My two cents.

While it has been pointed out, and is generally acknowledged, that manufacturers can low ball the printer for your ink business, it isn't necessarily without merit. Sure, it gives them a continuous stream of revenue, and their profit margins are insane.

But not all inkjets are created equal. The long and short of it has to do with the nano technology that is implemented in placing drops on the paper. Epson has a proprietary technology and so does HP - but they are different.

That means that the chemical and physical characteristics of the ink are "tuned" to provide the best result with a particular technology. In some printing systems, they can tolerate more crystallization of the ink, others have a lower tolerance. Be especially wary of this if you decide to use inks from someone other than the manufacturer.

Speed is important, but as with all things there is a tradeoff between speed and quality. There is no panacea (uhm... that I'm aware of).

In regards to inkjet printing itself, I prefer an Epson for photo quality work.

HP is the king of business printing. There, form follows function. That market prints mostly text, some graphics, and usually do not have as "fine an eye" for color and longevity as the graphics community. HP satisfies that market well. Lexmark is another business printer with graphics desires. IMO, businesses that try to be too many things to too many people usually fall short on at least one, if not all accounts.

One of the reasons I like Epson, is because they are a decided "graphics print leader". That's where their focus is. And as an off shoot of that, it's one of the most widely used, and thus, characterized and supported printer brands in the professional graphics community.

That's a long winded way to say, everybody and his brother uses an Epson, and you can get everything from media profiles to driver support, if you need to.

I have no experience with Fuji or Noritsu so cannot comment.

I would never use a dye sub printer, or any "laser" printer that class. That technolgy is not ready for prime time yet. Sure, there are people who get good results, but the technology is all over the place and what you want, is something that is consistent, that you can predict. Again, just one Joe's opinion.

They also are quite limited in paper handling, in general, and you have to be wary of the feed mechanism to accommodate media type and weight, moreso than with inkjet technology.

Lawrence continually points to that Canon. It's a great contender, and exceptionally fast. I almost bought it, but opted for the Epson 1280, myself. I can't say it would have been a mistake to buy the Canon, but the reason I opted for Epson was plain and simple: Support. If I have a color problem, there are a hundred people I can ask. But that Canon is a zippy printer.

Finally, it comes down to inks and longevity. Every man (or woman) marches to the beat of their own drummer in this arena. I do photo quality printing, but the gamuts and the hues I need to produce do not vary as widely, with what *I'm* printing, as compared to photographs, to justify the Epson 2200 or the 4000.

So to a certain extent, you have to decide what you will be printing and the needs for individual ink carts, etc. I don't care if my images last 100 years or not. If anyone complains, they can sue me in 100 years (kidding).

But this won't be true for everyone, so at some level one has to shore up what they know they want to print, understand the limitations, and decide if they can tolerate those limitations.

That's my two cents...

Peace,
Tony

newstein_einton

Replied in the following topics

Help Picking A Printer