What is the best photo printer under $500?

[GasX]

Looking for quality over price for this item....

It's for printing digital camera shots from a Canon G5

 

[Viper96720]

olympus p-440

 

[Anubis]

Canon i9900

 

[Viper96720]

I use a canon i860. Good enough for the family pictures. Got to go right up to it to tell it's from a printer.

 

[Zepper]

If you don't need prints larger than 8.5x11 inches or so, the Canon iP8500 ($315. shipped from newegg). If you need oversized prints, then the i9900 ($426. shipped from newegg). They both use the same 8-color ink system and print head. steves-digicams.com has reviews. The iP has auto-duplexing which the i9900 lacks.
. If six color printing is adequate for you, then you might take a look at the iP6000D which has some features that aren't available on any other model in the Pixma line as yet. It is reviewed on Steve's too.
.bh.

 

[Macro2]

Zepper hit it very well. Also you'd be very happy with any Canon Pixma...4 cart, IP3000 and up. But the ones with 5, 6 and 8 carts will give you slightly better photos...
Paper means a lot as well Canons photo papers obviously work well in a Canon but so does Epsons phoito paper.

 

[Erasmus-X]

I'm not certain how serious you are into photo printing, but also look at the Epson R800. This one is narrow-format (8.5" maximum width), but uses 7 archival-quality inks (Cyan/Mag/Yellow/PBk/MBk/Blue/Red) plus a gloss optimizer. It's a serious photographer's printer, so it doesn't have goofy consumer features like card readers and PictBridge, but it does support FireWire for fast printing. This one sells for $400. A lot of reviewers are very impressed by its speed (currently, the fastest photo inkjet on the market) and quality.

 

[LED]

I'll be jumping over and going back to Epson (R800) after a long stint with Canon...They seem to have caught up in quality and speed plus it does more of my wants but my biggest concern is the longevity of prints (Canon promising 20yrs as opposed to Epsons 80-100yr)...
either way I think that 1st it's important to determine the wants out of the printer and go from there.
..as I still love my slow but great producing picture quality from my Alps5000 (micro-dry) as Photo paper can run high along with ink...LOL maybe someday we'll be able to put in Coffee Mugs and print on them

 

[Blain]

I love my Epson R200. Printing CD/DVDs is very nice and having 6 ink pots helps on replacement costs... a little.
If you really want to do some big-time printing with the R800 get one of These Kits (not my listing, BTW)

 

[akira34]

I purchased my R200 from B&H Photo along with two spindles of printable cd media. Not only did it arrive in good time (as I would expect for the distance it traveled and shipping method I selected) but they even sent an USB2 cable AND a spare set of ink. The cable and ink was at no additional charge from B&H. Maybe it's because I've purchased other things from them, but still, it's a nice touch. Especially when the printer doesn't come with an USB cable.

 

[GasX]

We ended up buying several Canon I9900 as gifts and after running a few test shots, I can honestly say that the printer is AWESOME!

 

[Macro2]

RE:"We ended up buying several Canon I9900 as gifts and after running a few test shots, I can honestly say that the printer is AWESOME! "

Can you put me on you gift list? <G>

 

[Zucarita9000]

I've always wondered how these printers handle the aspect ratio conversion. As you may be ware of, most digital cameras shot at an aspect ratio of 4:3 (like yout PC monitor) and photographs are mostly printed on 3:2 aspect ratio paper (wich is wider). Do these printer crop the top and bottom of the pictures or do they just leave vertical blank bars at the sides?

 

[alrocky]

Originally posted by: Macro2
Zepper hit it very well. Also you'd be very happy with any Canon Pixma...4 cart, IP3000 and up. But the ones with 5, 6 and 8 carts will give you slightly better photos...
Paper means a lot as well Canons photo papers obviously work well in a Canon but so does Epsons phoito paper.

Got the iP4000 today ($120 at CompUSA &amp; Circuit City). Happy with the photo quality. The iP8500 was tempting but the $200 difference in price would've been hard to justify.

Currently running thru a recently purchased pack of Koday Premium Picture Paper (High Gloss). Is the Canon paper that much better? For anyone who uses the Kodak paper, what settings do you use?

----
Edit: Thank you, SilentRunning. I hadn't made it over to the Kodak site yet. Was re-doing some Christmas prints to replace the ones done by my ole Epson 760. Did notice that at C-USA the Canon paper was quite thin. Just read the manual which says paper should range from 17-28 lbs. This Kodak is 61 lbs!

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: alrocky

Originally posted by: Macro2
Zepper hit it very well. Also you'd be very happy with any Canon Pixma...4 cart, IP3000 and up. But the ones with 5, 6 and 8 carts will give you slightly better photos...
Paper means a lot as well Canons photo papers obviously work well in a Canon but so does Epsons phoito paper.

Got the iP4000 today ($120 at CompUSA &amp; Circuit City). Happy with the photo quality. The iP8500 was tempting but the $200 difference in price would've been hard to justify.

