Why buy more Printer than the Epson Stylus Photo 820?

[scotth]

I have been asked to recommend a photo printer to someone who is

going to print out photographs of her new baby twins. She's not going

to make ICC profiles, and will probably only spend a minimal amount

of time tweaking images taken with a digital point and shoot.

 

I have an aging Epson 1270, and would be able to offer more expertise

(help desk service) regarding Epson, so that was my first instinct.

But I've read such great things about the new Canon's, that I would

probably buy a Canon i9100 if I were the one buying a new printer.

 

She doesn't need bigger than 8x10, so my first instinct was to

recommend a $220 Canon i950 (what I'd buy for that size). But I've

been doing some thinking, and there are very little posts here around

the less expensive photo printers. Should I be recommending the $75

EPSON Stylus Photo 820? Or is there a better choice in between for

someone who is computer literate, will upload images from a digital

camera into Photoshop Elements and print them out with at most a

levels adjustment?

[scott_eaton]

Canon users can claim what they want, but the Epson 820/825 have better image quality (both text and graphics), and to my eyes have more saturated inks. Image stability is also a bigger question with the Canon than the Epson, although I'm not trying to make accusations. I prefer Epson's line of papers over Canon.

 

The Canon is faster, and with the epson you have to deal with it's non-replaceable ink-heads, but for the price of the Canon you can buy two Epson's.

 

Be nice if we could see reliable cost per page charts to see if the extra price of the Canon is worth it. The Epson's tend to be the most expensive.

[jbq]

All the epsons from the 820 to the 925 share the exact same print engine, i.e. they give the exact same results on 8x10. The only differences are the support for roll paper and CD printing.

 

I've just bought a C82 for $60, and so far I've been very happy with the results (works great but only on matte paper). I chose that one for the pigmented inks and the separate ink cartridges.

[majid]

If she is going to be printing mostly 4x6, having real photo prints made on a Fuji Frontier, Noritsu or Agfa d-Lab digital minilab would be a cheaper and higher-quality alternative. Most Wal-Marts and Costcos have them now, or she could order online via a service like the one Adorama is providing with Photo.net.

[scotth]

Thanks for your answers. I figure she'll use film to get 4x6 proofs. But I'm going to suggest the 820. She'll do a few 4x6's and some 8x10's here and there. I don't think the pigmented inks and separate ink cartridges would be great for them, as the'll probably favor glossy to matte, and track of 6 ink cartridges instead of 2 is probably a negative to a lighter user.

[joshroot]

I have to admit that I haven't used my Epson more than a handful of times since I started using Fuji Frontier prints. And the couple of times I have home printed since then have been largeer prints than I can get from the frontier (or I needed to make something like a birthday card right away).

 

So I don't know, I wouldn't spend much money on a printer. But then again, if printing large is the only reason to have a home printer, why not get a printer that will do 11x17 or something like that. Personally, I would just get the 820.

[mottershead]

I have an Epson 820, and I'm very satisfied. Got it for about $80. The only reasons that I can think of to spend more are:

 

1) Occasionally it would be nice to have a wider paper path for larger paper sizes.

 

2) It is fast enough for my purposes, but if I were producing a lot of prints with it I might find it slow.

 

3) If I were selling the prints to people, I think I would want to give them pigmented-ink prints with better archival characteristics.

 

If none of these apply to your friend, the 820 is a really unbeatable value.

[steven_clark]

Odd little differences:

 

The 820 has no roll adapter

 

The 825 uses the old T007 T008 cartridges which are cheaper.

 

The 925 has a roll paper cutter in addition to the roll feed.

 

The 925 has the optical tracking strip and so can do bi-directional and borderless printing all the way up to the highest resolution.

 

The 925 has older-architecture drivers and limits itself to 360ppi on plain paper as opposed to the 720 the more modern drivers accept.

 

The 925 seem to have some quirks to its ink usage. I'm not sure yet but it may be less expensive to just leave it on in between prints.

 

The 900 uses t007 and t009 cartridges, which should be cheaper per print if you can find them

 

The 900 has CD and thick media printing like the 960

[todd frederick]

I recently got into compact digital camera photography in a very serious way, and I am using my Epson 820 to print awesome 8x10" prints with no problems (I prefer to use matte paper). My only reason to go to a different printer would be to increase the print size. At this time, I see no other reason to change. I think it is the best buy around for a quality home printer. If I have any reason to have a really large print made, I will use a speciality lab, such as West Coast Imaging, to do the job. Right now I'm having a bunch of fun with what I have and my creativity curve has gone right through the roof.