george_doumani

Thanks Allyn - I actually worked that one out last night after experimenting with it. What my problem is now is that when I print from the top loader the paper never prints parallel to the edge. I'll try to explain it in words but it's hard to imagine. When I align the paper in the loading tray I position the plastic alignment holder up against the edge. Not too tight but snug as Epson suggests. I also make sure the guide on the higher right side of the paper resting tray is out as it should be for larger papers (I was using 13 x 19 inch / A3+). When the printer initiates the take up of the paper it somehow pushes the aforementioned "plastic alignment holder" slightly to the left each time creating a 5 - 10mm gap to the edge of the paper as it loads. That's why it loads crooked it seems. Ideas?

That's a good question! It's driving mad. Expensive and not as good as the one I replaced.

After upgrading one week ago from an Epson R2880 to the P800 I am going slightly crazy here. I am very familiar with the Epson workflow on their higher end printers and have used them extensively over the past 15 years. Here are my problems. 1) The paper loads skewed via both the top / standard loader and via the art board front loader. When the later occurs I get a warning box coming up on the LCD prompting me to eject and reload. The design of this front-loading system is simply madness. So unreliable. The top loader takes my paper (usually Canson Baryta or Ilford Gold Fibre Silk) but prints it skewed. I have ruined maybe 15 pieces of large (and expensive) paper so far because of these loading problems! 2) Borderless printing. On my last attempt it seems despite selecting the paper size as 13"x19" (A3+) via the Epson print driver the printer loaded the paper skewed and also prints to A3 width not to the full width. Could this be something to do with the LCD screen on the printer over-riding the print driver via PS CC? I would assume the opposite is the default? Further on from the above front / art paper loading mechanism. I am using large papers (A2 - A3). When I click on the front loading tray to initiate the procedure I push the paper in but when it hits the back loading tray it does not go up into the tray it simply goes out the back. I tried to print with it hanging out the back but that resulted in another paper jam. Thanks for any advice you can offer. Also please DO NOT POST THAT ANNOYING VIDEO OF HOW TO LOAD THE ART PAPER VIA THE FRONT LOADER. It is so uninformative and over simplified. I switched from the R2880 because of the annoying problem of the printer not recognising mat black ink when printing to mat paper. Right now I would prefer that any day of the week over this P800 problems.

I am so sick of that upgrade because we force you too. It's a fantastic printer and a professional model at that. It was only replaced a few years ago.

No drivers are issued for Mac OS Mavericks it seems? The latest driver for Mac OS seems to be for Siera?

I believe so. Will check (when I get home this evening). I was under the impression the Epson printer drivers updated automatically via OS updates (Mac OS X)?

Hi, I am having enormous trouble getting my Epson R2880 to recognise the rear feeder tray is attached and thereby being able to select "velvet fine art" as the media type from the Epson printer settings window. Velvet Fine Art is the recommended media setting. I have installed the Hahnemuhle profile for the R2880 and German Etching, and selected it in the print dialogue box along with Photoshop manage colours. I've also switched my photo black ink cartridge to mat black. Does anyone have any idea why I cannot get this combination to work? Thanks in advance. George

<p>Can someone please confirm or not that a Sony A7S (mk.1) running with the latest firmware update does or does not have Eye AF (with native EF lens of course). I cannot find this specific info out anywhere.</p> <p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>I recently picked up a Zeiss 21mm ZE and am using it in conjunction with my Sony A7II and a Commlite adaptor. I am unable to get the camera to open the lens up to 2.8. It stops (and does not even display 2.8 in the EVF / LCD) at 3.2. Yes, it is half a stop from being fully open and that annoys me as I am a sucker for shallow depth of field work. The lens did work fine on an EOS body before I bought it. Any ideas as to a remedy here would be greatly appreciated?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the input Howard.</p> <p>I just got off the phone with BasICColor in Germany. It seems they are actually the company which has developed the Specrtraview software for NEC. Yes, since the start of 2015 their product BasICColor Display is fully compatible with the NEC PA272W (amongts other NEC monitors). The man, very helpful indeed, told me though that the PA range is not handpicked like the range of Spectraview Reference monitors. He said there are variations in the quality of the PA / multisync monitors being sold and one can be lucky or unlucky in terms of getting a really good one. </p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>I am situated in Denmark and I was just about to pull the trigger on a NEC PA272W monitor. I found a good deal on one for around 880€. I recently found out though that in Europe NEC does not sell their Spectraview II software or puck separately as they do in the US. It seems this is to encourage consumers to buy the dedicated Spectraview models which are exactly the same monitors with a hood and software license (maybe a hardware calibrator?) for over double the price! </p> <p>I'd like to hear from anyone who has experience with the following please:</p> <p>1) If you bought a software license via an American store and brought it back to Europe and entered your serial number is the (European) monitor able to be calibrated via the Spectraview II software or is it "chipped" to avoid such a work around?</p> <p>2) Is anyone achieving outstanding Spectraview results with third party (non NEC) software and calibrators on the PA272W?</p> <p>thanks in advance for any help you can offer me here.</p> <p>George</p> <p> </p>

