dumb newbie ? - Canon ip6600 or HP 8250 which to choose

[Shelly]

Opinions welcome. And feel free to treat me like an idiot.

I've been scouring some archived posts and newer reviews and it comes
down to this. From what's available, it appears that my best choices
for our first photo printer are the Canon ip6600D and the HP 8250. I
definitely want separate ink cartridges, and even though people seem to
mock the LCD screen on both models, it would actually be useful to me.
Most of what I want to correct is red-eye that makes it through my
Canon A60 digital camera. And since my 7+ year old PC has stopped
recognizing when I plug the camera into the PC's USB port, being able
to put the memory card directly into the printer and print from there
will be a big help. (As an aside, when I put the camera into my Mac, it
recognizes just fine, so it's not the camera or the cable - but that's
another issue)

The thing that scares me about the Canon, is that I had a Canon
Multipass printer years ago which gave me nothing but trouble with the
ink cartridges. It would "read" them as empty when I knew darn well
they weren't. Also had printer clog problems. However, to be fair, this
was 10 years ago. This new printer will mainly be for photos only. I
have a cheap Lexmark that does all our document printing.

It appears the Canon is a bit cheaper on ink cartidges, refills, etc.
That's a plus. Any one who can comment on the picture quality of these
2 printers? And do you get a lot of photo prints before you have to
fill them up again? The sales person was really trying to steer me
towards the HP, so that makes me wary on the HP side. I'm going to try
and take my memory card down and see if they will let me make a test
print for each, but I don't know if that will fly. The price is about
the same, so I am really on the fence as to which to buy. Is there any
advantage to recommend one over the other? Or should I be looking at
something else entirely?

Thanks to all!
Shelly

 

[measekite]

Opinions welcome. And feel free to treat me like an idiot.

MOST OF THE ONES YOU ASK ADVICE FROM ARE THE IDIOTS.

I've been scouring some archived posts and newer reviews and it comes
down to this. From what's available, it appears that my best choices
for our first photo printer are the Canon ip6600D and the HP 8250.

THE IP5200 IS BETTER AND FASTER. THE IP6600D IS GOOD ONLY IF YOU WANT
TO PRINT PHOTOS WITHOUT A COMPUTER. THE LCD IS A REAL GIMMIUCK AND JUST
ENHANCES THE MACHINE AS AN INK DISPENSER. ITIS BETTER TO GET PHOTOSHOP
AND DO SOME REAL EDITING.

I
definitely want separate ink cartridges, and even though people seem to
mock the LCD screen on both models, it would actually be useful to me.
Most of what I want to correct is red-eye that makes it through my
Canon A60 digital camera. And since my 7+ year old PC has stopped
recognizing when I plug the camera into the PC's USB port, being able
to put the memory card directly into the printer and print from there
will be a big help.

IF YOUR PC IS THAT OLD IT IS TIME TO GET A NEW ONE. YOU WILL NEED LOTS
OF HARD DRIVE WITH A GOOD USB2 BACKUP AND A HIGH POWER VIDEO CARD AND
2MB OF RAM. BEST IS TO LOOK AT A DUAL CORE AMD MACHINE.

(As an aside, when I put the camera into my Mac, it
recognizes just fine, so it's not the camera or the cable - but that's
another issue)

The thing that scares me about the Canon, is that I had a Canon
Multipass printer years ago which gave me nothing but trouble with the
ink cartridges.

I HAVE3 AN CANON IP4000 FOR OVER A YEAR AND USE CANON OEM INK AND COSTCO
PHOTO GLOSSY PAPER THAT I CUT TO SIZE USING A FISKARS ROTARY CUTTER. I
HAVE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH CLOGGING OR ANYTHING ELSE. I NEVER EVEN
PUT THE PRINTER THRU A CLEANING CYCLE.

It would "read" them as empty when I knew darn well
they weren't. Also had printer clog problems. However, to be fair, this
was 10 years ago. This new printer will mainly be for photos only. I
have a cheap Lexmark that does all our document printing.

THE IP5200 CAN ALSO DO GOOD DOCUMENT PRINTING. YOU HAVE DUAL PAPER
TRAYS AND CAN ALSO PRINT FULL DUPLEX AUTOMATICALLY. I LEAVE LETTER SIZE
PAPER IN THE BOTTOM CASSETTE TRAY AND PLACE PHOTO PAPER AS NEEDED IN THE
TOP AUTO DOCUUMENT FEEDER.

