New Dye Sub Printer Options

[tonybynum]

Hello, i'm looking for a replacement for my old camedia p-400 dye sub printers. I need to print mostly 8x10's and

some 5x7's but mainly 8-10's.

 

It looks like there's nothing out there for the price range of that unit. They worked great for onsite sales. I'v done some

google searches but it seems like there are not that many options. Does anyone have any recommendations they are

willing to share?

 

Thank you for your help! Tony

[savagesax]

Whats your price range? DNP $1700

[daverhaas]

Looks like Kodak still has one in the under $800.00 price range.

 

Used camedia's for $80.00 + on ebay or $295 on amazon.

 

Dave

[tonybynum]

price is always important, but i want something that's going to give me good prints, be dependable, and i

can get paper and supplies for . . . Thanks. . . So keep the ideas coming if anyone has any . . .

[studio460]

<p>I've been looking at "new" dye-subs as well. From the few units still being marketed, the DNP dye-subs seem to be the ticket: DNP DS40 for 4" x 5", 5" x 7", and 6" x 9" prints ($1,149); DNP DS80 for 8" x 10" and 8" x 12" prints ($1,549). Consumables cost about a dollar a print for an 8" x 10". The other contender is the Fuji ASK-4000 dye-sub, but the DNP DS80 is half the weight (30 lbs. vs. 62 lbs.), and costs almost a grand less.</p>

[studio460]

<p>David said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Looks like Kodak still has one in the under $800.00 price range.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does Kodak still market an 8" x 10" dye-sublimation printer? I thought they were all discontinued?</p>

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>The other contender is the Fuji ASK-4000 dye-sub,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi ralph, if you put this in the mix, then the Shinko S1245 should also be in. It's not well-known to the general public, but in my opinion is the best workhorse of the group, even if it is getting a bit long in the tooth. But so is the ASk-4000. Unfortunately, neither of these are cheap, nor do they lend themselves to being hauled around to various locations (Shinko weighs about 65 lb).</p>

<p>I don't have ANY experience with the DNP printers, but I would personally lean this way if I needed a portable dye sub. DNP has got some investment in the business, they make (as best I know) the majority of dye sub media, and they bought out Sony's US dye sub business (medical aside). I would personally feel comfortable going with a DNP machine for event work.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Bill said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hi ralph, if you put this in the mix, then the Shinko S1245 should also be in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey, thanks for the head's up! Hadn't heard of that one. Looks like a solid unit. Fast, too! Do you own one? Are you aware if the Shinko unit is also used by any large retail photo finishers or kiosks?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DNP has got some investment in the business, they make (as best I know) the majority of dye sub media, and they bought out Sony's US dye sub business (medical aside). I would personally feel comfortable going with a DNP machine for event work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it seems to be fairly popular among event-based, print-on-demand shooters. As you know, so many consumer/industrial dye-subs have long since been discontinued, or their support, abandoned by their manufacturers. Like the otherwise excellent (and, also discontinued) Nikon Coolscan slide scanners, which may still work perfectly fine, Nikon basically severed any continued utility of the product by not releasing any updated OS X drivers.</p>

<p>So, this is my primary driver (pun not intended) on this purchase decision--size of market share. And, with these rather specialized dye-subs, we also have the continuing worry of hoping the consumables continue to be available. At least with DNP's Sony investment, and history as an OEM, all that bodes well for continued availability of updated drivers and supplies for their DS-series of printers.</p>

[tonybynum]

Thanks for the conversation, very helpful! It looks like the options really are slim these days. I thought

that since the days of the p-400 there would be more options and lower prices not less/fewer. With

everyone being in the photography "business" these days it sure seems like there would be a better

market for dye subs . . . my only need for a new one is on location sales a half dozen sporting events. It's

worth the investment for a new system, but the time and fun of shooting the events makes it worth more. .

. Thanks again for taking the time to comment . . .

[Bill C]

<p>ralph, I don't own one (Shinko S1245), but have worked with them quite a bit. (I've sent you a photo.net personal message with more information.)</p>

<p>I would just suggest to make sure print drivers are available for your computer OS before taking the leap.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Thanks, Bill!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Tony said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the conversation, very helpful! It looks like the options really are slim these days. I thought that since the days of the p-400 there would be more options and lower prices not less/fewer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Tony, for starting the thread! This was exactly the topic I needed as well. Yes, I thought the same when the first sub-$2,500 Olympus and Kodak dye-subs became available. It's really a shame dye-subs never caught on with consumers, and instead, $39 "zillion-DPI" inkjets took off instead. Similar to the megapixel war, I suppose consumers thought, "Wow, 1,440 DPI is <em>way</em> better than the 'puny' 300 DPI of a crummy dye-sub" (which of course is a true continuous-tone printer, not a bunch of dots).</p>

[patrice_kennedy1]

<p>Im looking for an update to the sub dye printer threads, since it's now about 2 years later and there are even MORE of them in the market. I have been doing a lot of research on them and reading about them but would really love input from those actually using them! Thank you!!</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Over the past couple of years I've had 4x6 snapshots printed on dye sub machines at Walgreens (DNP) and CVS (Kodak). I'm not sure how much is due to the front end kiosks, but the DNP dye sub prints from Walgreens were greatly inferior to the Kodak dye sub prints from CVS. The DNP color prints were excessively contrasty with blown highlights and gritty oversharpening artifacts. The Kodak prints were closer to my in-camera JPEGs and home prints using an old Epson R200 inkjet. Not perfect, but acceptable for snapshot prints.</p>

<p>Based on these limited results, I'd lean toward Kodak for dye sub prints. For only occasional use I'd probably get a Canon Selphy.</p>

<p>The differences in b&w prints were even greater. The DNP b&w prints were a waste of money - practically like line art rather than grayscale tonality. The Kodak b&w prints had a slight tint but were acceptable. But for a little more money I get much better results from mpix online - they offer prints on real b&w silver gelatin RC paper, and the results very closely match my photos prepped in Lightroom.</p>

<p>Another oddity - the DNP prints had a lot of static electricity, causing them to stick together for weeks before the static charge dissipated. No such problems with the Kodak dye sub prints.</p>