Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> .....
>
> Photo-i doesn't have a review of the 1900 but the 1800 and 2400 are here
> <http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R1800/page_1.htm>
> <http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R2400/page-1.htm>
>
Yes he does. It's new and somehow hasn't made it to the printer review
page yet.
<http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R1900/page1.html>
John, even more than with scanners, I think the photo-i reviews of
printers are the best and most comprehensive available.
My personal view, reading all the printer reviews, is that you can't go
wrong with any of the 13x19 photo printers from HP, Epson or Canon. Even
the latest Epson dye ink printer (1400?) has print longevity ratings up
in what was recently only pigment ink territory, and I think Canon may
have something similar.
Are there differences? Sure, but only subtle ones to be found when
viewing prints of the same image made on different printers side by
side. Seen with different images on different days, I think even experts
would be hard pressed to say which print is which.
As Vincent started saying at least a generation of printers ago, he was
getting prints better than anything he had ever produced in years as a
pro in the wet darkroom.
It's an odd thing to say, but I think if I were buying one today, I'd be
choosing based on features, print speed, CD/DVD printing, etc. and
consumables cost. I just received a free sample pack of 5 sheets of
Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper. I wonder how many $ of ink that will use? :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|