[MountainMac]

How does the i9100 compare with the 2200? I bought a 2200 a few months ago and it was defective; sent it in for warranty repair (they had it for about 3-4 weeks) and the replacement they sent me was defective right out of the box, so they want me to send it in for warranty repair...again. When the Epson worked, it worked well, but it had a few problems:

--banding throughout the print
--sucked ink like a madman (i.e., 2 full sets of ink cartridges (all 7) to print 39 13"x19" photos)
--dodgy performance under Jag, completely non-functional under Panther
--wouldn't feed plain paper

Kind of wondering how much of this was due to my particular printer being defective and how much is a flaw with the 2200 as a model. Should I replace the 2200 with a Canon i9100?

TIA,
MM

[OreoCookie]

Well, all the tests I have read about Canon i9100 (or its predecessor S9000) vs. Epson 2200, the Canon offered the same print quality, printed faster and was cheaper.

I personally have a Canon S630, and even after 3 years of intensive usage, it's still going fine.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Does the Canon have a light black ink? The Epson 2200 is the only out-of-the-box printer I have yet seen that can do decent black and white. All the others require changing to quadtone inks.

[OreoCookie]

Nope, it doesn't.
The i9100 uses six different inks: black, cyan, magenta, yellow, light cyan, and light magenta, each with 1/6 of the color density. It doesn't use light black (aka gray, maybe ).

Hey Simey, it's the first time, I see you posting outside the lounges

[emdash]

Well, I love my Epson 2200.

It took a couple of false starts to get it working when I initially installed it under Jaguar, but it weathered the switch to Panther like a champ. Custom paper presets were there, everything was fine.

I couldn't be happier with it.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, all the tests I have read about Canon i9100 (or its predecessor S9000) vs. Epson 2200, the Canon offered the same print quality, printed faster and was cheaper.

Exactly, after using Epsons for 5 years and getting a Canon 6 months ago I find the above 100% true. The Epsons always have clogging problems and go through ink like mad.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Hey Simey, it's the first time, I see you posting outside the lounges

I post out here occasionally. I'm not usually much use to anyone on technical questions, but I've asked questions before and occasionally chipped in on peripherals things -- printers, monitors, scanners, and so on, where I do know something. Otherwise, I lurk and try to soak up the Mac wisdom.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I post out here occasionally. I'm not usually much use to anyone on technical questions, but I've asked questions before and occasionally chipped in on peripherals things -- printers, monitors, scanners, and so on, where I do know something. Otherwise, I lurk and try to soak up the Mac wisdom.

Yeah, so I guess I caught you on one of the rare occasions of you actually posting here

Do you have one of the above printers yourself? (AFAI remember, you are into photography ...)

[Vader�s Pinch of Death]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Do you have one of the above printers yourself? (AFAI remember, you are into photography ...)

This might help:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...ht=replacement

[MountainMac]

Originally posted by Vader�s Pinch of Death:
This might help:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...ht=replacement

Yeah, I saw that thread but it mostly discussed the smaller-format printers like the i950 (which I might get for home use). We need a larger-format printer here at work.

Thanks,

MM

[Vader�s Pinch of Death]

Originally posted by MountainMac:
Yeah, I saw that thread but it mostly discussed the smaller-format printers like the i950 (which I might get for home use). We need a larger-format printer here at work.

Thanks,

MM

The 9100 is the same as the one I mentioned but wide format.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Yeah, so I guess I caught you on one of the rare occasions of you actually posting here

Do you have one of the above printers yourself? (AFAI remember, you are into photography ...)

I wish. Every time I get ready to buy one, some financial disaster hits. Just last night I found out that my employer failed to withhold enough taxes last year. I'm going to have to cough up something like $3500 in April.

I'll probably get one at some point. But by then, there will be some new model, no doubt.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I wish. Every time I get ready to buy one, some financial disaster hits. Just last night I found out that my employer failed to withhold enough taxes last year. I'm going to have to cough up something like $3500 in April.

I'll probably get one at some point. But by then, there will be some new model, no doubt.

Oh yeah, I know that. Two examples:

Having a bike accident with a guy that has the same bike as Lance Armstrong: 5.000 �.
Finding out that university students (as opposed to high school students) are not covered by my parents' insurance: priceless.

Putting your one-year old Nikon F80 in the front basked of a bike just to find the only speed bump around for 2 km: 580 � (now cheaper).

Learning that a 2 mm part of broken plastic makes it `beyond repair': priceless.

The only thing that helps is a positive attitude towards life

[SimeyTheLimey]

In any case, I may just stick with a conventional darkroom. I have all the equipment and I'm buying a house that has the perfect space to construct the darkroom I always wanted in the unfinished basement. There is space, power, and all the plumbing runs through that corner. But best of all, its otherwise unused space.

http://www.camera-craftsman.com/future_darkroom.jpg




[EDIT: NO HUGE INLINE PIX!!!! -- tooki]

[aaanorton]

Originally posted by MountainMac:
We need a larger-format printer here at work.

