Canon i860 or Epson RX500?

After TONS of research, I've narrowed it down to these two (actually,
the HP 9760 is still in the back of my head only because they claim
their pictures have a 75 year life expectancy vs 25-30 for the canon
and epson).

I chose the i860 over the i560 and i960 because of the separate text
cartridge.

And as I was comparing the canon to the HP, I discovered the RX500
all-in-one and was impressed with all its functions. Does anyone have
any experience with the 860 and especially the RX500?

I would get the epson in a second, but I haven't seen many reviews and
reliability worries me since so many things are crammed into one.

"erk" <erayapana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:95775353.0401190429.180cdc3@posting.google.com...
> After TONS of research, I've narrowed it down to these two (actually,
> the HP 9760 is still in the back of my head only because they claim
> their pictures have a 75 year life expectancy vs 25-30 for the canon
> and epson).
>
> I chose the i860 over the i560 and i960 because of the separate text
> cartridge.
>
> And as I was comparing the canon to the HP, I discovered the RX500
> all-in-one and was impressed with all its functions. Does anyone have
> any experience with the 860 and especially the RX500?
>
> I would get the epson in a second, but I haven't seen many reviews and
> reliability worries me since so many things are crammed into one.

I have always had HP printers. I had one of those large 2000 series some
years ago that the print heads were separate form the ink carts (4 each).
When it ran out, it said I needed new ink and new print heads (lasted maybe
3 inks to 1 head). Bad news was it cost over $270 to replace all on a $500
printer. It went in the garbage barrel.

Swore off the multiple ink carts for a while and went to HP 960 and 1220cse
(large format). So far compatible carts and included print heads. They
were breaking the bank on replacements though so I began refilling. Messy,
but it works for a couple of times for the same cart until the heads go
south.

Wasn't too sold on Epson from output of a friend's unit. He could print
really nice panorama from rolls with it but it wasn't something I needed.
Ink was high from them as well although they lowered it a bit now. He
complained of always needing to clean the heads too.

So my last trip to CompUSA I was about ready to buy some more ink for the
HP's. Now they laid the store's ink area out to least expensive to most
expensive ink (!). At the left side (cheaper) was Canon. Middle (cost
wise) was Epson, and to the far right (most expensive) was HP. The Epson
rep was there pushing their equipment that day but the output from the Canon
i960 was more stunning than what he was showing me from the Epson line. It
may be the paper gloss out of the Canon but it appeared sharper and less
grainy than the Epson. He could fault Canon for selling less expensive ink
and tried to bring up the longevity spew which, in my mind, "Who cares if
they don't last for 10-20 years? Reprint them." I probably can print them
better with newer high-res printers next year anyhoo. Technology advances
will supercede any bum prints I made way back when...and I probably don't
care to see the crummy ones 10-20 years away anyhow.

Long story short. He went to bathroom. I bought the Canon i960 and ran.
It's the faster brother to the i860. Works very well and love than ink cost
$12 ea. for the 6 tanks (which may be easier to refill too). My only
complaint is that it talks (apparently) to newer Canon cameras only if you
want to print direct from the camera body. Fast print outs: 4x6 borderless
look really nice and take about 1 minute each compared to their claim of 7
seconds (??). And yes, I can see the difference in the ink droplets size of
the 4800 verses the 2400 of the two HP's I listed. Much smoother.

Oh, not seeing "issues" with the Canon's on this group also influenced my
decision as did the review from Steve's Digicam site too.

Good luck.

.....Memo to HP: You really need to lower the cost of your pricey ink carts!

BP~

On 19 Jan 2004 04:29:49 -0800, erayapana@yahoo.com (erk) wrote:

>And as I was comparing the canon to the HP, I discovered the RX500
>all-in-one and was impressed with all its functions. Does anyone have
>any experience with the 860 and especially the RX500?

I have the i860, and love it. I have no experience with the RX500, although HP
generally makes fine printers.

The Canon i860 produces wonderful prints that look *at least* as good as photo
store prints, and most of the time better. It's hard to believe they came off a
3 color printer. I can't imagine (other than for a professional trying to sell
high-end prints) needing anything more.

BTW, the Canon i960 does have the photo inks, if you think you'll need them.

I would say the Canon i860/i865 are the best printers out there...for the
price.

"Don" <dtrust@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dqoo005skejk11iihq4q9m9qu3j5jouq40@4ax.com...
> On 19 Jan 2004 04:29:49 -0800, erayapana@yahoo.com (erk) wrote:
>
> >And as I was comparing the canon to the HP, I discovered the RX500
> >all-in-one and was impressed with all its functions. Does anyone have
> >any experience with the 860 and especially the RX500?
>
> I have the i860, and love it. I have no experience with the RX500,
although HP
> generally makes fine printers.
>
> The Canon i860 produces wonderful prints that look *at least* as good as
photo
> store prints, and most of the time better. It's hard to believe they came
off a
> 3 color printer. I can't imagine (other than for a professional trying to
sell
> high-end prints) needing anything more.
>
> BTW, the Canon i960 does have the photo inks, if you think you'll need
them.
>