Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/11/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I am astonished by this statement. I changed my Epson because it was unreliable and I got a poor response from Epson. I bought a Canon, which was a touch newer, and it was at least as good, probably better. At work we had a vast HP which could print onto rolls. This was certainly very good, though probably not as good as the Canon. I will never buy another Epson printer and I am quite sure this does not mean my prints are inferior. Frank --- On Sun, 28/11/10, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > From: Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Advice on a 17" printer > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Sunday, 28 November, 2010, 21:06 > Luminous landscape likes to level the > field and act like HP or Canon > printers are serious options to Epson printers while in the > real word of > serious work being done they are not. You go to a gallery > or museum and the > odds of a print not being an Epson is about zero. One might > take that into > account when making this kind of commitment to a printer > and all the work > you'd be putting into it. If there's something wrong with > your print quality > the first thing on the list is "it's not an Epson". Sooner > or later the > other companies might start to catch up but they are not > perceived to have > come close to having done so yet.? You want a support > group to help you with > making your prints look as good as the stuff you are seeing > on walls and in > the top photographers portfolios you'll be able to get it > from Epson as > that's what everybody is using. That you'd be able to get > it from an HP or > Canon and who may be on those lists - who knows? > Regardless which camera or lens you might be using to get a > shot it all has > to come out that printer. It's not a place to make grand > experiments. > > > -------------------- > Mark William Rabiner > Photography > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > mark at rabinergroup.com > Cars:???http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb > > > > > > From: Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> > > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:37:27 +1000 > > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > > Subject: Re: [Leica] Advice on a 17" printer > > > > My two cents is to stick to Epson and get the 3880 > unless you really > > desire > the roll capability. Spend the difference on media and ink. > Which ever > > you > get you need to learn it and use it regularly? to get > the best from it. > A > > least in my history with the 3800, I very very seldom > actually print > larger > > than A3+. Still if you were a pano kind of > > guy......... > > Cheers > Geoff > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > > On 29 November 2010 > > 04:09, Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net> > wrote: > > > In keeping with the spirit > > of accommodation and generosity that the > > Yuletide season has been > > commercialized into in the U.S. of A., SWMBO is > > kindly, unaccountably, once > > again acting as enabler to my addiction by > > consenting to my being surprised > > by the appearance Christmas morn of a > > wide-carriage printer under the > > tree. > > > > Since I have always been an Epson user (up to my > current R2400), > > the > > presumed default choice would be the 3880 or the 4880. > I have read here > > that > > for private users like me, the 488o offers no real > advantage over the > > > > smaller, lighter, less-expensive 3880, so up to now my > choice would probably > > > > have been the 3880. However, the newly announced 4900 > (around which the > > > > budget might be stretched, provided the counter space > can be as well) might > > > > offer a reason to go long and deep on this one. My > understanding of the > > > > recent history of the Epson printer line is as > follows: > > > >? ? ? ? 1.? ? ? The > > x880 printers were an advancement in some fairly > minor > > details over the > > x800s, including the addition of Vivid Magenta to the > > Ultrachrome K3 > > inkset > > > >? ? ? ? 2.? ? ? The > latest x900s have the new Ultrachrome HDR ink > > palette as > > well as new and improved heads > > > >? ? ? ? 3.? ? ? The > x890s added > > this better head technology to the x880s > > without moving up to the HDR > > inks > > > >? ? ? ? 4.? ? ? The > 4-series and larger printers are the only ones > > that can > > accommodate the newer head technology, so there will > never be a > > 3890 or 3900 > > > > The Luminous Landscape review of the 7900 certainly > gives me > > reason to > > think that its smaller sibling the 4900 might be worth > the extra > > cost and > > space requirements, but it's too soon for any reviews > of it to > > have > > appeared. > > > > All that said, I must concede that I'm not wedded to > > Epson, and would > > consider Canon or HP if there is good reason to. > > > > I > > throw the floor open to comments and recommendations, > both theoretical > > and > > experience-based. > > > > Thanks to all in advance, > > > > ?howard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See > > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > > information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users > > Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information >