It appears the Canon is a bit cheaper on ink cartidges, refills, etc.
That's a plus. Any one who can comment on the picture quality of these
2 printers?

THERE IS A REVIEW OF THESE PRINTERS AT WWW.TOMSHARDWARE.COM

THEY PRAISE BOTH BUT GIVE THE EDGE TO CANON. HP HAS MORE MUTED COLOR
PRINTS WHILE THE CANON IS BRIGHTER AND MORE BRILLIANT. THE CANON HAS
MORE FEATURES AND THE INK COSTS LESS.

 

[Burt]

Opinions welcome. And feel free to treat me like an idiot.

I've been scouring some archived posts and newer reviews and it comes
down to this. From what's available, it appears that my best choices
for our first photo printer are the Canon ip6600D and the HP 8250. I
definitely want separate ink cartridges, and even though people seem to
mock the LCD screen on both models, it would actually be useful to me.
Most of what I want to correct is red-eye that makes it through my
Canon A60 digital camera. And since my 7+ year old PC has stopped
recognizing when I plug the camera into the PC's USB port, being able
to put the memory card directly into the printer and print from there
will be a big help. (As an aside, when I put the camera into my Mac, it
recognizes just fine, so it's not the camera or the cable - but that's
another issue)

The thing that scares me about the Canon, is that I had a Canon
Multipass printer years ago which gave me nothing but trouble with the
ink cartridges. It would "read" them as empty when I knew darn well
they weren't. Also had printer clog problems. However, to be fair, this
was 10 years ago. This new printer will mainly be for photos only. I
have a cheap Lexmark that does all our document printing.

It appears the Canon is a bit cheaper on ink cartidges, refills, etc.
That's a plus. Any one who can comment on the picture quality of these
2 printers? And do you get a lot of photo prints before you have to
fill them up again? The sales person was really trying to steer me
towards the HP, so that makes me wary on the HP side. I'm going to try
and take my memory card down and see if they will let me make a test
print for each, but I don't know if that will fly. The price is about
the same, so I am really on the fence as to which to buy. Is there any
advantage to recommend one over the other? Or should I be looking at
something else entirely?

Thanks to all!
Shelly

Shelly - Depending on the operating system software and the availability of
an open slot on the motherboard, you can buy USB cards really cheaply. Last
one I bought was about $20. If used regularly and not left to sit idle for
long periods of time the Canon printers don't tend to clog as much as
Epsons. The HP's that have a printhead built into the replaceable cartridge
have the advantage that if they clog you merely replace the cartridge and it
contains a new, unclogged printhead. Canons cartridges have been the
easiest ones to refill and there are aftermarket prefilled cartridges, some
of which are pretty good. Refilling your cartridges is the best way to
insure consistancy of product. So - if refilling is of interest to you then
the Canons will be the cheapest to operate. Problem is, however, that the
newest breed of Canon printers now have cartridges with a computer chip and
they have changed their ink formulation (improved?) Aftermarket ink and
cartridge manufacturers and vendors have not come out with with products for
these printers yet (actually, one vendor has ink from what I've heard) and
no one knows at this point how to deal most effectively with the chip and
the data it provides to the printer.

 

[Knightcrawler]

10 years might as well be 1000 years with how much things have changed,
anyways the Canons today are rock solid and probably have the least
complaints lodge agianst them by consumers. The 8250 can probably yield 100+
4x6's before cart runs empty where as the Canon can yield 300+ depend on
what settings you are using.

The 6600 offers 3000 nozzles and 1 picoliter, pictures look as good as any
photolab can produce.

The 8250 is HP's latest offering and it has seperate inks, I'll be honest
I've never been huge on HP, when it comes to photo inkjet it's a Canon vs
Epson battle with HP in a distance third.

One thing to ignore is HP's claim that it can produce a 4x6 in 14 secs, the
first picture actually takes 36 seconds because they leave out warmup time.

Most printers come with good warranties, Canon offers 1 year instant
exchange and I'm sure the 8250 comes with something similiar.