What kind of work? How much volume? How large would you like to go?
This is the one I'm waiting for. I'll be getting one as soon as available. The 2200 is the finest photo printer on the market, only until the 4000 becomes available.

[mrfoxxman]

I must say that the quality of the i9100 is amazing. I conviced my boss at work to buy one recently to print some 13x19" and other large format stuff, and have been VERY impressed with it.... I have the i9100 and an i950 for smaller stuff... Both have GREAT quality... i give them two thumbs up

[MountainMac]

Originally posted by aaanorton:
What kind of work? How much volume? How large would you like to go?
This is the one I'm waiting for. I'll be getting one as soon as available. The 2200 is the finest photo printer on the market, only until the 4000 becomes available.

That 4000 looks schweet, but it's a little out of our price range. I run a Mac lab for the art department of a small liberal arts college and we need a large-format photo printer for our digital photo classes. I'm just so frustrated with having two 2200s be FUBAR out of the box that I'm ready to try something else. Hence why I'm trying to find out if the i9100 is comparable, and it sounds like it is.

In the words of the president, "There's an old saying in Tennessee--I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--that says, fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--you can't get fooled again."

Thanks for all the responses,

MM

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In any case, I may just stick with a conventional darkroom. I have all the equipment and I'm buying a house that has the perfect space to construct the darkroom I always wanted in the unfinished basement. There is space, power, and all the plumbing runs through that corner. But best of all, its otherwise unused space.

http://www.camera-craftsman.com/future_darkroom.jpg

Cool.
I once had a fully equipped dark room, too. My mother gave it to me for christmas (she was a photographer and taught me some things). Will it be BW only, or do you intend to do color as well?

But since I got my digital camera, I am really hooked on this. I shot about 1200 pictures in Tokyo (four days only!), it's a different way to take pictures. After returning home, I have to think about options printing some pix on paper. I don't need A3, so I am thinking about all kinds of options �_


[EDIT: Please don't quote giant inline images, either!!! -- tooki]

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Cool.
I once had a fully equipped dark room, too. My mother gave it to me for christmas (she was a photographer and taught me some things). Will it be BW only, or do you intend to do color as well?

But since I got my digital camera, I am really hooked on this. I shot about 1200 pictures in Tokyo (four days only!), it's a different way to take pictures. After returning home, I have to think about options printing some pix on paper. I don't need A3, so I am thinking about all kinds of options �_

The equipment I have is all black and white. I have printed color before (C41), but I found it to be a total pain in the neck and not fun at all. So when I shoot color, it's generally transparencies unless I have a primary need for prints. Otherwise, I like printing B/W by hand.

The darkroom probably won't be built for at least a year. The problem moving from an apartment to a house is we don't have any furniture, so that will be the priority. Besides, until I get done with school, I won't have time to pick up a camera anyway.

I agree with you about digital, but I am still kind of attached to the technology I grew up with and the results I can get from it. Besides, there is no digital equivilent to my beloved Leica.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The equipment I have is all black and white. I have printed color before (C41), but I found it to be a total pain in the neck and not fun at all. So when I shoot color, it's generally transparencies unless I have a primary need for prints. Otherwise, I like printing B/W by hand.

The darkroom probably won't be built for at least a year. The problem moving from an apartment to a house is we don't have any furniture, so that will be the priority. Besides, until I get done with school, I won't have time to pick up a camera anyway.

I agree with you about digital, but I am still kind of attached to the technology I grew up with and the results I can get from it. Besides, there is no digital equivilent to my beloved Leica.

Well, there is. Leica just announced its new Digilux 2, but I don't like it too much for one single thing: electronic viewfinder. What good is manual focusing, if you are stuck with an electronic viewfinder?

So I'd rather stick to what you have, it's a different way to take pictures. If you have an R8 or R9, you can still buy a digital back (they have the best user interface I have seen, very clean, extremely ergonomic). What kind of Leica do you use, M or R?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, there is. Leica just announced its new Digilux 2, but I don't like it too much for one single thing: electronic viewfinder. What good is manual focusing, if you are stuck with an electronic viewfinder?

So I'd rather stick to what you have, it's a different way to take pictures. If you have an R8 or R9, you can still buy a digital back (they have the best user interface I have seen, very clean, extremely ergonomic). What kind of Leica do you use, M or R?

The digilux is still a Panasonic, and it really isn't much like the film Leicas because (as you say) it lacks the wonderful viewfinder) and can't take the lenses. I use a couple of Ms. I have an M6-TTL and an M4-P.

There has been a continuing flame war over at the Leica User's Group about whether it would be possible to make a digital M -- a digital camera in an M body able to take the M lenses. The consensus of the experts is that, sadly, it's not possible because of the short back focus distance. But maybe one day as there is certainly a market, which Leica obviously realizes.

I'd have to say, though, that if I could afford it, I'd probably get a Digilux 2. It's closer to what I have been longing for than anything else on the market.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The digilux is still a Panasonic, and it really isn't much like the film Leicas because (as you say) it lacks the wonderful viewfinder) and can't take the lenses. I use a couple of Ms. I have an M6-TTL and an M4-P.

