Photo Printer................Help!

I need a photo quality printer for the wife and she is trying to decide between this and this . I can't tell the difference between the two but price. I would also like to have copier/fax/copier capabilities too. Any suggestions?

New egg has the wrong pic up for the 300m, it actually has an itty bitty monitor . Whether or not it's a good printer, I have no idea/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif.

Joel

There is one HUGE difference between the two.

The R300M does not need to be connected to a computer. It can print directly from your camera or memory card. There's your $100 difference.

-F

Actually, if your primary purpose is to print photos, I would recommend this one: Canon i960

We got one a little while back and it is incredible. Film is obsolete.

-john

00my 32 dollor printer does pretty darn good i cant realy tell the ddifernce between it and real photo but im not a phtographer jusst a hobbiest

I would also highly recommend the Canon i960. It prints amazingly fast and at very high quality. If I were going to buy a printer it would be the i960.

I don't beleive the i960 has a memory card and cd slot onboard, the dpi isn't as high either. The Epson looks like a better machine for the same money and the one the wife really wanted so I went ahead and ordered it.

Thanks to all that replied. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Both of those printers can print directly without a computer. 300M has a small monitor so you can verify what are you printing if you print directly from the moemory card (sometimes file number can be off and you can print wrong pic so that's why the monitor is helpful). Both of them have a usb direct for the printer enabled digital cameras. I have the no monitor version and I am very happy with the results I'm getting and I tried countless printers before. Since I mostly use compact flash cards and memory stick I know if connected to the computer this printer will work as an external reader for memory cards so there is no need to connect your camera to computer anymore. You have a simple menu layout on the basic lcd screen (not the monitor) that allows you to order printer to do many things such as printing multiple copies or color saturation. Obviously having a preview monitor helps a lot even if you cant see that many details. Separate ink catriges save you a bundle since you can change one color at the time and not everything.

And on top of that I like Epson and since I see you already ordered it you will have fun with it. My framed work can not be differentiated from some of the "pro" printouts I had made few years ago and paid $120 for an 8by10.

Good luck.

Matt

Sorry, I know it is too late now, but I should have pointed you at this review site: http://www.dpreview.com/

You should check out the reviews, just for fun. The reviews on this site are the most in depth and objective I've seen. Like 10 pages with objective critiques of sample images, etc. Wow. I used them to pick my camera and my printer and I was not disapointed in either case.

Based on the reviews, I think the Canon i960 comes out ahead in photo print quality*, but you are right, it doesn't have a lot of bells and whistles. It does have the ability to plug a camera into the printer directly and print, IF, the camera has the right feature. Personally, I don't see the attraction of that particular feature, but I agree you should get the features you want.

* Based on the alternatives at the time I purchased my printer ( a couple of months ago ).

-john

I have had both the canon and epson. All I can say is the canon 950 (now the 960) beats the pants off the epson no matter what. It is faster and looks sharper, what else can I say. I am pretty sure there is a canon that can print right from a card also, but I can't imagine doing that and not seeing it on a computer first.

Don't forget about the photopaper...

[ QUOTE ]
John N said:


Based on the reviews, I think the Canon i960 comes out ahead in photo print quality*...

[/ QUOTE ] I don't see how, the Epson has a higher DPI.

[ QUOTE ]
.....but you are right, it doesn't have a lot of bells and whistles. It does have the ability to plug a camera into the printer directly and print, IF, the camera has the right feature. Personally, I don't see the attraction of that particular feature, but I agree you should get the features you want.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, doesn't matter what I think, the wife used it at her friends and looked at alot of others and this is what she wants.

I have a HP photosmart 1218 it is old but it still works
it prints on both sides of the paper automatically and it reads some memory cards It also has a ir port on it.
my neighbor has a pda that works with the ir port.
when he points the pda at my printer a little pda icon appears on my monitor.
it has a lcd screen and you can print with out a computer.
I think it is 2400 by 1200 dpi or 2.88 million dots per square inch.

I was looking at the Canon i960 Photo printer specifications
what do the asterisks mean ?
Print Resolution 4800 x 1200 dpi** in Black
4800 x 1200 dpi** in Color

5.76** million pixels per square inch ?
it may not be any higher res than my photosmart 1218

other hi rez printer have words asterisk and word like optimized.

sorta like digital cameras that use firmware to boost the stored pixel count of their pictures beyond the actual rez of the ccd in the camera -- firmware fudged

I never use my Canon S820 "photo printer" for printing pictures anymore. I take my pics to Eckerds and get them done for .29 for the first 20 and .25 each after that. Often less if they have a coupon in the paper. The prints on professional equipment don't fade like inkjet pics tend to, and it costs about half as much as doing them at home. If you print lots of pics at home you're just wasting money. Most photo labs offer a superior product at a substantial savings.


Peter

Peter is right, it is cheaper, but it's a whole lot more convienent for us to do them at home. Lots of neat things you can do with Microsoft Digital Image Pro 9. You can really clean up pics then see the results immediately in front of you, no driving, no traffic.

Agreed, as far as convenience. I still do the occasional photo if I "need it now", but for albums and so forth I leave it to the lab. Also, you can still do your editing etc., save the result, and have them printed at the local shop.

Also, there are lots of online options for prints that would save you the traffic, etc. I can't comment on particulars because I've yet to use any of them.

I was initially very excited to print at home, but after replacing a couple sets of ink cartridges, my enthusiasm quickly faded. I don't trust my photos to bargain inks.


Peter

My hp 1218 resolution is 2400 x 1200 but it has PhotoREt III which is 4800 x 1200 with 2400 x 1200 input.

some sort of firmware or software interpolation ?

I think I would rather have a printer that did
4800 x 1200 or higher with out firmware/software adding more interpolated pixels

any of the printers mentioned earlier
will exceed the resolution of current high end digital cameras printing a 4 by 6 ( or larger )inch print. if you had a 20 mega pixel digital camera ( I do not think you can get a 10 mega pixel model yet )the printed resolution would only be .83 million pixels per square inch. a 6 megapixel image printed on a 4 by 6 would be .25 million pixels per square inch. the Canon i960 is over 5 million pixels** per square inch max rez
I have a scanner epson 2450. I put my sony short wave radio on it and scanned it at 1200 x 1200 the file was about 2 giga bytes.( I wonder why the radio is about 7" x 5" at 1.44 mega pixel per square inch should have been a little over 50 mega pixel ) the scanner will do 4800 by 2400 but that exceeds my printers resolution.

I printed it and the print was fantastic.
it looked like a medium format camera photo.

I should try a 2400 by 1200 scan.

Any way any printer that gives you at least 1200 x 1200
is going to exceed your digital cameras resolution.
unless you print really small pictures.
go for cost speed reliability and features.
I seem to remember some printers use better ink than mine.
sorry I am kinda rambling and I am off the subject.
but I am home alone and bored.

Peter said

I was initially very excited to print at home, but after replacing a couple sets of ink cartridges, my enthusiasm quickly faded. I don't trust my photos to bargain inks.



I refill my ink cartriges works pretty good but I also back my important photos up on 3 dvd'roms in case one or two dvd'rs fail or get screwed up because I leave the dvd'rs
open so I can add more photos. me or my computer could mess up the file structure some how.