Regarding HP 8750

[DaveA]

Vincent

Just read your 8750 review. I enjoyed the video part of the review, almost like having a hands on.
What im curious about is your comments about the brash colors as you call them. Is not the problem the driver? If so HP could undate them, or as in the Epson R-1800 one could do a work around? Would it not take a smlple reduction in Satuation to bring the colors down, to be more realistic? Im not a HP defender, as Im waiting for you to test the R-2400
and hoping it lives up to the press! I have only used Epson printers and would perfer staying with what I am used to, unless some ground breaking printer comes along, but in the interest of fair play and my own curiosity, how come you did not sugguest a work around, or is it not as simple as just reducing say,saturation?

Dave

[Vincent]

Yes, that would be a sollution Dave. The review was based on what I got out of the box, I have just added an extra page which covers custom profiles. I would experiment further with the 8750 except that I have just run out of ink, I was only supplied with the three cartridges.

[DaveA]

Vincent

Thanks for the response, just read the extra page on custom profiles.
Very imformative, glad you added it. I did not know custom profiles were that expensive?
If I read right, thats the cost of the printer inself and for only one type of paper?? No wonder you test out of the box! Im surprise at the way HP decides on there profiles,asking people off the street in uncontrolled conditions. Always assumed one would use a know reference chart and try and have the most accurate and neutral colors, a bit of an eye opener for me.


Dave

[Vincent]

It's the hardware and software that are expensive, you should be able to buy a tailor made custom profile for about £30 to £100.

HP use this technique for creating digitaol camera profiles and looking at the prints I would assume they use the same for the printers.

[samkatz]

Vincent,
are you willing to go out on a limb......Epson R1800 vs. HP8750...

as far as "best attainable output" on glossy paper?

tx

sk

It's the hardware and software that are expensive, you should be able to buy a tailor made custom profile for about £30 to £100.

HP use this technique for creating digitaol camera profiles and looking at the prints I would assume they use the same for the printers.

[Vincent]

No, I am not going to go out on a limb. One man's meat is another's poison. Both printers are very fine units and each has their good and bad points.

[jonstatt]

I think the right comparison is R1800 vs 8750 rather than R2400 if you conside price point. Both R1800 and 8750 are around the same cost (R1800 usually a little more expensive in fact). The R2400 is considerably more expensive. If budget is not an issue, then you should hold out for the reviews.

I think printer technology has reached the point where we are dealing with subtle differences that the majority of people will not notice. For example, the R1800 has the smallest drop size, significantly smaller I believe than the 8750. Yet, on the 8750 prints even if you stick your nose up to the paper, you cannot see the dots. I think it has now got down to the point of gimmick selling....HP adds a photo blue that only makes a very subtle difference...Epson reduces the droplet size that is hard to see.

HP clearly wanted to come in at an agressive pricepoint. I think this is part of the reason they dropped the colour screen aside from their own explanation of not needing it on a professional printer. The quality of the cabinet design is very strange with a very high quality metal top cover and glide-up screen, with a rather cheap looking shiny grey base. All these things suggest trying to squeeze in at a price point.

The Epson of course has no screen at all or memory card slots.

Below is an attempt to draw a comparison, not based on print quality (which I suspect might be futile except for B&W printing) but on other aspects. You need to make a decision based on needs.

HP 8750 - Pros
LCD display/status screen
Memory card slots
Pictbridge
Printhead integrated with cartridge means no persistent clogging issues
Dedicated B&W printing through mid and light grey
Archive printing on HPs own paper
Network socket
Solid construction
Front paper feed (if veritical space is an issue)

Cons
No CD printing
Archive printing only on HPs own paper
Canned profiles do not do printer justice in all uses
Not a design masterpiece
Panaoramic printing limited (unsure if hardware or software limitation)
Ink more expensive than Epson and combined in groups of 3

Epson R1800 - Pros
Firewire
CD printing
Gloss coating
Matte black for matte media
Archival printing from multiple paper vendors
Panoramic printing
Roll printing
Canned profiles are good
Paper output tray nicely sprung loaded
Good construction
Nicer overall design than 8750

Cons
No screen/display
No dedicated B&W inks
No memory card slots
No network socket
Print heads integrated "could" result in clogging problems such as after a period of non-use
No pictbridge



For me, I would choose the HP simply because as a keen amateur I do not print every week. I have had Epsons that have clogged and I have never got them to be the same again. Maybe I have now built-up a phobia. I would rather have the higher ink cost of the HP but know clogging won't affect me. I am also a keen enthusiast of B&W printing but cannot justify the R2400 cost because I am not a professional. With the 8750 I would probably need to invest in purchasing custom profiles or wait for HP to improve them (which I am sure they will but might take a long time)

Jonathan

[Murray Foote]

Jon

I had an R800 and now I have an R1800. I don't think that head clogging with Epson printers is the problem it was say 5 years ago. I don't recall anyone in this forum or the old one who used OEM inks reporting a clogging problem with the R800. I had some problems for a while because I was hanging on too long before changing cartridges but that was letting air into the lines rather than clogging. I make a point of putting a print through every month as a precaution against clogging but it may not be necessary.

From my perspective print quality and permanence are the only criteria - I couldn't care less about pictbridge and card slots. According to Wilhelm research the 8750 has good durability but the R1800 is better. The comparison with the R2400 is still relevant because I would have thought that the main reason for purchasing the 8750 would be its monochrome capbilities at a more affordable price than the R2400.

Also check out this thread if you haven't already done so, especially posts by Peter Jones: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?t=17&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Regards,
Murray

[GURL]

Something new from France ?