<p>thanks for the info Glenn. That's very handy knowing that and nothing Epson has ever informed me of. I tried to change papers to some Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (not curled) and things seem to be ok again. A little annoying seeing I blew ink on 8 prints trying to get one right.</p>

<p>After a little research I may have a paper bend problem? The papers edges are curling up. Can anyone confirm this? </p>

<p>I am using my rather old Epson R2880 and it has recently started creating havoc with my prints.</p> <p>I am using Ilford Smooth Pearl paper. The last few centimetres of my prints seem to smear and get black ink marks on the edges. This problem occurs in conjunction with a clicking noise coming from the feed mechanism. I have tried to do a print head alignment (both manually and on auto) but that has had no effect on this.</p> <p>Has anyone experienced this and if so what has been your remedy? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer me with this. </p>

<p>I doubt that Dieter.... if the pattern continues it seems all Sony ILCE A7 mk.I models (including the RX1 cameras) seem to be stuck with the lossy compression. I hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting.</p>

<p>Way to go Sony!</p> <p>http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-will-add-uncomrpessed-raw-on-the-a7ii-via-firmware-updated-coming-on-november-18/</p>

<p>@Ian Rance. I think the most likely explanation to your observation is that Sony is NOT an imaging specific company. As we all know Sony dabble in most forms of multimedia (computers - video - sound). Given that reality the different divisions are answerable to management and those managers in the end want to see short term gains. Short terms gains are usually advantageous in exactly that - the short term. The missing 10% (as you put it) derives possibly from the fact that by creating and marketing a product line that is never quite finished the consumer will always be a little hungry. </p> <p>Another key element here is also that Sony has created a camera dynasty that is useable (at least they market it as such) with most other lens mount systems by way of an adaptor. In the past, marketing strategies were to make native lens mounts a key element in terms of brand loyalty. Yes one could buy a Sigma lens with a Nikon mount but in the end Sigma would never engineer a camera with a Nikon mount on board (most likely due to legal reasons). Sony has in effect turned this "rule" on it's head or at least is attempting to do that. This creates 2 affects in the market.</p> <p>1) Let's think of people who are heavily invested in Canon or Nikon optics and they then buy a Sony ILCE7 system body expecting to gain all of the advantages of this new technology. They find out rather quickly that some of the advantages that this system is design to deliver are only really achievable with native FE optics. Yes, the inbuilt body stabiliser, size advantage and low light performance etc all work but the focusing advantages in terms of both speed and Eye AF are gone. Once these 2 very attractive features are gone it is very easy for a new convert to "like" the camera but not "love" it. Put this dilemma on top of the fact that their are a very limited amount of lenses available for this system with no fast zooms and no primes from Sony longer than 90mm? </p> <p>2) Given that many people are using existing 3rd party optics Sony has quickly realised they are not selling the volume of lenses they planned on. That maybe explains why they are so focused on bringing the party to body developments as opposed to optics? It is a VERY dangerous path to walk if you ask me. </p> <p>It makes me wonder..... who is the clown making the R&D choices at Sony? Is he the same fool making them at Canon? For example why isn't the world class 135mm ZA 1.8 made with a native FE mount? I for one would stand in a long cue to buy that lens along with many many others I assume. </p>

<p>I neglected to thank you David for your lengthy and poignant response. It helped me put things back into perspective. I was actually out shooting a little today (with one of my Sony's) and loving it! </p>

