Even the higher end printers like the 2200 are ink monsters, as far as the extra $200 for the epson, that gives you better icc support, pigment inks, better B&W printing ( tho the new hp is damn good here ) more paper choices, roll paper and auto cutting, thats where the extra cash goes, if you don't need this then the canon won't do so badly. I have seen prints from the i9100 and don't see a difference between it and the 2200 BUT lightfastness tests show the epson to last the longest on most papers, no canon paper/ink lasted more than 10 years under Livicks rather harsh tests. The new HP lasts long due to it's papers, the hp paper absorbs the ink into it self but there are only 3 paper choices, epson relies on the ink itself to last ( looking at the tests it's the ink, not the paper that lasts long, epsons enhanced matte yellows quickly, now we know why they renamed it to enhanced matte from archival matte ). The new HP printers look good but epson has all the support from 3rd parties for photo use.
--- Chris Stoddart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, mike wilson wrote: > > > I forget where I saw the comparison but even > cheapo printer ink is more > > expensive than vintage champage. Once you get to > manufacturer's > > products, the difference is an order of magnitude. > > Yes, I read the same thing - I am pretty sure it was > on the BBC's web site > > Chris (still can't decide between Canon & Epson, but > now has an extra > £200-worth of Epson thrown into the the problem :-) > ). > > ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
