Epson 1160 vs. Canon i9100

[i want my photo.net histor]

Guys,

 

I'm getting ready to buy my first photo printer and have narrowed it

down to the Epson 1160 (which can still be bought new in the UK) and

the Canon 9100.

 

I will not be a high volume printer and this will purely be for

personal use. I will probably do some colour but more BW as then I

can develope and print the negs myself.

 

My one reservation about the 1160 is the quality of the colour prints

in comparison to the latest printers. Could someone with the 1160

give me their opinion on this.

 

Also would the group as a whole give me their inputs into which to go

for and why?

 

Thanks for reading.

 

All the best,

 

Rav.

[p._neil_ralley]

Rav, I have been using a refurbished 1160 for over 3 years now and am very happy with it. I originally intended to equip it with continuous inking but never quite seemed to have enough spare cash for the initial outlay. From what I have read it is great for B&W when kitted out with a quad inkset. If you can get a refurbished one from Epson (check their website) you could save some cash and still get a fully guaranteed printer. I think I paid only about $130 for mine back in 2000 which really was a steal considering that it included a cartridge set worth almost $60! Can't comment on the Canon, never used one. For info on printers check out tssphoto.com

[rich815]

Mr. Ralley has it right IMO. Although in theory (and perhaps in practice if you use a magnifying glass) some newer printers are "better", I get gorgeous, sharp, vibrant and CONSISTENTLY beautiful prints with my 1160. And this is from someone who owns or has owned an 870, 1280 and 2200. <p>All this is said for color. Now, for B&W you will more than likely want to use 3rd party inks. I used MIS Full Spectrum-Neutral quadtone inks in one of my 1160 printers and got great results (these inks are from www.inksupply.com). Now I use my 870 or 2200 with Eboni black ink carts and print using a black only method for my B&W and use my 1160 with Epson carts for color family snaps and such. <p>If you are serious about your B&W input the 1160 can be a great printer but not with the Epson inks. The new Canons supposedly do nice B&W but the paper choice is limited and from what I've heard can have some pretty bad metamerism. I recommend you check out the Yahoo forum called DigitalBLackandWhiteThePrint for extensive discussions and advice on the 1160, and other alternatives, including the Canons, for B&W. It is here: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a>

[tony_terlecki]

I have a few 1160s and a Canon S800 (slightly earlier generation and smaller format compared to the 9100 which will be even better) and I can say that there is a significant difference in the quality of output for colour - the Canon wins easily.

 

The Epson is a 4 ink printer and the Canon 6. This matters when you are dealing with photographs, especially with lighter tonalities where the light magenta and cyan (the extra 2 inks) kick in. On a 4 ink printer the dithering becomes quite obvious and distracting.

 

For B&W I have dedicated quadtone inks for the Epson and for that the 1160 is the undoubted bargain. I doubt you would like the results of the 1160 with colour inks producing B&W images - it just won't cut it.

 

I don't think you can have it both ways. In the end you need to decide what is most important. My advice is to buy the 1160 for B&W with dedicated inks and pick up an S800 on ebay (or larger if you must have A3) for colour.

[._._z]

If you buy a separate a quad-black system for b&w and then want to switch to color,

you need to flush out your lines and clean your printhead. With the Canon you can

remove the printhead and rinse it under water. The Epson head is permanently

mounted and more fiddly to clean.

 

The 1160 is an older design which might be a good choice as a b&w-only printer, but

I think that newer printers like the Canon you are considering will print color much

better.