Anyways my vote goes clearly to the Canon IP6600.

 

[measekite]

10 years might as well be 1000 years with how much things have changed,
anyways the Canons today are rock solid and probably have the least
complaints lodge agianst them by consumers. The 8250 can probably yield 100+
4x6's before cart runs empty where as the Canon can yield 300+ depend on
what settings you are using.

The 6600 offers 3000 nozzles and 1 picoliter, pictures look as good as any
photolab can produce.

The 8250 is HP's latest offering and it has seperate inks, I'll be honest
I've never been huge on HP, when it comes to photo inkjet it's a Canon vs
Epson battle with HP in a distance third.

One thing to ignore is HP's claim that it can produce a 4x6 in 14 secs, the
first picture actually takes 36 seconds because they leave out warmup time.

Most printers come with good warranties, Canon offers 1 year instant
exchange and I'm sure the 8250 comes with something similiar.

Anyways my vote goes clearly to the Canon IP6600.

IP5200 IS A BETTER CHOICE UNLESS YOU ARE SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO PRINT
EVERY PICTURE WITH VERY MINIMAL EDITING. YOU WOULD BE CANON'S DREAM.

 

[Shelly]

Actually, I didn't see a review on Tom's Hardware of the 6600. They had
the 5200, but didn't see anything about the 6600, so didn't know if
there had been much improvement over the 5200. Plus, of the stores I've
checked so far, no one has a 5200.

As I said, the ability to print without a computer is beneficial to me.
To be honest, my current camera does a nice job with pictures, so I
don't usually find a need to edit. (That, or I am lazy.) The most
common edits I do is red eye or changing the lighting if it was a
cloudy day. My old PC still has bunches of hard disk space, so it
should do for the printer. What would I need a better video card for in
terms of a photo printer? If really needed video, I could plug it into
my iMac G5. And I didn't really buy the HP's 14 sec print time (just
like I don't believe they took gullible out of the dictionary). But, as
you can tell from my old PC, speed isn't really an issue for me.

I did not realize that HP's have a printhead on the cartridge. That
sounds like a plus. That also probably means more $$$ for HP cartridge.
However, it does sound like Canon is better on ink longevity (a big
plus in my book) and picture quality.

Hmm...so I wonder why I was being steered away from the Canon at the
store. Sounds like the consensus is pointing towards Canon.

Good comments, everyone...thanks for the food for thought so far!
Shelly

 

[Gary Tait]

Actually, I didn't see a review on Tom's Hardware of the 6600. They had
the 5200, but didn't see anything about the 6600, so didn't know if
there had been much improvement over the 5200. Plus, of the stores I've
checked so far, no one has a 5200.

As I said, the ability to print without a computer is beneficial to

me.

You don't need an LCD on the printer for that mostly. A PictBridge
equipped camera and ptinter can directly print, using menuson the
camera.

To be honest, my current camera does a nice job with pictures, so I
don't usually find a need to edit. (That, or I am lazy.) The most
common edits I do is red eye or changing the lighting if it was a
cloudy day. My old PC still has bunches of hard disk space, so it
should do for the printer. What would I need a better video card for in
terms of a photo printer?

You don't need a better graphics card, even on-board is adequeate most
times.

If really needed video, I could plug it into
my iMac G5. And I didn't really buy the HP's 14 sec print time (just
like I don't believe they took gullible out of the dictionary). But, as
you can tell from my old PC, speed isn't really an issue for me.

I did not realize that HP's have a printhead on the cartridge. That
sounds like a plus. That also probably means more $$$ for HP

cartridge.

Some don't, most do.

However, it does sound like Canon is better on ink longevity (a big
plus in my book) and picture quality.

Hmm...so I wonder why I was being steered away from the Canon at the
store. Sounds like the consensus is pointing towards Canon.

Commisions, I suppose.

 

[Knightcrawler]

Stores always push HP because they get a kickback for how many they sell or
maybe they make a better profit of off it. The 8250 doesn't have the same
cartridge that the old ones did. It has seperate carts and a printhead that
is connected to the carts via tubes.

The difference between the IP5200 and IP6600 is that the 5200 has 3600
nozzle and 4 colors and the IP6600 has 3000 nozzles and 6 colors. They will
both produce a stunning picture. The 6600 has all those additional features
though like the LCD screen, card reader, etc.

