Do I choose Epson R340 or HP 8250 ?

[Scott]

I can't seem to make up my mind. The Epson seems to have features I'd
like to have, but the HP
8250 has gotten overall better reviews from the various tech media.

What I like about the R340 is that Epson sells a $50.00 network adapter
for it so I could run it on my home network that way. I also like the
CD/DVD printing feature (although I don't think I'll be able to use it
for a while as I'm "stocked up" on recordable CDs/DVDs and will be for
some time. I don't think any of them would be printable).

I've gathered the Epson is also somewhat better in the photo printing
department than the HP, although it's much slower (speed isn't that much
of a concern for me, I use a laser printer for most document printing).

The HP Photosmart 8250 is the first consumer model from HP to (finally!)
use separate ink cartridges for each color. In fact, this one uses six.
That's a plus for me.
And HPs inks are less expensive than Epson. On the other hand, I've
heard the Epson inks are better (especially when it comes to smudging or
lack thereof).

The list price on both is the same but I can get a better deal on
the HP. I'm willing to forgo the deal if I can be convinced I won't be
unhappy with the Epson. I'm pretty sure I'd be happy with the HP at
this point.

What I'd really like a Canon, but since it's not compatible with Linux,
it's not an option. I've narrowed it down to HP and Epson namely
because of Linux compatibility.

Your thoughts?

 

[Dave]

My personal experinece says Lexmark are the worst, HP are a close
second and Epson are 3rd worst... Get a canon.

 

[Scott]

My personal experinece says Lexmark are the worst, HP are a close
second and Epson are 3rd worst... Get a canon.

I would get a Canon, but I need a printer to run under Linux. Canon
completely suck in that department.

 

[zakezuke]

I would get a Canon, but I need a printer to run under Linux. Canon

completely suck in that department.

They don't completely suck, they do suck, but not completely..

ftp://download.canon.jp/pub/driver/bj/linux/

Now these would be the japanese models listed that are identical to the
US models except in model number. It's been a while since I checked
and well yea no ip4200/ip5200 or hell not even the japanese pixus
ip5100 as I would expect.

Turboprint on the other hand does support the ip4200 the last time I
checked.

 

[Fenrir Enterprises]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:31:22 -0700, Scott

Note: I have an R340.

I can't seem to make up my mind. The Epson seems to have features I'd=20
like to have, but the HP
8250 has gotten overall better reviews from the various tech media.

What I like about the R340 is that Epson sells a $50.00 network adapter
for it so I could run it on my home network that way. I also like the
CD/DVD printing feature (although I don't think I'll be able to use it
for a while as I'm "stocked up" on recordable CDs/DVDs and will be for
some time. I don't think any of them would be printable).

Yes, you need printable discs, you can't print on normal ones (well
you could try, but I doubt it would work). However, you can get a USB
print server for about $50-70, so it should not matter which one you
pick in that regard.

I've gathered the Epson is also somewhat better in the photo printing
department than the HP, although it's much slower (speed isn't that much
of a concern for me, I use a laser printer for most document printing).

At this point in time, unless you are serious pro photographer (in
which case you'd be buying a higher end printer anyway), there is
negligable difference between all the brands. I would suggest getting
some sample prints to see which /you/ think is better. The Epson is
rather slow, yes, but while the HP advertises 'fastest photo printer
on the market', it doesn't say /what/ setting that is for. The Epson
is decent speed at 'Regular' photo layout on 'Photo' quality. If you
put it on Best Photo layout with Photo RPM quality with High Speed
turned off and Super Micro-Weave turned on, then it will take an
extremely long time for the photo. The Epson claims 57 second photos,
but that's for 'standard' Photo settings. I'm sure HP's extreme ultra
high quality mode is also a lot slower than what they're using when
they quote print times. I've read in reviews (and noticed myself) that
the R340/200 in Vibrant mode prints a bit 'dark' compared to the
320/200 but this is easily adjusted for with Gamma correction or just
putting it in Standard mode.

