Rating: 
Summary: Look out Mac Users! Epson thinks you're second rate!
Review: With all the hype and buzz about this printer, Epson has released it before it's ready to use! Most of the advanced features (the one's I bought it for) don't work with OS X and Epson is blatantly unapologetic about it. You can't use the Roll Feeder, You can't use the Paper Cuter, You can't use the Straight Path Feed Through, You can't swap out the custom black inks.... boy I'm getting tired of listing the things you can't do. Maybe I should just list the things you can do.... you can do a plain print. There that was easy. And of course they don't advertise this or print disclaimers on the box or anything....Nooooo! Deception? It ain't all it's cracked up to be so save your money til Epson gets a clue and makes drivers that actually work. P.S. They are going to try and blame this on Apple, all my other apps run on OS X just fine. It's all really too bad because the prints are gorgeous! And oh yes, I've yet to meet anyone who could get the firewire connection to work.
Rating: 
Summary: 2200s Firewire Connection Burns Me Up
Review: I have tried and tried every configuration imaginable to get my Epson 2200 to work with a firewire connection. Everytime it freezes my computer. As long as I have another firewire device connected, and do not uninstall the utilities that install with the driver the printer freezes my system. Firewire adapter cards come with 2, 3, or 4 ports-- why! because you can put 2,3, or 4 devices on them! BUT NOT AN EPSON 2200. (W)
Windows 2000 Pro NT
Pent 4 1.8 gig
Maxtor 120 gig harddrive
512 memoryITS NOT THE COMPUTER!
Rating:
Summary: out of stock for months
Review: So what if it's a good product if no one has it in stock? Epson is totally unresponsive! Epson is promoting the product, yet it's not producing enough units so that people can buy it!
Rating: 
Summary: Be Careful at Parties
Review: This printer was one of my office favorites. It did everything well, printed great quality color copies, photos, ran quiet, easy to load, just real fine overall. But it does have an Archilles Heel: A tippy Dipper at an office party with a soggy paper cup of good French wine. Do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT, under any circumstances, let red wine get spilled ANYWHERE on the Epson Stylus Photo 2200 Inkjet Printer!!! Especially the top. Yes, your's truly, The Dipper, yabbling away and gesticulating wildly while describing a turkey hunt I had been on a few years ago, accidentally spilled my whole seventh cup of grape nectar into the printer when the soggy cup's bottom fell out. It was a good thing the boss was more hosed than I because he missed the whole thing! I later sent an item to print to see if I had committed involuntary bacchaprinticide. The Epson made a noise similar to a congested bullfrog sneezing before emitting a tiny wisp of smoke as it went "off line" forever. This is a great product when kept dry and away from dimwits. Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Epson 2200 V Canon S9000
Review: If you are interested in an Epson 2200 then the chances are you want 13x19 output (or roll) and long lasting prints. Otherwise why read this review hey? If so then you possibly have also considered a Canon S9000. Well my recommendation for you is to definitely stick to the Epson 2200. My experience with the Canon was not good. The Canon product seems to be developing a growing reputation for poor print life resulting from color shifts and bleaching of the pigments. I speak from experience for I used a printer with their BCI-6 inks and it was a disaster with prints on their paper only lasting a few weeks! From the word I got at Photokina this year, Canon is going to have printers with pigmented inks released next year (so hold your breath on that one). So I sold my Canon and now have used the Epson 2200 for about a month and I really am impressed. Get the paper ICC profiles (download Epson Aust) and you are in business with stunning prints! Rich blacks too...wow! These profiles btw are pretty dam good. I made some with Monaco ICC profile builder and they were not necessary. They did however benefit the Nikon Coolscan 4000 but that is another story. Ok any negatives. Yes, Epson US does not issue the 2200 with the gray balancer software (so for improved monochrome print matching you may download this software from Epson elsewhere and pretend you have a Epson 2100), also if you are buying this remember a cable (IEEE-1394 is fastest). In terms of output speed, it is not as fast a Canon, but there it is more flexibility in my opinion with roll paper and paper cutters. The Epson media is also generally a bit cheaper than that of Canon so that is a bonus. So in conclusion, the extra $$ outlaid for the Epson will be recovered in print longevity. I would say do your self a favor and indulge.
