Current printer comparable to Alps MD-1000, 5000, etc. for similar price?

B

bantana

Unless I am missing something, it seems the printer industry has decided
people are to stupid to want the awesome high quality these printers
offered at reasonable prices anymore.
Is there anything out there now comparable?

I saw output from a high end Epson once that looked pretty good, but I
didn't have anything from an Alps to compare, and only got to look for a
sec. I think it was still inkjet though, so none of the benefit of the
MD/dye-sub imperviousness to smearing, fading, or water :(
 
S

Safetymom123

Epson printers with the pigment inks are waterproof, smudge proof, long life
with less cost than an Alps.
 
F

Fred McKenzie

Unless I am missing something, it seems the printer industry has decided
people are to stupid to want the awesome high quality these printers
offered at reasonable prices anymore.
Is there anything out there now comparable?

I saw output from a high end Epson once that looked pretty good, but I
didn't have anything from an Alps to compare, and only got to look for a
sec. I think it was still inkjet though, so none of the benefit of the
MD/dye-sub imperviousness to smearing, fading, or water :(

Bantana-

I recall wanting one of the Alps printers many years ago, but never found
the model that was Macintosh SCSI compatible when I had the money.

At the time, there were comments in the newsgroups (or was it the Fido
groups?) that mentioned various problems with Alps printers. "Banding" is
one of the problems I recall. In other words, they may not be as great as
you are suggesting.

You mention dye-sub as being impervious to fading. That is relative.
Back when they were on the market, they were far better than any inkjet.
Today, they aren't. Several inkjets on today's market have better fade
resistance than dye sublimation. Some inkjets are water resistant after
drying, although probably not as resistant as dye sub.

One positive feature of the Alps printer was not the dye sub, but the wax
ink process they also could do. By first laying down a layer of white,
they could print on nearly any material with attractive results. Alps
used a grocery bag as an example. (The wax process also could do the
foils.)

Today it might be hard to find Alps supplies. I haven't searched, but
their old web site (http://www.alpsusa.com/) rejects attempts to connect.

Fred
 
S

see.my.sig.4.addr

Bantana-

I recall wanting one of the Alps printers many years ago, but never found
the model that was Macintosh SCSI compatible when I had the money.
I think it was a "kit", and cost like $100 more.
The one I'm thinking of buying off a guy may have it, but he wasn't sure.
I told him to count the pins on the Centronix connector.
SCSI should be 50 right? Vs parallel being 34 or 40?
I forget, but that's what I get in an eyeball count of some old
connectors.
At the time, there were comments in the newsgroups (or was it the Fido
groups?) that mentioned various problems with Alps printers. "Banding" is
one of the problems I recall. In other words, they may not be as great as
you are suggesting.
Yes, I do remember that. A review I read mentioned it.
I should check it again, can't remember what it said it DIDN'T band on.
It was either the photo paper, or if you used the primer coat, something
like that.
Apparently the inkjets of the time also did it to some extent.
Guess they've licked that problem in current models?
You mention dye-sub as being impervious to fading. That is relative.
Back when they were on the market, they were far better than any inkjet.
Today, they aren't. Several inkjets on today's market have better fade
resistance than dye sublimation. Some inkjets are water resistant after
drying, although probably not as resistant as dye sub.
Years ago, I actually tested some of the so-called "water resistant" inks.
I think they even called them waterproof with Lexmark, which is what I
tested. I got a sample b&w printout from a store with the ink (only black
was supposed to be resistant), then took it home. It smeared very easily.
In fact, I couldn't see any diff. between that and others. If I recall,
it smeared with just a damp finger too, and it'd had plenty of time to
dry.
Laser on the other hand seemed as good as you'd likely ever want.
But of course, nowhere near the beautiful color prints.
One positive feature of the Alps printer was not the dye sub, but the wax
ink process they also could do. By first laying down a layer of white,
they could print on nearly any material with attractive results. Alps
used a grocery bag as an example. (The wax process also could do the
foils.)
Ya, I remember see that there was a "white" cartridge. Puzzled me at
first, then found out it can print on totally black paper. Didn't know
they tried it on a grocery sack!
Today it might be hard to find Alps supplies. I haven't searched, but
their old web site (http://www.alpsusa.com/) rejects attempts to connect.

Fred

That I have checked out :) They're widely available from various web
merchants. 1st thing I checked out when I found they still come up for
sale now and then (although rather rarely).
Also, seems the price holds VERY well compared to the original price.
That leads me to believe they're still held with very high regard and in
demand, hence the good availability of the ribbons.
 