Right now Canon is leading the pack in printing technology with Epson
trailing behind and HP in third.

 

[zakezuke]

Opinions welcome. And feel free to treat me like an idiot.

Anyone who seeks advice on products isn't an idiot, finding out about
printers takes much homework.

The thing that scares me about the Canon, is that I had a Canon
Multipass printer years ago which gave me nothing but trouble with the
ink cartridges. It would "read" them as empty when I knew darn well
they weren't. Also had printer clog problems. However, to be fair, this
was 10 years ago. This new printer will mainly be for photos only. I
have a cheap Lexmark that does all our document printing.

ah... if your interested in canon's old system of metering see here for
illistrations
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_ip4000_pg2.html
Basicly your complaint is somewhat valid... the canon used light to
determine whether the reservoir was empty and 20% was in the sponge.
Simple, and in some cases not always 100% reliable esp if you got a
spot of ink on the prism. The new printers use both a prism and chips
that keep track of ink use. Not so good for people who refill
cartridges.... but actually a nice feature for those who want an
accurate estimate on ink consumption.

It appears the Canon is a bit cheaper on ink cartidges, refills, etc.

This "may" be a fair comment. I honestly don't know if the HP 02 color
cartridges are cheaper than canon... the black might be a tad more per
page but not by much. Color i'm totally unsure about. We're talking
$10 a pop for

$10ish HP 02 Magenta Ink Cartridge C8772WN 3.5ml
$18 (C8721WN) black 10ml
$10ish (C8771WN) cyan 4ml
$10ish (C8773WN) yellow 6ml
$12ish (C8775WN) (C8774WN) light magenta / cyan 5.5ml

Vs

$14ish x 6

The volume on the HP is well kinda tweeky, and definatly less volume
per cartridge than canon... but the canon is a bit of an ink hog and
the HP is more efficent. While I lack more info on HP's method of
page/ml... they actually look pretty close to equal in terms of cost
per page to me. The odd sizes were a choice based on what's used most.
They were thoughtfull being weird.

Also my statement about black is based on the canon bci-3e or the
PGI-5BK... the ip6600 using the cli-8 13ml to 15ml black would be about
4.3cents/page "higher" than the 8250 which would be about 3.75 or so
cent/page on a bad day. The ip6600 isn't the best choice as a general
purpose printer in terms of cost, though it's probally a very sweet
photo printer. Haven't seen it enough but I have trust in canon in
this regard.

Canon has the Chromalife100 which is good for only about 30 years under
glass, 10 years exposed to air and even then that's on premium papers
according to canon. The HP Vivera ink on the other hand has super
duper life if a tad slow to dry. We're talking 108years under glass
according to .wilhelm-research on premium hp paper.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/8450.html. The canon ink, or at
least the older generation ink on microporious papers is reasonably
water fast, as in I can run prints under a tap and notice no vleeding
and the photos were no worse for wear on the photo paper plus, kirkland
paper I only tested once and the color bleeding was minor... and that
was directly off the printer.

The ip6600 at least can have CD printing enabled on it... handy feature
HP just does not have.

Probally the best thing you can do is go into your local shop with your
favorite photo paper, or the OEM reccomended paper and print off some
shots. They usually agree so long as you leave the prints there...
they get photos to show customers and you get an idea of what you are
buying.

I can say this, though I don't have much personal experence with either
the new hp 8250 or the really new ip-6600D. The hp 8250 at least
offers a larger black... rated at close to 480 pages according to HP.
The canon, while they do have models that have a big black, the ip6600
does not so we are talking the 300 page range or so, or 280 according
to office depot.

If you want general purpose, consider the ip4200 or ip5200... or
possibly the hp 8250. There is also the canon mp900/mp950 which offers
large black for text... and 6 tanks for photos.... but.... it costs an
arm and a leg though. The ip7500 would is the printer only model but
no screen and not even sold in america. The ip6600 I'd seriously
consider if my main application was photo printing and had another
printer to do text.

------------

Still on the fence?