There has been a continuing flame war over at the Leica User's Group about whether it would be possible to make a digital M -- a digital camera in an M body able to take the M lenses. The consensus of the experts is that, sadly, it's not possible because of the short back focus distance. But maybe one day as there is certainly a market, which Leica obviously realizes.

I'd have to say, though, that if I could afford it, I'd probably get a Digilux 2. It's closer to what I have been longing for than anything else on the market.

Whereas the Digilux 1 was a different breed of camera, I really don't know how much practical value this one holds. I certainly like the UI, but being forced to use manual focus with an electronic viewfinder pretty much disqualifies that one for me.

And that's what I loved about my last camera and hate about the toy that I have to use now: very easy to use, reliable.

I was checking out the market (and the used market in Japan is excellent, really) and I couldn't find anything digital that appealed to me except the `real' thing -- a digital SLR. Nothing like Sony's F828 or Canon's G5. If I had some change, I'd probably go for Olympus' E-1. When I bought my F80 one year ago, I was also thinking about other alternatives: either Voigtl�nder R2 (coz ther was no way I could afford Leica lenses ), the digital one I have now, Olympus C-4040 Zoom, Nikon FM-3, and the F80.

After taking a look through the viewfinder, I thought the Olympus was a toy. The FM-3 was too expensive, and judging from my characteristics, I opted for the F80 instead.

BTW, what is the Sunny 16 method? Even the oldest camera that I have used so far (my father's Zeiss Contessa that he got for America in 1963) had a light meter (ok, not very reliable ).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
BTW, what is the Sunny 16 method? Even the oldest camera that I have used so far (my father's Zeiss Contessa that he got for America in 1963) had a light meter (ok, not very reliable ).

Here is a decent description of the sunny 16 method. It basically works on the assumption that the amount of light the earth receives from the sun doesn't vary all that much. With experience you can also learn when to open up and close down from the basic exposure. I find I am generally accurate to about half a stop, which is within lattitude even with transparency film. Then again, I have two cameras (1 Leica, and 1 Hasselblad) that don't have meters built in, so I have done this quite a bit.

Here is an interesting bit of trivia for you. Although they did have a spot meter with them (a Pentax Spotmeter V), the moon pictures were mostly unmetered. The astronauts used a moon version of the sunny 16 rule. The cameras had a plate on them telling them what aperture to use depending on where they stood. They used slide film with very little lattitude by modern standards, and the exposures were very good. Then again, there is no weather in space.

On cameras, rather than get a Voigtlander body, get an older Leica body and use the Voigtlander lenses. They really are very good.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Here is a decent description of the sunny 16 method. It basically works on the assumption that the amount of light the earth receives from the sun doesn't vary all that much. With experience you can also learn when to open up and close down from the basic exposure. I find I am generally accurate to about half a stop, which is within lattitude even with transparency film. Then again, I have two cameras (1 Leica, and 1 Hasselblad) that don't have meters built in, so I have done this quite a bit.

Here is an interesting bit of trivia for you. Although they did have a spot meter with them (a Pentax Spotmeter V), the moon pictures were mostly unmetered. The astronauts used a moon version of the sunny 16 rule. The cameras had a plate on them telling them what aperture to use depending on where they stood. They used slide film with very little lattitude by modern standards, and the exposures were very good. Then again, there is no weather in space.

On cameras, rather than get a Voigtlander body, get an older Leica body and use the Voigtlander lenses. They really are very good.

Ok, I get it. I was wondering how most photographers did their light metering Learned something again.

Well, I was thinking about that option, but the market for used Leicas wasn't very good (the prices were too high for my 900-1000 � budget).

For old-style photos, I occasionally use my dad's (or rather my mom's since she took most of the pictures) Zeiss Ikon. Works flawlessly and is in A condition. A good compromise for me and my usage.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, I was thinking about that option, but the market for used Leicas wasn't very good (the prices were too high for my 900-1000 � budget).

You should be able to get a used Leica M6 for that price. You definately could get an M4-P or M4-2. Leica prices in Germany are actually pretty good. Here is a very good Leica dealer in Frankfurt Am Main that I uused to go to. Maybe they can hook you up?

[aaanorton]

Originally posted by MountainMac:
In the words of the president, "There's an old saying in Tennessee--I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--that says, fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--you can't get fooled again."

A cunning linguist that one.
Anyway, I don't know what's going on with your units. Build quality is really superb on these. Banding simply isn't an issue. The machines have a very low Delta E from unit to unit, making the profiles quite reliable and accurate. For your setup, the Epson would be ideal. Especially since the rest of the field knows Epson. You can even do acceptable CYMK press proofs on the 2200.
And remember that while you can print at 2880 dpi, you'd never see the difference from 1440. 2880 just takes longer and uses A LOT more ink.
If you get another, post back and I'll help you get it dialed in.