Goerge, Thanks for the very informative posting re the 9000S printer, and the links at the bottom. Very persuasive.
Cheers, Cot >Cotty - > >I've had my S9000 for almost 4 days now, so this is not even close to any >kind of a thorough review. I'm replacing a Lexmark Z52 so I'm still in the >wow stage. > >I do most of my printing on Ilford's Galerie Classic Pearl. So far I've >reprinted a dozen of my favorite prints and every one is significantly >improved, as should be expected, from my previous efforts with the two year >old Lexmark. Back when I bought the Lexmark I wanted a relatively fast, >inexpensive printer that could do a photo now and then. My desires have >changed a bit. > >I also print a "contact sheet" for each roll of film. I print these on any >relatively decent, double sided photo or near photo paper. I printed 4 >sets of contact sheets yesterday. I make the images relatively large, so >each roll of 36 takes two sheets. Here, I'm not looking for high >quality. I'm looking for speed and relatively decent results. The ink >dries quickly and there is no waiting time when flipping the page to print >on the reverse side. > >So far I can say this. The speed claims for this printer are right >on. It only takes a couple of minutes or so to print an 8x10 at the >highest quality settings. I really appreciate the speed. I do this for a >hobby and my time is limited. > >I will say my first print scared me a bit. It came out wet and banded. A >real mess. Turned out to be my fault. I hadn't set the paper type. The >second print, with the correct paper type setting was excellent. > >I believe the individual ink tanks will contribute to a small cost >savings. After four days of mixed photo and text printing the bar graphs >on the ink monitor show black, photo cyan, and yellow diminished by perhaps >15-20%. (At this point I can't speak for the accuracy of the bar graphs in >the display.) Cyan, photo magenta, and magenta look barely touched. > >Here is the basis for my decision: > >1) Most of the reviews scored the quality of the Epson and Canon too close >to call, though some gave the edge to one or the other. I sincerely doubt >that any can really tell the difference if prints from both are not side by >side. > >2) Speed is clearly awarded to the Canon. > >3) The Canon print head is easily replaceable by the owner. The Epson must >go back to the factory for a head replacement. Canon wins this one. > >4) Longevity isn't a factor. I'm already reprinting by best stuff because >print quality has improved so much in the last couple of years. I guessing >I'll probably be doing it again in the next five years or so. > >So for me, the decision was fairly easy. > >We'll see if I feel as positive a year from now after I've lived with it >for a while. > >--- > >Here are a few links to reviews that may help you make a decision. > > From Tom's Hardware Guide: >http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/02q1/020307/index.html > > From Steve's Digicams: >http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/canon_s9000.html > > From Luminous-Landscape: >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/s9000.shtml > > From TechTV: >http://www.techtv.com/freshgear/products/story/0,23008,3373429,00.html > >See you later, gs ____________________________________ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ ____________________________________ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ ____________________________________
