canon 5D, what is a good printer with PC

[spotrider]

<p>I've got an hp all-in-one printer that does a fairly poor job of printing. I use lightroom and cs2. I have a Samsung on a hdmi cable.</p>

<p>I don't print over letter size.</p>

<p>What is the sweet printer?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[michael_ziegler2]

<p>Epson R1800 or above. I use it all the time with Lightroom and print up to 13' x 19'. You won't be sorry.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>I have an HP8750... it is a very nice printer BUT if I had it to do over again (or you could read into that if I had done my research better) I'd have gone with Epson. Don't get me wrong, my printer produces great results, but knowing what I know now - especially about the printer's quirks if you use something other than HP paper - I'd have definitely gone with an equivalent Epson (and I don't have a number, because at this point, I honestly don't want to know... a new printer will not happen for at least another year for me so I don't want to think about it).</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>Epson R1800 for letter-sized prints or smaller actually translates into the R800 model. The R1800 has now been replaced by the R1900 which is probably a bit better. But the good thing about the R800/1800 line is that all issues, problems and tweaks have been discussed for years in various forums (such as on photo.net). Both can be purchased refurbished for very reasonable prices at Epsons web store. The only downside is that the ink is quite pricey.</p>

[brhodes47]

<p>I'm going to take the road less traveled so far and say look at the Canon Pixma Pro 9000. You can find one occasionally on ebay or local craigs list for almost half of the price of a new one. I switched from Epson to Canon and am very happy with my decision. I did have the R800 which consumed the ink like a sh@# through a Christmas goose. The Canon doesn't seem to drink as much.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>I'm into dye sub printers, not inkjets. Hope this helps.</p>

[scherbi]

<p>I have an Epson R380. It's about $100, and so is a full set of new ink. It's not as flexible (wrt printing media) as the R1800 or R2400, and doesn't use pigment inks like those, but it the print quality is very, very good for the money. It alos costs substantially less than either of those. The Claria dye inks are rated for 80 years under glass. I have no complaints about the lifetime of the ink cartridges.<br>

I've had excellent results with Epson's semi gloss paper and Red River's Polar Satin.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Martin, it depends on what you want to do with the prints. Do you need them to last maybe a century without fading when displayed in typical conditions (e.g. on an interior wall)? Or perhaps you need something that will stand up well to direct sunlight? If so, then you need pigment-based ink, like Epson's Ultrachrome inks. If light fastness doesn't matter so much, and if you only need the print for a few years, then the normal dye-based inkjets are probably going to be more economical. I know my Epson SP4000 costs a mint in ink everytime I turn it on -- apparently an experience shared by Brian with his R800. :-(</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I end up using an old Epson 740 (for which the ink is not cheap) for "everyday" use like letters, etc. since, yes, the ink for the R1800 is more expensive. I don't like to use the R1800 for anything but photographic printing. For that, it is remarkable. A nice 13"x19" glossy can be very pretty.</p>

<p>For a while there, it was almost as cheap to buy a cheap printer with new ink, than it was to buy the ink for the old cheap printer.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I have been using a Canon i9900 and have no complaints. It was fairly cheap (I think I paid $499 before a $50 rebate), it prints 13x19 borderless, it's about average on ink consumption, and it still works perfectly after 3 years and a LOT of prints. It was never my intention to sell prints from this machine but I have.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>Just a lil different I started using an epson 2100 and while it is good not used it in 2 yr as it is expensive, I have a canon cp dyesub prints direct from cam or PC but it cost too, there are many good kodak dye subs s/h now which print well. Best I found was for my daily print sales I use a Fuji printpix 400d, no ribbons, no ink or chem to mix. it prints to 6x8, now for anything bigger 10x8 ~ 12x18 I use the closest frontier, cost 1/4 of the price eg12x18 =3$, 10x8=1.10 done on fuji crystal archive paper that last 50yr. The machines are set to industry standard and spyder matches well. worth it to me, YMMV Otherwise the epson r series is quite ok :) </p>

[lee_smith2]

<p>Most photoprinters today do a great job, Even a sub $100 Epson C88 which I gave my daughter does a great job. You won't be dispointed with any HP, Epson or Canon photo printer. I use a Epson 1800 and it is great.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>I also should clarify my comments (lest someone think I'm dissing my printer)... the HP 8750 is a really nice printer, and it produces very, very good looking prints. It's versatile, and can take a variety of ink cartridges (only so long as they are HP ones though) for uses including more text/graphics mix and photos and sepia-toned photos. However, I would have preferred a printer that allowed for more use of "art" papers. And the HP model really needs to use HP paper, although I've had equally good results from Kodak papers.<br>

I agree with Lee that almost any photoprinter on the market will make fine pictures. If you have something special in mind, look for those features and you should be happy.</p>

[spotrider]

<p>Does anyone have experience with sending the work to someone like bayphoto for higher quality printing for small quantities or singles. I've never sent anything out for printing. off topic: will a print shop work from RAW images?</p>