S

see.my.sig.4.addr

Epson printers with the pigment inks are waterproof, smudge proof, long life
with less cost than an Alps.

What's the highest quality model?
I don't mind if it can do 11x14 or anything, just max. reasonably priced
quality (like under $500).
 
F

Fred McKenzie

I think it was a "kit", and cost like $100 more.
The one I'm thinking of buying off a guy may have it, but he wasn't sure.
I told him to count the pins on the Centronix connector.
SCSI should be 50 right? Vs parallel being 34 or 40?
I forget, but that's what I get in an eyeball count of some old
connectors.

see.my.sig-

You're taxing my memory! I'm fairly sure the SCSI model came with both
SCSI and Centronix parallel connectors, allowing use with both IBM and
Macintosh. There may have been a separate kit available to upgrade a
printer, but the stores where I shopped never had it. On rare occasion
they would have one of the models with SCSI already installed.

The SCSI Centronix-style connector is larger than the printer's Centronix
parallel connector. However, some equipment used the DB-25 connector
compatible with SCSI on older Macintosh computers. I don't remember which
was used by Alps.

Also, I don't think the 1000 had dye-sublimation capability, only wax
ink. The 5000 had both, depending on which set of supplies you had
loaded.

Fred
 
S

see.my.sig.4.addr

see.my.sig-

You're taxing my memory! I'm fairly sure the SCSI model came with both
SCSI and Centronix parallel connectors, allowing use with both IBM and
Macintosh. There may have been a separate kit available to upgrade a
printer, but the stores where I shopped never had it. On rare occasion
they would have one of the models with SCSI already installed.
Ya, from what I've been told, it's just like that, no add-on required.
The USB did require an add on and they charged like $100.
The SCSI Centronix-style connector is larger than the printer's Centronix
parallel connector. However, some equipment used the DB-25 connector
compatible with SCSI on older Macintosh computers. I don't remember which
was used by Alps.
They guy sent me a pic, and it's definitely a Centronix. Didn't know
early SCSI printers ever used a DB-25. I guess they could, they certainly
wouldn't need the full 50pin bandwidth.
Also, I don't think the 1000 had dye-sublimation capability, only wax
ink. The 5000 had both, depending on which set of supplies you had
loaded.

Fred

Yeah, I think that may be true. I know the 5000 requires an upgrade kit
to make it do dye sub ($100 MSRP), and I had assumed so did the 1000 and
1300, but now that I think about it you are probably right.
Question is, how much better was it?
I just saw an ad on Ebay for paper saying that the dye sub and special
paper looked great, but actually faded much worse than the regular.
They were selling a 3rd party paper that they claimed got just as good of
results with the regular inks as the dye sub w/special, but didn't fade
anywhere near as bad because the regulars didn't fade as much.
Sounded plausible, and they had a big blurb on it.
 
A

aprestn5

Safetymom123 said:
Epson printers with the pigment inks are waterproof, smudge proof, long
life with less cost than an Alps.

But do they have all the extra ink colours that Alps had, such as white,
gold, silver, metallic magenta, and metallic cyan?
 
A

aprestn5

Unless I am missing something, it seems the printer industry has decided
people are to stupid to want the awesome high quality these printers
offered at reasonable prices anymore.
Is there anything out there now comparable?
There's an ALPS newsgroup on yahoo groups - you might want to check it out,
especially the group's message archive.
 
S

see.my.sig.4.addr

But do they have all the extra ink colours that Alps had, such as white,
gold, silver, metallic magenta, and metallic cyan?

Nnnnnnope! Nothing today matches up to all the quality and function of
the Alps. Typical for these days it seems: uglier, cheaper, poorer
quality, but everybody mistakes it for progress because some features
improve technically. JM2C anyway.

They CAN'T print the metallics because it wouldn't work with liquid ink
very well, and they definitely couldn't do white. Just not possible with
an inkjet.
 
R

rafe b

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:35:57 -0800,
Nnnnnnope! Nothing today matches up to all the quality and function of
the Alps. Typical for these days it seems: uglier, cheaper, poorer
quality, but everybody mistakes it for progress because some features
improve technically. JM2C anyway.

They CAN'T print the metallics because it wouldn't work with liquid ink
very well, and they definitely couldn't do white. Just not possible with
an inkjet.


The ALPs sucked, even in its day. But it was what led me
into inkjet printing. That would be about 1998 or so. The
banding and uniformity on these things was awful.

The Kodak ML-1400 is a (wide) ribbon-based thermal color
printer, selling pretty cheap right now. Also, Olympus had a
comparable model that never fared well in the market either.

Photographers don't care much for printing metallic inks or
white inks, so that's not a big selling point.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top