[Leica] Advice on a 17" printer

[frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE)]

I am astonished by this statement. I changed my Epson because it was 
unreliable and I got a poor response from Epson. I bought a Canon, which was 
a touch newer, and it was at least as good, probably better. At work we had 
a vast HP which could print onto rolls. This was certainly very good, though 
probably not as good as the Canon.
I will never buy another Epson printer and I am quite sure this does not 
mean my prints are inferior.
Frank

--- On Sun, 28/11/10, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:

> From: Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Advice on a 17" printer
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Sunday, 28 November, 2010, 21:06
> Luminous landscape likes to level the
> field and act like HP or Canon
> printers are serious options to Epson printers while in the
> real word of
> serious work being done they are not. You go to a gallery
> or museum and the
> odds of a print not being an Epson is about zero. One might
> take that into
> account when making this kind of commitment to a printer
> and all the work
> you'd be putting into it. If there's something wrong with
> your print quality
> the first thing on the list is "it's not an Epson". Sooner
> or later the
> other companies might start to catch up but they are not
> perceived to have
> come close to having done so yet.? You want a support
> group to help you with
> making your prints look as good as the stuff you are seeing
> on walls and in
> the top photographers portfolios you'll be able to get it
> from Epson as
> that's what everybody is using. That you'd be able to get
> it from an HP or
> Canon and who may be on those lists - who knows?
> Regardless which camera or lens you might be using to get a
> shot it all has
> to come out that printer. It's not a place to make grand
> experiments.
> 
> 
> --------------------
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photography
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> mark at rabinergroup.com
> Cars:???http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:37:27 +1000
> > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Advice on a 17" printer
> > 
> > My two cents is to stick to Epson and get the 3880
> unless you really
> > desire
> the roll capability. Spend the difference on media and ink.
> Which ever
> > you
> get you need to learn it and use it regularly? to get
> the best from it.
> A
> > least in my history with the 3800, I very very seldom
> actually print
> larger
> > than A3+. Still if you were a pano kind of
> > guy.........
> 
> Cheers
> Geoff
> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman
> 
> 
> On 29 November 2010
> > 04:09, Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > In keeping with the spirit
> > of accommodation and generosity that the
> > Yuletide season has been
> > commercialized into in the U.S. of A., SWMBO is
> > kindly, unaccountably, once
> > again acting as enabler to my addiction by
> > consenting to my being surprised
> > by the appearance Christmas morn of a
> > wide-carriage printer under the
> > tree.
> >
> > Since I have always been an Epson user (up to my
> current R2400),
> > the
> > presumed default choice would be the 3880 or the 4880.
> I have read here
> > that
> > for private users like me, the 488o offers no real
> advantage over the
> >
> > smaller, lighter, less-expensive 3880, so up to now my
> choice would probably
> >
> > have been the 3880. However, the newly announced 4900
> (around which the
> >
> > budget might be stretched, provided the counter space
> can be as well) might
> >
> > offer a reason to go long and deep on this one. My
> understanding of the
> >
> > recent history of the Epson printer line is as
> follows:
> >
> >? ? ? ? 1.? ? ? The
> > x880 printers were an advancement in some fairly
> minor
> > details over the
> > x800s, including the addition of Vivid Magenta to the
> > Ultrachrome K3
> > inkset
> >
> >? ? ? ? 2.? ? ? The
> latest x900s have the new Ultrachrome HDR ink
> > palette as
> > well as new and improved heads
> >
> >? ? ? ? 3.? ? ? The
> x890s added
> > this better head technology to the x880s
> > without moving up to the HDR
> > inks
> >
> >? ? ? ? 4.? ? ? The
> 4-series and larger printers are the only ones
> > that can
> > accommodate the newer head technology, so there will
> never be a
> > 3890 or 3900
> >
> > The Luminous Landscape review of the 7900 certainly
> gives me
> > reason to
> > think that its smaller sibling the 4900 might be worth
> the extra
> > cost and
> > space requirements, but it's too soon for any reviews
> of it to
> > have
> > appeared.
> >
> > All that said, I must concede that I'm not wedded to
> > Epson, and would
> > consider Canon or HP if there is good reason to.
> >
> > I
> > throw the floor open to comments and recommendations,
> both theoretical
> > and
> > experience-based.
> >
> > Thanks to all in advance,
> >
> > ?howard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See
> > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
> > information
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users
> > Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
> information
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
> information
>