Need CD printing.... go canon {info regarding this upon request}
Need long life prints... go HP and spiffy paper
Need text and photos... I'm leaning tward HP, or the ip4200/ip5200
Need quick dry prints... go canon
Need easy cartridge access... go HP 8250

Still on the fence?
Test drive them, pick what looks best to you, what works best for your
images is always a good choice.

 

[measekite]

Stores always push HP because they get a kickback for how many they sell or
maybe they make a better profit of off it. The 8250 doesn't have the same
cartridge that the old ones did. It has seperate carts and a printhead that
is connected to the carts via tubes.

The difference between the IP5200 and IP6600 is that the 5200 has 3600
nozzle and 4 colors and the IP6600 has 3000 nozzles and 6 colors. They will
both produce a stunning picture. The 6600 has all those additional features
though like the LCD screen, card reader, etc.

Right now Canon is leading the pack in printing technology with Epson
trailing behind and HP in third.

BASED ON TOMS HARDWARE I WOULD SAY THAT CANON IS LEADING THE PACK WITH
HP SECOND AND EPSON LAST. THAT IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT EPSON'S BUILT-IN
HEADS ARE MORE PRONE TO CLOG AND THE PRINTER USES MANY CLEANING CYCLES
WASTING INK.

 

[measekite]

@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:



me.

You don't need an LCD on the printer for that mostly. A PictBridge
equipped camera and ptinter can directly print, using menuson the
camera.




You don't need a better graphics card, even on-board is adequeate most
times.

THAT IS NOT TRUE. PHOTOSHOP EATS RAM BOTH DDR AND GRAPHICS RAM. A
FASTER GRAPHICS CARD WITH 128MB OR MORE OF RAM WILL DEFINATELY HELP OUT;
ESPECIALLY IF YOUR CAMERA IS A HIGH MP CAMERA

cartridge.

Some don't, most do.

THERE IS NO DOUBT THERE.

 

[measekite]

Actually, I didn't see a review on Tom's Hardware of the 6600. They had
the 5200, but didn't see anything about the 6600, so didn't know if
there had been much improvement over the 5200. Plus, of the stores I've
checked so far, no one has a 5200.

As I said, the ability to print without a computer is beneficial to me.
To be honest, my current camera does a nice job with pictures, so I
don't usually find a need to edit.

THE CAMERA, GOOD OR BAD, IS NOT THE REASON PEOPLE NEED TO EDIT. IT IS
THE CONTENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE PHOTO AND EVEN PROS NEED TO EDIT. SO
IF YOU DO NOT FEEL YOU NEED TO EDIT THEN YOU ARE EITHER BETTER THAN THE
FOREMOST IN THE WORLD OF YOU STANDARDS ARE VERY LOW.

 

[zakezuke]

Measkite said: Snipped per request

The funny thing is you are not dealing with pros, you are dealing with
people doing snapshot photography who's major need is to take a given
photo, crop, perhaps some mild contrast correction, and print. People
who are expecting the ease of taking film to a lab and having pictures
made from it. This is not unreasonable esp for those users who don't
feel comfortable working in PhotoShop. It is wrong of you to belittle
or harass users who are looking for a tool that will do much of the
work for them, esp those users not fluent in color theory... which
based on the postings i've seen from measkite, he is not.

Again this is an issue of your belief your way is the only way... you
are not offering advice but dictating your beielf.

The ip6600D offers more inks and a screen for only a dad more than the
ip5000. And if this makes someone's life easier... offers them spiffy
card slots that won't fall behind the desk... great. While I prefer
working in photoshop and doing some touchup... I would not be critical
of anyone who would prefer direct image printing.... to do so would be
wrong.

 

[Bob Headrick]

A few things in this posting need correcting....

The 8250 can probably yield 100+ 4x6's before cart runs empty where as the
Canon can yield 300+ depend on what settings you are using.

I do not know where you get your numbers - I suppose technically 100+ could
mean 170 (yellow), 350 (cyan) or 650 (black) 4x6's for the Photosmart 8250.
See http://h10060.www1.hp.com/pageyield/us/en/PS8200/photo.html for details,
including information on how the test is run. In general
http://www.hp.com/go/pageyield is the link for page yields for recent HP
printers. If you can find published Canon numbers make sure you are comparing
apples to apples in print sizes and borders. Recently one manufacturer (not
Canon or HP) reported plain paper page yields on 8.5x11" paper, but the fine
print mentioned 1" borders all the way around....