Rating:
Summary: Very Nice!!
Review: Yes, I've read some of the other reviews on this printer and some good points are made on which papers to use for the best quality prints. But I can't agree with only 2 or 3 stars either. Standard glossy paper hasn't done well for for me for some reason, neither was I impressed with Epsons archival matte paper either, but others I know like it. However, media choice is the key to getting this printer to reach its optimum potential. Using Epsons line of premium papers produces photos that rival any I have had done at pro photo labs.
I am extremely fond of the Premium Luster and Premium Semi-gloss papers. The colors are very well saturated with very good contrast. After scanning the negs and doing some minimal touch-up in photoshop to my liking, I import the files to film factory. Film factory is bundled with this printer and is a very user friendly application to make printing quite easy. Yes, there is a small learning curve to see what this printer likes, but, it didn't take long before I was producing prints that you couldn't tell from the photo lab. In fact, after some adjustment on portraits especially, I liked mine better. The quality is excellent!
Ink usage is not bad overall, with the exception of the light inks especially the light magenta which seems to be its favorite to use, followed closely by light cyan and light black. However, because each color is in its own cartridge makes it to where you change only those that run low and not all of the colors at once.
Set up was easy and we were printing in just a short time. But as I said the learning curve on media use sure wasted some ink and paper. I cannot stress enough using the premium papers with this printers while also having sufficient file size for the larger prints. I've run several different 20MB 8X10's that were tack sharp on the 1440 setting. However I prefer files of 30-plus megs and larger for most 8X10's and 11X14's.
With just a little practice, anyone can be printing like a pro right from your desktop. Yes there are cheaper ones out there, but I've learned you get what you pay for. And, it depends on your needs. But for prints that will rival most film labs, the 2200 is a winner.
Rating: 
Summary: Mixed feelings
Review: Great print quality on premium glossy photo paper when you look at them directly - but terrible when you looked at them from an angle. They look splotchy and not "glossy". Epson kind of acknowledges this but says it will look better on matt or semi-matt papers. Windows XP driver default installation caused my machine to reboot spontaneously. I thought my computer was broken! The driver needs to be partially uninstalled to work, but then it works fine. Couldn't find ICM color profiles after installing the software, but you can get them from Epson UK or Australia web sites. Couldn't find a color profile for the ColorLife paper.
Rating:
Summary: Do not be blinded by the hype!
Review: While this printer is indeed better than many, it still has a long, long way to go to compete with your analog print producer on the corner. You *will* see grain and red-saturated prints in spite of your best efforts. If you must have an Epson, they offer comparable quality sub [price]
Rating:
Summary: Shattered the previous limits of my Digital Photography...
Review: I have only had my 2200 for 2 weeks so far, but have enjoyed using it immensely. I have a 5.1 megapixal cam, but was disappointed that my great "on-screen" photos didn't look the same when printed out. I even purchased a Sony dye-sublimation printer, thinking that pairing it with the Sony cam (DSCF707) would produce great results. I was limited to a maximum print size of 4x6", and the final pictures were not thrillingly vivid. I used my Canon S300 to print larger 8x10's of my vacation shots. It did great for a 100 dollar printer, but again, fell short of my camera's ability to produce great photos.
I knew there had to be a printer out there that could meet my expectations. After shopping around I purchased one that claimed to print over 5 megapixals, but returned it after reading it's poor reviews. (Lex....)
Enter the Epson 2200... Wow...all the reviews and information I read on it sounded GREAT, so I ordered it, and waited impatiently for 2 weeks for it to arrive. I ordered extra paper and cartridges, knowing I would burn a lot of both to get the hang of the printer.
So far the pictures have exceeded my expectations, and then some. I have used the Epson Premium Gloss, Semi-Gloss, Premium Luster, Archival Matte, and Watercolor papers. The Premium Luster produces the most professional looking, and feeling photo, and contrary to other comments about the matte paper...I have had excellent results with it. (I have only used the Epson Archival/Enhanced Matte Paper on the "auto" mode using Print Image Matching) In fact, it rivals the depth and color of my glossier paper, without the glare...and my B&W prints never looked better.
