HP 9650 vs. Epson 2200?

[douglas_greenberg]

I understand that the Epson 2200 is hard to beat for large-sized

photo printing, but it's pretty expensive. I notice that HP has a

new printer, the 9650, that also can print very large sized photos.

I've seen no real reviews of it yet, however, even at Cnet. It's a

couple of hundred dollars less than the Epson, so I would guess that

it is lacking in some features. Can anyone assess yet whether this

new HP would be a good buy?

[bob_rannells]

I was wondering the same thing for a while. I couldn't find any information or reviews about the HP 9650. The people at HP were no help. I finaly found a person who works for HP who was very knowlegeable and helpful. I sent him a file that was sized at 4X6 at 300dpi. He upressed these to 8.5X11 and printed them on both an HP 7960 and a 9650 The prints weren't the greatest quality, because they were upressed jpegs, but they were good enough to see that there really wasn't any difference between the two. I think the 9650 does a good job. The person from HP said you can see a difference between the 9650 which uses six inks and the 7960 which uses eight inks on certain prints. He also sent a B&W from the 7960 which was great. He even made an 11X17 on the 9650 which looked great considering it was upressed from such a small file. I think the 9650 is as good as the Epson 1270 I use. My only problem now is which do I get the 9650 with the 13" capability or the 7960 which can do great B&W printing, but only goes 8.5". They both use inks that last 73 years according to Wilhelm.

[peter_foiles2]

In my view the major reason for getting a 2200 is the pigment based ultrachrome ink which is more fade rieistant than the dye based ink in other printers. There is no real competition for ultrachrome inks at the moment. If you are willing to use dye based inks then there are less expensive models from Epson, Canon and HP. I note that the 9650 is not listed by HP as one of their "Photosmart" line of printers. Doesn't mean it wont do a good job on photos but it wasn't designed for that application.

[douglas_greenberg]

When it's indicated that an HP printer is "not a photo printer," I suspect this means that it doesn't include built-in card readers and photo software. I have no use for such add-ons, however. The quality of the finished prints is what I am looking at.

[bob_rannells]

The HP 9650 uses the same PhotoREt IV with six inks as the HP Photosmart printers. They are all the same resolution. The only one which is different is the HP 7960 which uses PhotoREt Pro and eight inks. The reason I'm interested in the HP printers is the ability to print on glossy papers and long print life.

[joe_w]

I'm also comparing these 2 printers. Epson alone had addressed print longevity but now HP has too. The HP 9650 achieves almost the same fade resistance (according to Wilhelm Inst.) but with dye-based (broader color gamut?) inks on glossy (sharper appearing) paper. At $300 less, it seems very attractive by comparison, but I'm not sure of the gamut issue.