The 6600 offers 3000 nozzles and 1 picoliter, pictures look as good as any
photolab can produce.

The 8250 is HP's latest offering and it has separate inks, I'll be honest
I've never been huge on HP, when it comes to photo inkjet it's a Canon vs.
Epson battle with HP in a distance third.

You have probably not seen prints from HP Photosmarts in recent years. For
example, the nine ink Photosmart 8750 arguably has better print quality than
any consumer desktop. At the Photo Marketing Association trade show various
vendors submit prints that are compared and graded. This year:

"The winners of the 2005 DIMA Digital Printer Shoot-Out were announced on
February, 21st at the PMA 2005 Convention and Tradeshow in Orlando, FL.

Winners, displayed during the PMA 2005 show, were chosen from 122 prints
entered by 37 companies.

HP got several awards within the different categories:

Inkjet 18" to 35": HP Designjet 130
Inkjet 9" to 17": HP Photosmart 8750
Media 24" or larger: HP Premium Plus Photo & Proofing Gloss

Epson and Canon not among the winners."

Also see numerous reviews in places likes Steve's Digicam or Ian Burley's site.
Epson may have been the leader a few years ago, they no longer enjoy that lead.

Regards,
Bob Headrick

 

[irwell]

Actually, I didn't see a review on Tom's Hardware of the 6600. They had
the 5200, but didn't see anything about the 6600, so didn't know if
there had been much improvement over the 5200. Plus, of the stores I've
checked so far, no one has a 5200.

As I said, the ability to print without a computer is beneficial to me.
To be honest, my current camera does a nice job with pictures, so I
don't usually find a need to edit. (That, or I am lazy.) The most
common edits I do is red eye or changing the lighting if it was a
cloudy day. My old PC still has bunches of hard disk space, so it
should do for the printer. What would I need a better video card for in
terms of a photo printer? If really needed video, I could plug it into
my iMac G5. And I didn't really buy the HP's 14 sec print time (just
like I don't believe they took gullible out of the dictionary). But, as
you can tell from my old PC, speed isn't really an issue for me.

I have the Canon 6600d and like it a lot. The LCD is a real plus if
you want to print some pics without a lot of editing, no computer is
required for this function.
I did the modification to enable CD printing, with a tray bought from
E-bay, this too works great.
In conjunction with Qimage and using Canon OEM inks and paper
the resultings pics are superbly superb.

 

[Shelly]

THE CAMERA, GOOD OR BAD, IS NOT THE REASON PEOPLE NEED TO EDIT. IT IS
THE CONTENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE PHOTO AND EVEN PROS NEED TO EDIT. SO
IF YOU DO NOT FEEL YOU NEED TO EDIT THEN YOU ARE EITHER BETTER THAN THE
FOREMOST IN THE WORLD OF YOU STANDARDS ARE VERY LOW.

Now, I did say you could treat me like an idiot, I didn't say you could
be rude

(zakezuke, thanks for defending my novice ability, fortunately, I take
slights with a large grain of salt. A whole shakerful, in fact.)

I'm not taking pictures that I'm going to sell or enter in
competitions. Most photos are of family, special occasions, etc. And
with the display on digital cameras, how hard is it not to get the
composition right? I have had several people tell me some of the
pictures I've taken are professional looking. But I attribute that to
pure luck and probably the camera, not necessarily the photographer.
Sure, I've got Adobe Photoshop and 3D Studio Max and and a bunch of
other expensive hi-tech software back from when we owned our own
computer gaming company, but I don't usually find the need to use it. I
like being able to shoot, simple edit, and print. I'm not looking to
make a career out of editing pictures to make them "perfect". Sometimes
"good enough" is sufficient.

And I will get great use of the card reader ability. I've spent much
time on the phone with Canon tech support to determine why my PC won't
read the camera anymore. (BTW, they were very helpful even though we
weren't able to determine the problem.) We know that it isn't - it
isn't the camera, the USB cable, the USB port, the camera drivers, or
the camera software. The PC recognizes the camera is plugged in - it
shows up in the "Imaging Devices" hardware panel. But it can't download
the pictures, either from Canon's ZoomBrowser, or Imaging which is
standard with Windows. It just says the "camera is not found". So, I
can't edit with the PC currently anyway. I'm posting a separate ? to
see if either of these printers is Mac compatible. I'm afraid that will
get lost in the shuffle of this discussion.