Currently running thru a recently purchased pack of Koday Premium Picture Paper (High Gloss). Is the Canon paper that much better? For anyone who uses the Kodak paper, what settings do you use?

From Kodak's site

Canon iP4000

KODAK Paper Product Ink Cartridge Paper/Media Advanced Settings
Kodak Premium Picture Paper
PPP-4-A
Color Photo Paper Plus Glossy
Print Quality> High
Color Adjustment> Manual, Magenta -10, Yellow +5

 

[funggorgor]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
We ended up buying several Canon I9900 as gifts and after running a few test shots, I can honestly say that the printer is AWESOME!

good choice :thumbsup:

 

[dwcal]

If you're concerned about how long prints last before fading look here. There's some good results with the Epson R800 and a comparison test with 4x6 printers. The best can last longer than Kodak or Fuji prints from the photo lab, but that's using the best ink + best paper which ends up being more expensive than the photo lab (most are $.19 to $.29 per print). Even using cheap paper and ink doesn't save over the photo lab. All you gain is the convenience of printing from home.

 

[akira34]

Go shoot 100-200 images on film and the same via a digital camera (same level), review them and print out just the images you really want from the digital. To find out what shots you really wanted with the film camera, you'll need to PAY to get all of the film processed. It's not uncommon for people really into photography to take 100-200 shots for just one or two good images. That's why most of them (that are still using film) get it in bulk rolls, to reduce the cost of each film shot taken.

Personally, I've taken rolls of shots (36 per roll) and sometimes have only gotten one image that I really liked. With film, your costs per good shot go way up, compared to digital.

I printed out an 8x10 image last night that I took over the holidays on the R200 as a test and to show some people what the printer can do. Showing it to semi-professional and professional photographers they were highly impressed (they have very high standards). One of them was looking at getting a new printer and is now looking to get the R200 (was looking at the R800, but after seeing the print from the R200 is going towards that one). For $100 for the printer, no need to get special ink, since it is a 6 color printer, and Epson photo paper, you can't beat the quality.

I wouldn't print photo's onto cheap paper, ever... I review them on the screen, decide if I'm going to print them long before I send the file to print. Going cheap is like using cheap gas. Yeah, you can do it for a while, but your engine is going to run like sheit before too long...

 

[dwcal]

Maybe it wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting film. Most photo labs will print digital photos for 20-30 cents each using the same chemicals and paper as film prints. Quality can be uneven since it takes some skill to get the exposure and color balance right, but the durability beats most any inkjet. Once you find a good photo lab, stay with them.

 

[akira34]

Well, if they have the same ability level as with their black and white developing/processing, I'd stay clear of all of them. I've yet to find ANY lab in my area that can do even a decent job at black and white film. I even had one send the film out to the supposed best lab in the country... Results... CRAP. Maybe it's because I know how to develop my own negatives and have also had strong negatives that way. Maybe it's because when I am able to do my own prints, I ALWAYS get good results. Every 'professional' lab I've gone to has produce weak images even when I give them strong negatives.

Putting digital images on the same paper and such as film sounds to me like the ones that print black and white negatives onto color paper. You ALWAYS get sheit for results that way. Black and white images/film belongs on black and white paper, using the correct chemicals to process. Cutting corners and using the same paper and chemistry as for color will NEVER yeild good results.

Maybe I'm more critical of what I get from labs and such... BUT, if you're going to PAY for images/prints, they better be worth it. So far, I have yet to see a lab that lives up to my standards, at least for B&amp;W images. For color, with a properly calibrated machine (that can be the hard part too, since I've had normally good lab give back crap prints) it's hard for them to F up. I'll probably be setting up for film developing (B&amp;W only, not color) so that I can use up the B&amp;W film I have on hand... Then the challenge will be to find a lab that can produce a quality print from my film... Either that, or see if I can setup a small lab in the spare apartment where I live... That might be the only way to really get some good prints... Or hunt down a few of my photographic nut friends and either get in and use their lab, or get them to make the prints for me...

 

[Jeffyboy]

I have a slightly older i9100 wide carriage myself and it prints beautiful. 13"x19" stuff like that. No problems... you'll just run out of ink faster ;-) The i9900 sounds like a yummy deal too. If you ever wanna print wide, you can..or just standard sheet size. I would trust canon tho for nice quality prints... same with their cameras.

Jeff

 

[Budmantom]

You could buy a Canon IP1500 or IP3000 and send your pics to winkflash or snapfish


Tom

 

[Macro2]

Tiger direct is selling the Canon i960 for $89.

 

[TMY]

Try Epson R800.
It is an 8 color printer, EXCELLENT photo printer, and you can print CD/DVD cover too.

Also, you can try out Epson's bulk ink system to save money:
http://www.InkRepublic.com
http://www.InkRepublic.com/Installation.asp
http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R800

Good luck!

 

[Mem]

The iP8500 was tempting but the $200 difference in price would've been hard to justify.

Canon i8500 would be my pick,uses 8 cartridges with the added red and green inks .