Just got epson R200!!!!

[gingerVrs]

Well, not JUST but this week, if anyone is thinking about it. GET ONE, they are excellent quality, and print direct onto dvd/cd, I have all the coordinates if anyone needs help printing onto DVD by the way just give me a shout on hotmail or pm me.

[Clarey]

If you dont mind me asking, how much?

I was looking at them before christmas, most of the cheaper places were out of stock, i wondered if the price would be dropping soon?

Don't need one, as usual i just wan't one:rolleyes:

[kenny]

hi have an r300. pretty much the same as r200 but can prit direct from memory cards etc.

i agree with you, the epson printers are great.

Phill i paid

[robmawer]

PC World have the R300 for about

[Neo_VR]

PC World have the R300 for about

[William]

Only one word in this thread would put me off - Epson. Owning and Epson and a Canon at home, having HP at work and expereince of my fathers Lexmark, I could only recommend Lexmark and HP. It is a pity that ink is expensive for both, but it is for Epson as well, so if that is your major worry get a Canon.

[ScoobyChris]

It is a pity that ink is expensive for both, but it is for Epson as well

Guess it depends on your source

Chris (another happy R300 owner )

[Kentish]

Recently bought an Epson RX600 (same print engine and carts as the R300). Printing is excellent, and a fulls et of carts costs me

[William]

Epson cartridges are cheaper per cartridge than Lexmark or HP, but they are low capacity. Same is true for Canon, nut they are really really cheap to buy. My expereince of the makes would be:

Make, Text, Line, Photo, Noise, Speed

Epson, 4/5, 2/5, 4.5/5, 1/5, 2/5,

Canon, 5/5, 5/5, 3/5, 4/5, 4/5,

HP, 5/5, 5/5, 5/5, 3/5, 3/5,

Lexmark, 3/5, 3/5, 10/5, 5/5, 2/5,

[Kentish]

HP carts are expensive because they include the print head in the cart.

If you also compare printer manufacturer specs on pages per cart, Epson do very well per cart, which does seem to be backed up by various printer reviews.

[robmawer]

Epson cartridges are cheaper per cartridge than Lexmark or HP, but they are low capacity.

Again, depends where you get 'em...it is possible to get higher capacity cartridges for considerably less than Epson charge, and with a "as good if not better than OEM" guarantee on them...

Rob.

[William]

Truth of the matter is that despite massive DPI increases in recent years from the original 300dpi, the quality of text and line art printing has not improved and may even have got worse. My HP Desk Jet 510 mono inject used to print text that was as good as a laser. None of the modern Injets I have used can manage this unless on special paper. Photo quality has improved quite a lot, but again does not seem to be fully connected to resolution. My 2800 dpi Epson does better pictures than the 4800 dpi Canon, but neither touch my dads 4800 dpi Lexmark for photos, which is in itself just as good as the old now unavailable 9600 dpi HP 900 series desk jets.

[robmawer]

Truth of the matter is that despite massive DPI increases in recent years from the original 300dpi, the quality of text and line art printing has not improved and may even have got worse. My HP Desk Jet 510 mono inject used to print text that was as good as a laser. None of the modern Injets I have used can manage this unless on special paper. Photo quality has improved quite a lot, but again does not seem to be fully connected to resolution. My 2800 dpi Epson does better pictures than the 4800 dpi Canon, but neither touch my dads 4800 dpi Lexmark for photos, which is in itself just as good as the old now unavailable 9600 dpi HP 900 series desk jets.

Or in other words, an inkjet is a compromise?

If you want to print text, a laser will be the best option.

If you want to print photos, then a dye-sublimation printer will be better.

If you want to do both, then you get an inkjet...

Rob.

[Kentish]

Or in other words' date=' an inkjet is a compromise?

If you want to print text, a laser will be the best option.

If you want to print photos, then a dye-sublimation printer will be better.

If you want to do both, then you get an inkjet...

Rob.[/quote']

And if your really tight or lazy..get someone else to do it for you

[William]

Or in other words' date=' an inkjet is a compromise?

If you want to print text, a laser will be the best option.

If you want to print photos, then a dye-sublimation printer will be better.

If you want to do both, then you get an inkjet...

Rob.[/quote']

Have you any idea how expensive and temperamental dye-sublimation printing is? Used to use this technology in work for printing confocal micrographs as in those days there was no other way to get a photo quality print from a digital image. The price per sheet was phenominal, and they repeatedly needed repair because of the way they work that involves printing one colour then pulling paper back in for the next pass etc. Slightest give in the mechanism meant that colour was not superimposed properly, and bingo out came the maintenance contractor again :(.

[robmawer]

Have you any idea how expensive and temperamental dye-sublimation printing is?

Yes, as it happens, from as little as 36p a print.

And I doubt they're any more tempremental than laser or inkjet technologies...

Rob.

[William]

Oh they were and back in 97 it was over a pound a page. As I say the problem was they need to be able to perfectly move the page, as even the slightest variation in the position of the paper ruins the print. This is never easy to achieve and even harder to maintain as a mechanism wears. Have this problem with my microscope system that has to be able to move its stage perfectly to allow robotic observation of multi-well plates.

[KentStu]

Oh they were and back in 97 [/b'] it was over a pound a page.

Think that is the issue William - dye sublimation has moved on consderably since then in terms of quality, ease of use and cost.

[Kentish]

Think that is the issue William - dye sublimation has moved on consderably since then in terms of quality, ease of use and cost.[/quote

As have all home electronics/pc stuff. In fact, the same can be said of very nearly everything.

[robmawer]

Oh they were and back in 97 it was over a pound a page. As I say the problem was they need to be able to perfectly move the page, as even the slightest variation in the position of the paper ruins the print. This is never easy to achieve and even harder to maintain as a mechanism wears. Have this problem with my microscope system that has to be able to move its stage perfectly to allow robotic observation of multi-well plates.

It's much the same for an inkjet though - a clogged or misaligned head will ruin a print. Lasers don't have such alignment issues (unless it's a multi-pass colour version), but much like photocopiers the toner can get everywhere which causes unreliability...

Rob.

[vRS-Ric]

I used to work in tech support for HP a few years back, and being a user of HP before working for them, I was already a fan. Reliable, relatively cost effective, and by far the best quality prints.

I went on to work elsewhere, where they only used Epsons, and I had nothing but bother with them. Cheap crap across the range.

Canon - coming along nicely - used to be poor quality too, but have come on in leaps and bounds recently, quickly catching up on HP printers.

All IMHO of course (with a little 'in-industry' experience thrown in for flavour!)

[Xavier]

I just purchased an R200 a few days ago, mainly for direct printing on CDs.

Have to say, having just printed out a "best quality" photo on their sample premium glossy photo paper, it's fekkin incredible. You just cannot tell the difference from a professional print.

Rob, I may PM you for ink prices soon