The HP Photosmart 8250 is the first consumer model from HP to (finally!)
use separate ink cartridges for each color. In fact, this one uses six. =

That's a plus for me.
And HPs inks are less expensive than Epson. On the other hand, I've
heard the Epson inks are better (especially when it comes to smudging or =
lack thereof).

I've seen both the Epson and HP cartridges for these printers for
about $12-13, so the prices are pretty much the same (Office Depot),
with the Black cartridges being a bit more expensive. They're all
pretty small cartridges. One thing that I do notice is that the HP
8250 doesn't take Multi Grey ink like some of the other HP Photosmart
printers do, so if you are planning on doing a lot of B&W photos, I
would look into one of those, for I believe the HP models that take
grey ink are cheaper than any of the Epson ones that take it. The
Epsons that do grey have 8 tanks instead of 6. The cheaper Photosmarts
generally make you swap the Grey cartridge into the Photo Color slot
so they don't need an extra tank slot.

The list price on both is the same but I can get a better deal on
the HP. I'm willing to forgo the deal if I can be convinced I won't be
unhappy with the Epson. I'm pretty sure I'd be happy with the HP at
this point.

What I'd really like a Canon, but since it's not compatible with Linux,
it's not an option. I've narrowed it down to HP and Epson namely
because of Linux compatibility.

Your thoughts?

It's entirely up to you, I bought the R340 specifically for DVD
printing, which works fine, the photo mode is just a nice bonus
(another user here wanted the card slots or I would have just gotten a
R220). If you don't really need that, and you like the HP print
quality, get the HP with the deal. As I said before, ask for samples
on the HP and Epson photo papers so you can see for yourself. Also, if
you /do/ buy the Epson R340, remember to do the Waste Ink Tank
modification to route the waste ink out of the printer rather than
into the waste tray.


---

http://www.FenrirOnline.com

Computer services, custom metal etching,
arts, crafts, and much more.

 

[zakezuke]

Yes, you need printable discs, you can't print on normal ones (well

you could try, but I doubt it would work). However, you can get a USB
print server for about $50-70, so it should not matter which one you
pick in that regard.

You can on the epson to a degree... if you don't mind the month or so
dry time, and it's not going to be like paper as the drops stay drops
and don't soak in. You'll have beeds, it will be ledgible at 14point
and above, but look like an array of dots.

Canon, the viscosity is too close to water... so the beads smear and
fall the moment you move the disc beyond the horizon.

In all fairness, and this is comming from a person who's owned both,
the epson ink is a tad more tolerante to different media types than
canon, but the Canon makes a much more reliable product in the $100
range.

 

[Scott]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:31:22 -0700, Scott


It's entirely up to you, I bought the R340 specifically for DVD
printing, which works fine, the photo mode is just a nice bonus
(another user here wanted the card slots or I would have just gotten a
R220). If you don't really need that, and you like the HP print
quality, get the HP with the deal. As I said before, ask for samples
on the HP and Epson photo papers so you can see for yourself. Also, if
you /do/ buy the Epson R340, remember to do the Waste Ink Tank
modification to route the waste ink out of the printer rather than
into the waste tray.

Well I wiped the slate clean and started from scratch.

I decided paying extra for features I'd almost never use (photo and
especially CD printing) I figured, I'd look an overall good inkjet, with
good Linux compatibility and one that might be better than average when
it came to photo printing.

HP delivered for me and threw in built-in Ethernet and Wi-Fi to boot.

http://tinyurl.com/4utb3

The Color is outstanding. Even photos on Inkjet (vs. photo paper) look
great. Since the printer is on my network, somebody has been sneakily
sending print jobs to it. .

Printers have apparently come a long way in color quality in the past 5
years. My roommate has a 5-year-old Lexmark and there's no contest as
to which has the better color. And mine is about 4X faster than that old
Lexmark as well.