<p>This is NOT about the latest and greatest gear. This is about Sony NOT consolidating the loyal people who switched systems and whom are disenchanted with the fact that basic requirements are being addressed on the current cameras but not their own (1 - 3 year old models). This issue with uncompressed RAW has been brought up again and again and finally Sony took notice but only in their new range. How is that about the latest and greatest? I am not interested in 4K video, I am not interested in resolution higher than circa 20mp BUT I am interested in the best image quality available given the constraints of the hardware. The hardware is more than capable but Sony is intentionally dumbing down previous models in an attempt to flood the market with new products. It is obvious!</p> <p>Furthermore if you read the post from the start I do not or never have owned an A7 I have the A7II. I knew they would screw people with the first breed (which they did) within a matter of a few months and they have done nothing to make these people feel better by way of any substantial improvements in terms of a firmware upgrade. The A7 is a great camera but with that focus system and mirror slap I could see it was not anything I was interested in. Horses for courses. </p> <p>As far as me thinking all of Sony cameras are great until the a new one is released. NO! I bought the A7II after conducting much research. Try and shoot this camera with a harsh backlit sky and work with those RAW files and you will see what I mean. POSTERIZATION! Worse than anything I have seen come out of a Canon Raw file. This could be addressed with the flick of a switch by Sony but NO! You need to spend up to get full bit rate. That is unfair.</p>

<p>"I think the problem is you. You want to have latest and greatest and Sony kept you from doing that."</p> <p>Do you call the ability to capture RAW uncompressed images on a 1700€ camera "the latest and greatest"?</p> <p>If you are a weekend warrior shooting with your Canon Rebel and plastic kit lens then that would be of no issue. I am not. Allowing users of previous versions to have access to what they capture at a full bit rate is not in my eyes unreasonable. That is just one example. </p> <p>Why is everyone rushing in defence of Sony? They are a corporation and they answer to one group of people. Their shareholders (not us, their customers).</p>

<p>Wow this topic really seems to have ruffled some feathers. I get where you are all coming from, particularly the part about committing to a photographic tool and using it until the buttons fall off and upgrading only when that tool does not allow you to capture the frames you desire. That has always been a constant philosophy that photographic corporations (mainly digital) do not like. Let's not forget however that Sony is a corporation. I take my hat off to them for pushing the envelope here with the innovation. They designed the cameras so many of us lusted after. Yet, they are a corporation and their main objective is and remains to be to make as much money as possible. Has that premise changed? Yes yes yes... Canon, Nikon and Olympus and Fuji etc etc are also in that same business of making money. What I am trying to say I will outline with 2 tangible examples below.</p> <p>Example 1) Why has the A7II been excluded from the update to allow uncompressed RAW? I am no technician BUT my ASSUMPTION here is that this omission is a deliberate ploy by Sony management to persuade the people who own an A7, A7R or A7S or A7II to upgrade to a newer model. Given that their investment was most likely within 1 - 2 years of this firmware update I find that kind of grotesque. It seems to me the sensors are built to capture in 14 bit yet Sony deliberately sacrificed speed over image quality in an attempt lure as many DSLR fans across as quickly as possible and once they sold all of there existing glass tell them they must upgrade to a newer model in order to take advantage of full image quality. THAT SIMPLY IS POOR ON SO MANY LEVELS. This is pure computing which (I assume) all of the above mentioned models are physically capable of delivering.</p> <p>Example 2) I have become obsessed with Eye AF on my A7II. It truly has truly revolutionised my workflow. Hats off to Sony for such on sensor technology and combined focusing algorithms. It however only works with static subjects in AF-S mode. Wait.... when the A7RII is released now it is available in AF-C mode. What? Again it seems logical to me the original technology existed 12 months ago for this little computer to track a subject (which it did via AF-C) and simultaneously for it to focus on an eye (in single focus mode) how come suddenly 12 months later it can track an eye? This is again (and an assumption) IMO a software related feature and one that could easily be implemented via a firmware upgrade YET IT IS NOT. It seems if you would like this feature Sony would like you to upgrade the to very expensive A7RII. Is that feature hardware related people?</p> <p>Now for everyone who is shouting "good on you Sony for pushing the Canon's and Nikon's of this world", fully agreed BUT if they are to survive in this market they must be loyal to their new converts by way of a commitment to not simply shut the door in their faces as a newer better model is just around the corner. I know loads of people holding off on Sony because of this reason. I jumped on after having such a great experience with my RX1 (the camera I always dreamt of - yet again could have been so much better by way of a few small updates which never appeared). The technology is at an early stage. I know that. Developments will start to be less incremental as the science of what is actually possible is challenged. DSLR's hit that point years ago as the race for resolution seems to be the only thing Canon and Nikon are interested in developing. Sony could crush them with a firmer commitment to developing a wider and faster range of FE optics (as opposed to newer bodies) and most of all a bigger commitment to satisfying the existing customer base by way of upgrading existing models via firmware. They refuse to listen it seems.</p> <p>Kindly reread the last 2 sentences in that last paragraph.</p>