Up until today, I was leaning towards the Canon, but longevity of the
pictures is important to me. If I'm going to bother to print them, I
would like them to last at least as long as if I took the trouble to
get them printed. And it seems that the paper that is used is a bigger
difference than the two printers I've looking at. And if that is the
case, then it appears that HP has the edge in photo paper.

BTW, the info about HP's approximate ink tank lifespan and photo prints
was very helpful. I hadn't expected it to be that much. Thank you, Bob!

Shelly

 

[measekite]

measekite wrote:



Now, I did say you could treat me like an idiot, I didn't say you could
be rude

I was not rude. I did treat you the way you asked to be treated.

(zakezuke, thanks for defending my novice ability, fortunately, I take
slights with a large grain of salt. A whole shakerful, in fact.)

I'm not taking pictures that I'm going to sell or enter in
competitions. Most photos are of family, special occasions, etc.

You mean snapshots. Right

And
with the display on digital cameras, how hard is it not to get the
composition right?

It is very difficult. You see most people do not know how to use a
digital camera. Most (especially snap shooters) compose in the LCD.
That is wrong. Sticking the camera at arms length in front of you and
composing on the LCD is totally incorrect. You need to use the
viewfinder and then check the photo in the LCD.

If you do not believe me look at the Canon Digital Rebel XT, the 20D,
5D, the Nikon 50D etc and you will find that you cannot compose in the
LCD. You must use the finder. These are semi-pro, pro, and prosumer
DSLR. Or take a Canon S2 or any Panasonic Z camera that do allow
shooting in both EVF and LCD mode and see what the good photogs use.
These have long zooms and you just cannot hold the camera steady enough
even with IS to take a good shot.

So you will find that the typical person does not know what they are
talking about.

I have had several people tell me some of the
pictures I've taken are professional looking. But I attribute that to
pure luck and probably the camera,

Cameras do not take pictures people do. And it may have been luck. All
a good camera does is make certain shots easier.

not necessarily the photographer.
Sure, I've got Adobe Photoshop and 3D Studio Max and and a bunch of
other expensive hi-tech software back from when we owned our own
computer gaming company, but I don't usually find the need to use it. I
like being able to shoot, simple edit, and print. I'm not looking to
make a career out of editing pictures to make them "perfect". Sometimes
"good enough" is sufficient.

This is typical BS

 

[Dave]

What a dick

 

[zakezuke]

Up until today, I was leaning towards the Canon, but longevity of the

pictures is important to me. If I'm going to bother to print them, I
would like them to last at least as long as if I took the trouble to
get them printed. And it seems that the paper that is used is a bigger
difference than the two printers I've looking at. And if that is the
case, then it appears that HP has the edge in photo paper.

This is fair comment. I feel canon wins as a general purpose printer,
for those users who don't want both a laser for cheap documents and an
inkjet for color. But the i6600 ditchs the pigment black in favor of 6
ink tanks. But in terms of longevity, HP wins by a long shot and in
fact the improvement canon has made according to wilhelm research is
only 5 years under glass between the bci-6 (what I term Chromalife 25)
and bci-7/cli-8 officaly chromalife 100. While canon would win in the
fastest from print to glass catagory... and even most likely to produce
prints you can take into the bath with you... while the curetime on HP
vivera inks is something like a week, you get something, you get
something that'll last a good while longer.

HP also wins in terms of ease of use. You can for example print off a
proofsheet and check box what you want printed. Even if you never use
that feature, you have a button to do a proof sheet and can dump a
512meg card to a CD rom and plop both the CD rom and the proof sheet
into an album. Jpegs also display well on DVD players and TV to help
compose your shot and determine if cropping is nessicary.

Canon's power feature is CD printing though... but given the choice
between proof sheets and cd printing... proof sheets take less time,
and one can always use a shapry.

Epson is also not too shabby in the long life department either.

 

[Frank]

What a dick

Yeah, he's a real loser of jerk!
Kill file his stuck-on-stupid ass and be done with him.
Frank