anyone using the HP 9180 printer?

[Andrew Hamilton]

I've always assumed that when I'm ready to get a "real" photoprinter,
it was going to be the Epson 2400, because I would want pigment-based
inks, because B3 size is good enough for me, and because I can't spend
thousands of (dollars, pounds, euros) on a printer. I'm not a
professional, and I can't spend more on a printer than on a camera
body!

But I've just discovered the HP 9180. Seems to be a bit cheaper than
the Epson, and also uses pigment inks.

Am I correct that Canon's equivalent printer is the iPF 9500, which
costs almost $2000.

Has anyone done a three-way comparison of these pigment-based
printers. I guess these are all the "entry level" models.

On a related topic, is Epson going to replace the 2400 any time soon?
Say within the next six months?

-AH

 

[tomm42]

I've always assumed that when I'm ready to get a "real" photoprinter,
it was going to be the Epson 2400, because I would want pigment-based
inks, because B3 size is good enough for me, and because I can't spend
thousands of (dollars, pounds, euros) on a printer. I'm not a
professional, and I can't spend more on a printer than on a camera
body!

But I've just discovered the HP 9180. Seems to be a bit cheaper than
the Epson, and also uses pigment inks.

Am I correct that Canon's equivalent printer is the iPF 9500, which
costs almost $2000.

Has anyone done a three-way comparison of these pigment-based
printers. I guess these are all the "entry level" models.

On a related topic, is Epson going to replace the 2400 any time soon?
Say within the next six months?

-AH

Don't know where you are located but the Canon Pro 9500, the Canon 13
inch printer goes for $850 or so in the US, about the same as the
Epson 2400, still $200 more than the HP B9180. As a home printer the
B9180 should be very good, color is excellent using profiles, B&W is
OK. The HP uses 2 black inks at any time, 3 total on the printer,
while the Epson uses 3 at any time, 4 total with the printer.
Therefore I'd give a B&W edge to the Epson, though the HP does
reasonably well. The HP is a well built printer, HP tech support has
been very good, I have been using one for 7 months at work, and have
ordered another for a satellite office. I do feel the 17 inch printers
are better buys, at higher prices. The Epson 3800 is especially a good
value, the Canon iPF 5000 is discontinued but now being sold for
rediculously low prices (huge industrial printer). The Canon iPF 5100
is the replacement that is being sold for around $2K. These 3 printers
are less expensive to run, generally faster than their 13 inch
siblings.
Yes the B9180 is a good printer.

Tom

 

[frederick]

I've always assumed that when I'm ready to get a "real" photoprinter,
it was going to be the Epson 2400, because I would want pigment-based
inks, because B3 size is good enough for me, and because I can't spend
thousands of (dollars, pounds, euros) on a printer. I'm not a
professional, and I can't spend more on a printer than on a camera
body!

But I've just discovered the HP 9180. Seems to be a bit cheaper than
the Epson, and also uses pigment inks.

Am I correct that Canon's equivalent printer is the iPF 9500, which
costs almost $2000.

Has anyone done a three-way comparison of these pigment-based
printers. I guess these are all the "entry level" models.

On a related topic, is Epson going to replace the 2400 any time soon?
Say within the next six months?

Look at photo-i.co.uk site for photo printer dedicated forums.

Yes, I expect that Epson will announce a replacement to the
2400 soon. They just announced the R1900, replacement to
the R1800 (looks much the same chassis, but with revised
Ultrachrome Gloss II ink set), and have updated the K3
inkset in new pro series printers. I expect that like the
R1800/2400 shared design, the R2480 (my guess at name) will
share the R1900 chassis, but with similar paper feed
differences.
The advances aren't likely to offer a big difference in
print quality (all printers incl. the B9180, Canon pixma
pros etc are extremely good), so expect major advances to be
in speed and user-friendliness.
The one area of user unfriendliness that won't change is
cost of ink. All three (HP/Epson/Canon) are equally greedy
on this.

 

[Bob Headrick]

I've always assumed that when I'm ready to get a "real" photoprinter,
it was going to be the Epson 2400, because I would want pigment-based [snip]

But I've just discovered the HP 9180. Seems to be a bit cheaper than
the Epson, and also uses pigment inks.

Am I correct that Canon's equivalent printer is the iPF 9500, which
costs almost $2000.

Has anyone done a three-way comparison of these pigment-based
printers. I guess these are all the "entry level" models.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/Pigs/page_1.html has a rather
extensive comparative review of all three printers. There is also a Yahoo
group for the HP B9180 at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hp9100Series/
with more than a thousand members.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging