694C better photo-realism than 722C?????????

[Don Sterner]

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:21:20 GMT, NOSPAM...@intergate.bc.ca
(D. Frederickson) wrote:

> Just read an article on printers from PC World website. It
>seems to say that the 694C had the best photo reproduction out of all
>of them, including the 722C. This seems to be contrary to most of the
>other comments I have heard lately. Overall though, the 722C rated
>4th, and the 694C rated 5th. It also mentioned that the 722C photo
>quality was not as good as some Canons and Epsons, although it had
>some of the best text. Has anybody read this article? Any comments?

The photo reproduction capabilities of the 694 are better than
the 722/890 series, but only slightly so. However, the 722/890
printers have the capability of quality text printing, making
them a wonderful all-around printer while sacrificing only a
slight amount of photo quality. If you want a photo-only printer,
go for the 694. If you want a general purpose printer which will
also be used for images, get the 722/890.

[Steve]

In article <3471e8f6...@news.intergate.bc.ca>,
NOSPAM...@intergate.bc.ca says...

>
> Just read an article on printers from PC World website. It
>seems to say that the 694C had the best photo reproduction out of all
>of them, including the 722C. This seems to be contrary to most of the
>other comments I have heard lately. Overall though, the 722C rated
>4th, and the 694C rated 5th. It also mentioned that the 722C photo
>quality was not as good as some Canons and Epsons, although it had
>some of the best text. Has anybody read this article? Any comments?
>

Seems biased right from the start. Two upscale models (epson 800 and Canon
7000) going against HP's mid range 722? Why wasn't the HP890 tested? Was
it really necessary to test two of HP's lower cost models?

[Michael Greer]

Steve wrote:

On the surface this seems like a valid complaint. But it's really not.
The comparison was of image quality. Epson's 800 delivers the same image
quality as the 600. Likewise, HP's 890C delivers thre same image quality
as the 722C. The differences between HP's and Epson's "upscale" models
vs. their lower cost alernatives is speed and construction quality.
Therefore, testing the image quality of Epson's Stylus 600 ($280)
against HP's 890C ($450), should yield the same results as testing HP's
722C ($350) against Epson's 800 ($400).

The Canon 7000 is a more difficult call. It is designed to compete
against HP's Photosmart and Epson's Stylus Photo, yet with the photo
cart removed, it competes with the 890C and 800. Price wise, it competes
directly with the 890C and 800. That being said, if image quality only
is the main point of comparison, then the comparisons were valid.

--
Mike Greer

"Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.

Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision."

[D. Frederickson]

Just read an article on printers from PC World website. It
seems to say that the 694C had the best photo reproduction out of all
of them, including the 722C. This seems to be contrary to most of the
other comments I have heard lately. Overall though, the 722C rated
4th, and the 694C rated 5th. It also mentioned that the 722C photo
quality was not as good as some Canons and Epsons, although it had
some of the best text. Has anybody read this article? Any comments?

--
To Reply: Remove NOSPAM from NOSPAM...@intergate.bc.ca