer than the second part, since we don't know what it would take to break his bank. The price difference is $250 (i950) vs. $700 (2200)...so $450. I doubt that would break his bank or that of most professionals on this board.

Mr. jdhindes and the others who will read this thread seeking advice should consider all of the options available to them, even those above their preset budget limits. For some, stretching the budget for the 2200's advantages (Firewire, a 7-color process, true paper-size flexibility, optional use of included 4x6 roll paper system [includes cutter], superior image quality, archival inks) will prove worth it. For others, the i950 perfectly fits the bill.

Well, for most things, the Epson is plain overkill. If you are looking for Epson alternatives, there still is the Epson 950 Photo. Basically a cut down version of the 2200 -- you can even print on rolls.

But I'd go for the Canon i950 for photos, i850 for general purpose stuff. A far better deal: similar quality, faster, and far better price performance.

bbales · May 21, 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Do NOT get an Epson. When they work they work well but every one I have ever owned including the new c80 is glogs and messes up all the time. It is actually busted now and I have to send it it (after it screwed over a bunch of photopaper)

I had a C80 (bought it in january '02, b/c I needed one compatible with OSX) and in Feburary of '03 discovered it simply spewing black ink everywhere. Incredible mess. A service tech found out the model number and told me to call Epson and complain. Even though it was out of warranty, Epson must have known it was a known issue, so to speak, b/c with nary a qualm it sent me a refurbished C82 and took the C80 back. It's an OK all-purpose printer, but I'd like a photo pritner, frankly.

And I can't figure out how to make the specialty 4 x 6 paper work with it! Very frustrating.

TMLai · May 21, 2003, 11:07 PM

I thank all ink jet printers will have print head problems over time. My advice is print somthing at least once a week. This will prevent most of the print head problems.

When choosing between Canon and Epson, it not that easy. Both print very good photos. Below are the pro for each:

Epson:

Print last forever (When print on correct paper).
Lower media price. (Epson brand paper)

Canon:

Print much faster.
Lower ink price?
Replacable print head (Cost as much as the printer itself)

talisker · May 22, 2003, 12:16 AM

How come some people here seem to be so concerned with using archival inks and that the prints will last 100 years etc? Surely it doesnt matter how long the prints last (as long as it's a few years at least), if you always keep (backed-up) copies of the original data on disc somewhere. The print is not the original, so I don't really see why it's longevity is a huge issue for 99% of people.

awcopus · May 22, 2003, 08:02 AM

talikser, let's just throw out a crazy possibility like printing pictures and giving them to friends and loved ones. Or selling prints to customers. It's nice that the Epson archival inks don't fade out in a year and that they are relatively impervious to water damage.

I didn't ever mean to convey that going with the Canon is somehow a bad move, BTW. Only that the Epson 2200 deserved some consideration. There is no perfect printer, only the one that's perfect for you.

TMLai · May 22, 2003, 08:56 AM

Long print life translated to less cost. According to a photo paper testing site(Do a search in dpreview.com forum.). The Canon PPP paper last 2 years and the Epson A paper last over 20 years. If you are going to hange the picture on the wall for 20 years the Canon print will cost your 10 times as much.

By the way, given the rate on which the technology change. I am not quite sure if I can still open my twenty years old file and print another copy! Do you think CD-R or DVD-R readers will still be around at that time? Oh, sorry, CD-R and DVD-R media only have a life of less then ten years in practise. So, do backup as often as you can.

starman · May 22, 2003, 09:21 AM

Another

for the Epson 785EPX. Love it, and it works well under Windows and OS X. It produces some of the best pictures I've ever seen.

Mike

awaspaas · Jun 16, 2003, 11:34 AM

Just another guy singing the Epson 2200's praises. My research group just presented posters at the national organic symposium and we printed them all on the Epson 2200 using sheets of 13" glossy roll paper (except one - he didnt get his done in time so he had to pay Kinkos to do it). The print quality was phenomenal and it saved us thousands and thousands of dollars over having it printed on a large-format printer.

See photos here http://homepage.mac.com/awaspaas/PhotoAlbum22.html

tooki · Jun 17, 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by TMLai:
...
Epson:

Print last forever (When print on correct paper).
Lower media price. (Epson brand paper)

Canon:

Print much faster.
Lower ink price?
Replacable print head (Cost as much as the printer itself)

Actually, Canon's printheads are covered under warranty (unlike Epson's), and it's my understanding (I wish I could remember where I read this) that once the warranty has run out, you can get a free replacement printhead by ordering a set of cartridges from Canon and requesting the printhead. (It's not available yet as a freebie for the i850 or i950 because all of them are still under warranty.)

As for Epson printer longevity... they have really dropped. I remember their older inkjets, which lasted forever without clogs. It's just not the case any more, and Epson's current offerings are shockingly slow compared to Canon and HP's... (the 5760dpi mode takes tens of minutes to print pictures!). And yet Epson's print quality is, at best, no better than Canon's.

tooki

Timo · Jun 17, 2003, 04:52 PM

Happy with my canon i950, but no ink jet experience to compare it too.

dampeoples · Jun 17, 2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by starman:
Another for the Epson 785EPX. Love it, and it works well under Windows and OS X. It produces some of the best pictures I've ever seen.

Mike

mine too.