<p>thanks for the input guys.</p> <p>@Edward. I have not heard of any likelihood that the uncompressed RAW will be available on anything but the newly announced RX1R II, A7RII and the A7SII. I guess this is Sony's way of saying if you want that then spend up (again)?</p> <p>@Gerry. I personally like the Sony design as well (although the firmware / OS may be a slight mess). The on sensor capabilities in terms of focus tracking etc far outweigh anything a mirrored camera can come close to. Combine that with the small size and it's a win / win. I just wish they wouldn't keep dropping new models every 6 months and neglect the previous models which, let's face it, with some firmware updates have the ability to last a little longer in terms of their relevance as photographic tools.</p> <p>@Stephen. The only camera I have ever sold that I turned a profit on was my Leica M6TTL. Besides that I am not that naive to expect a digital camera to appreciate in value. I understand that all digital cameras would depreciate significantly after 1 day of use let alone 1 year. It's the speed of the release of the newer models that's irritating. Why release a camera in the first place that is only half baked? Sony knew from day 1 that the A7R had a shutter that banged louder than a barn door, suffered poorly in low light and was poor to focus (in comparison to most DSLR's) yet they released it knowing that consumers would jump at it (I didn't because it was obvious to me that shutter slap was a no go) full well knowing a version II was just around the corner. Why release it in the first place? That is simply wrong on so many levels (not to mention "sustainability"). </p>

<p>As a convert from Canon EOS to Sony mirrorless I have a few small grips with Sony that I am sure a few of us can understand.</p> <p>Firstly, STOP RELEASING CAMERA'S THAT ARE 80% DEVELOPED. The frantic rate at which Sony is releasing new models is a little ridiculous. The value of ones investment simply tumbles to a point where a first generation version is almost a paper weight once the up spec'd newer version is released. If it took Sony only 12 months to develop all this new technology something tells me that that technology was already available at the time of release of the first version but "keeping a few tricks up ones sleeve" seems to be financially more rewarding for them. Focus speed and accuracy combined with low light performance always seem to be the draw-cards. Consumers will get tired of being cheated by such ridiculously short longevity of expensive pieces of equipment. In this regard Canon is way more loyal to their customers (or are they simply apathetic?).</p> <p>Secondly, for those of us who do invest relatively early in a product line SUPPORT US WITH UPDATES that can improve the user experience of these cameras. As an RX1 owner I have never seen a single update. I love this camera. It could however be even easier to love with some OS updates that would try and address some basic issues (focus speed for example - even a few % quicker would help). Not a single update has ever been issued for this camera as it seems Sony is too busy trying to develop newer models. I also own an A7II which is also neglected now as the A7RII has been released. Why aren't A7II owners given access to uncompressed RAW as the soon to be released update for the A7SII and A7RII will allow. Such poor style Sony.</p> <p>I take my hat off to Sony for pushing the boundaries in terms of product development. If they expect brand loyalty in return from their new customers they really must start to listen to and support them. I still find myself looking at used Canon 5D mkIII's for this very reason. When I invested with Canon I knew I wasn't getting a cutting edge photographic tool. I knew I was getting a photographic tool that would not be superseded in a matter of months and a tool that would operate as it should. Sony seem completely ambivalent in helping their existing customers because their main focus is on bringing new products to the market.</p>

<p>@Chip. Thanks for the input. I am actually trying to use the Blad for more "slow" photography (tripod mounted) as opposed to handheld stuff although it would be nice to do both. I think I may need to test out a matt screen to see the difference for myself. I am very fussy when it comes to critical focus.</p>

<p>thanks Robin. I need to try it out.</p> <p>Can anyone suggest anything that can improve focusing accuracy? I currently have the split screen installed. I find that if no vertical line is present focus work is more a guess rather than a science. Is the matt screen any easier to focus for example?</p>