Canon S9000, Epson 960 or 2200

leo

unread,

Jan 19, 2003, 3:26:06 PM1/19/03

to

At first, I was interested in S9000, because it's an A3 printer and is
closer to my price range. I then heard 960 has separate ink cartridge and
what sold me is the CD printing capability. Last is the 2200 which is $200
more than S9000 but the ink is supposed to have archival advantage. I have
my eyes set on the cheapest 960 for now, but if the other two are really
worth the extra cost, I might as well get it now.

Steve Wilks

unread,

Jan 19, 2003, 3:46:10 PM1/19/03

to

"leo" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:yRDW9.1472$bL4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

The S9000 is far superior to the other two printers. it has six seperate ink
cartridges and far better print quality

Steve

Ron Blocher

unread,

Jan 19, 2003, 4:04:10 PM1/19/03

to

The Epson 960 also has 6 cartridges, and the Epson 2200 has 7 cartridges (a
light black to make objects in shadows to stand out better).

The reviews that I have read say that the output of the Epson 2200 is
somewhat better than the Canon S9000, but the Canon is approximately twice
as fast as the Epson. I believe the S9000 uses dye inks and the 2200 uses a
pigmented ink which increases the lifespan of the pictures to approximately
80 years.

There are some good reviews at PCmagizine.com and PCworld.com (I believe
these are the correct sites).

My brother has an Epson 960 and the pictures are the best that I have ever
seen, and all of the reviews that I have read, rate it just below the Epson
2200.

Ron Blocher
rtb...@attbi.com

"Steve Wilks" <steve@wilks31[NoSpam].fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b0f2qn$rp4$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...

Shepherd

unread,

Jan 19, 2003, 5:00:02 PM1/19/03

to

"Steve Wilks" <steve@wilks31[NoSpam].fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b0f2qn$rp4$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>

The Epson 960 has SEVEN separate ink cartridges and produces fantastic
photographs.

Combined with my Sony DSC F-707 and PhotoShop 7.0 I fail to see how one
could achieve any better photographs.

However, I'm sure there are many others getting results that please them
from all kinds of equipment.

Shepherd

Yada

unread,

Jan 19, 2003, 6:52:21 PM1/19/03

to

why would you include the 960 in this comparison? it is not a "wide"
printer... if you are comparing the 9000 with the 2200 I would think
that "wide" is important to you...

at any rate, both the 9000 and 2200 produce great photos... the 9000
prints much faster.... the deciding factor for me though was fact that
the 9000 will NOT print full bleed at 13x19"... whereas the 2200
does.... and this is important to me so I chose the 2200 and am very
happy with it

flycaster

unread,

Jan 19, 2003, 7:51:02 PM1/19/03

to

"Steve Wilks" <steve@wilks31[NoSpam].fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b0f2qn$rp4$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>

> The S9000 is far superior to the other two printers....

Wrong. They each do some things better than the others.

Henrik

unread,

Jan 22, 2003, 3:12:06 AM1/22/03

to

Hi Leo,

I have both the Canon S900 (smaller version (A4) of the S9000(A3)) and the
Epson 2100/2200.

Where the Canon is very fast the Epson makes up for it in quality. Should I
choose one, I would be the Epson any time.

I use and have used it with Canon D60 camera and now the Canon 1Ds and the
Epson is just fantastic, worth the extra money...now, having just gotten the
new Canon 1Ds I should have bought the Epson 7600 24" :-))) <grin>

best regards

Henrik

Happy Printing

"leo" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:yRDW9.1472$bL4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...