A word to the wise. This printer specifies only certain papers for best results. I would not put low grade gas into a fine auotmobile, nor cheap paper into my Epson 2200.
I am still learning the software, and how to edit the photos for best color, etc. So far, with the exception of a couple of prints, I have had the best results printing the photos untouched, with Print Image Matching. It seems to print my pictures very close to the way they appear on the Monitor.
As for the ink, I have printed over 30 8x10's or larger, and my lowest 2 cartridges are around 25% ..the rest at still half, or above.
To say the least, I am VERY happy with this printer. It has re-kindled my desire to frame that perfect photo...and givin me the ability to flawlessly transfer it onto paper.
Happy photo taking! JW
Rating:
Summary: An Unbelieveable Companion to Nikon's D100!
Review: I have had the opportunity to play around with this printer for a few days and must say that the output is the most amazing that I have ever seen from a consumer oriented inkjet printer. Now, there are some points that are problematic, but I believe that overall, this printer deserves the 5 stars. I purchased the printer as a companion for my Nikon D100 digital SLR camera. The two features that were critical in my decision to go with this over other cameras on the market are the ability to print up to 2880x1440dpi and the max paper size of 13x19inches. When the printer first arrived, I was a bit skeptical and dissappointed to find that the OSX support is quite basic. Now, it is important to note that all features are supported in Classic mode, but as many can understand, this is a bit of a hassle. That said, I have found in my experience so far that there isn't anything that I would like to do that I can't with OSX. Boarderless printing might be a concern to others, so I will point out that you cannot print Boarderless in OSX. That said, as a semi-professional photographer, I don't care for boarderless prints at all. You often loose some of the image because the size of the actual image seldom matches the size of the paper and cropping almost always happens. The paper-roll is another option that is not available through OSX, but quite frankly, I have very little use for it. Despite these slight bad points, I was able to everything that I would ever want to do right out of the box. It took me a few test strips to get the first truly impressive print and from that moment on I've been getting fantastic picture one after another. I've tested a number of types of paper in a number of settings and have found the following: Colorsync (the setting in OSX that is supposed to match the image on the screen in terms of accuracy) was not really desireable. Colors were weak, blacks were not on target, overall lackluster. I found that photorealistic created fantastic output at 2880-1440dpi. Also, it is VERY important to note that the quality of prints jumps DRAMATICALLY between regular matte photopaper and actual glossy or semi-glossy photopaper. A word to film photographers: terminology in digital, injet printing paper is slightly different from regular photographic media. What we know as "matte" paper is a lot more like regular printer paper. I would recommend Semi-glossy, or Pearl if you want heafty paper, but not "shiny." I have tested the Epson brand of semi-glossy and it is very nice. The only problem is that it is on the whole more expensive that third party paper. I've done some research and testing and found that Ilford inkjet printing paper is fantastic with used on the 2200. Ilford recommends that you set your printer to Premium Glossy, but I tried both Premium Glossy and Semi-glossy and got equal results as far as I could see with the naked eye. I have also experimented with 13x19 prints and they are fantastic and gigantic. Printing times using a 600mhz iBook, 650mb ram, and firewire at max resolution are about 5 minutes for 8x10 and about 15 minutes for 13x19. Given the quality and the fact that the output looks as good as anything I've ever gotten from a professional developer, it is fine worth the wait. For the record, I am printing Tiffs recorded at the highest resolution that the D100 will handle. Each print is about 17.4MB in size. It may be that with prints of smaller file-size the printing times are reduced, but for archival purposes, I max out the file-sizes of my digital photography and I find it to be equal to that of film (at least as far as I've compared to my old film-based prints) One last minor problem is the ink. The cartriges (seven total) are small and after printing about 15 prints, all at max resolution, I find that some of the colors (the light colors in particular) are about 1/4 of the way used. This leads me to two thoughts: 1. do not print max resolution until you are doing your final prints. 2. They could have made the cartriges bigger in order to make it a bit more cost effective. That said, this is perhaps the best printer for digital photography that I have ever seen and I am more than willing to give it 5 stars despite some minor problems here and there. N.
|