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/search/pdf/090017ad821b422d.pdf

At the end of the above French version of the .pdf document describing the 8750 I found:

Durée de vie des consommables:
C9363EE Cartouche d’impression 3-couleurs HP 344 (14 ml) : environ 360 photos (10 x 15 cm) avec l’impression 9 encres
C9365AE Cartouche d’impression bleue photo HP 101 (13 ml) : environ 340 photos (10 x 15 cm) avec l’impression 9 encres
C9360AE Cartouche d’impression grise photo HP 102 (23 ml) : environ 140 photos (10 x 15 cm) avec l’impression 9 encres
C9360AE Cartouche d’impression grise photo HP 102 (23 ml) : environ 110 photos (10 x 15 cm) avec l’impression noir et blanc

(cartouche = cartridge - impression = printing - environ = about - encre = ink)

Because 10 x 15 cm corresponds to the eighth part of A3 size, I conclude that HP (France!) is saying that when using 1 HP 344 + 1 HP 101 + 2 HP 102, one can get about 40 A3 prints!

Printer manufacturers giving informations regarding ink consumption when printing photos would be so useful (provided those indications are exact and unambiguous) that I can't resist to show them to you, though I didn't find any corresponding info in the English version...

My error: same info in United Kingdom-English version ! (bottom of page 2)
http://h20195.www2.hp.com/search/pdf/090017ad821758a8.pdf

[jonstatt]

Something new from France ?
Because 10 x 15 cm corresponds to the eighth part of A3 size, I conclude that HP (France!) is saying that when using 1 HP 344 + 1 HP 101 + 2 HP 102, one can get about 40 A3 prints!

But what it does not state is what print quality you have to use to get that consumption. Perhaps it is draft mode!

Jonathan

[Vincent]

40 A4 prints in Best quality - but 40 A3 prints may be wishful thinking

[GURL]

Would we buy a car with such a large imprecision about miles per gallon? (interestingly enough this number varies according to where the car is used, but comparisons between cars are meaningful).

I believe accurate numbers would be available for ink use if users wanted that. Photography is a strange domain where cameras are analyzed and criticized like few other industrial products are but every "after shot" issue tend to be neglected (one exception is Photo-i !). French photography magazine Chasseur d'Images and consumers magazine Que Choisir? conducted a (not perfect but serious) test asking 600 photo-labs to print 12 digital test images: the (terrible) results* are such that one could ask why so many thousands digital SLR were sold in France during recent years!
________
*: Results are not available online but if Vincent is interested he should feel free to send me an e-mail.

[flint350]

Johnathan,

While I find your comparison interesting, IMO it veers somewhat off course, as so many similar comparisons do on other forums, like dpreview where dissent is lambasted with personal attacks by loyalists on both brands.

In the current case, you admittedly omit "output quality" as a consideration, given the difficulty this would require for objective opinion. As Vincent wisely states "one mans meat...."

That said, I believe feature comparisons should be based mainly on two issues: useful features to the intended customer and lack of necessary features for the same customer. Including things like the lack of an edit screen, no CD printing and "not a manufacturing masterpiece" as "Cons" for the HP are questionable, as the oppposing "Pros" for the Epson (except the edit screen is on neither.)

I find HP's explanation on lack of the edit screen quite reasonable. This is a large printer that is intended for use mostly with a computer and not generally considered mobile. The only time such a screen would be useful is printing in the field or when no computer is available - and that just isn't what it is designed for. I can't see many folks dashing off to grandma's to knock off a few quick prints with this monster and need an editing screen to do it. The "look" of manufacture is absolutely irrelevant to most, who are looking for features and output, not frilly cosmetics. How many serious pro's or even advanced amateurs do you really think need CD printing? I believe it's a marketing frill (others may disagree) that adds cost and potential maintenance issues and ink waste. There are other examples of such comparison categories, but I think you get my meaning.

It is not that I am an avid HP advocate, although I bought the HP over the Epson and am happy with my choice. I agree with the really meaningful "Cons" on the HP - slow, ink volume is horribly small and media are much more limited. I disagree with your finding that the HP profiles are not so good out of the box. I find them very good, except they are limited in number due to limited media. I've read where the Epson profiles need considerable tweaking, so I don't know why you feel the opposite about the Epson profiles.

Sometimes these comparisons get way off base. I like to read them anyway, as they are still of interest. I just like to also find info about the real world use and intentions of the printer and how it meets those needs. Vincent's usual approach with the full interactive reviews probably most closely approaches what I find most useful. With print output, resolution, color shifts and vibrance, as well as useful features. It was why I was disappointed that the HP 8750 came late and with little media to allow him to conduct a review similar to the R1800 review. It not only hurts HP, but it hurts those trying to make a balanced comparison between the two printers that most current buyers seem to be so closely undecided upon. In effect, I had to do some guesswork on my decision and, happily, it turned out ok for me. I could probably say the same if I had decided on the Epson instead - I'm sure the two are that close.

Ray

[jonstatt]

Hi Ray,

I agree on the whole with everything you said.

Is CD printing a marketing frill, if none of the target audience care about this feature? It won't sell it. So for whatever reason, Epson must believe they will sell more printers if they implement and advertise this feature.

I did stumble across a post in some forum where a user had decided on the Epson, and one of their reasons were its looks over the HP. Of course if the performance difference between HP and Epson was largely in Epson's favour, then this would be a rediculous notion.

As the performance of the two is so close, it is going to be the little things, toys under the Christmas tree, that decide which one gets chosen. Is the most desriable toy, a glide up LCD screen, memory slots, CD printing or firewire.

As for my comment on the profiles. My friends 8750 did not seem to suffer the same level of colour cast as Vincents. This is worrying in a sense because perhaps it implies that different 8750s are outputting differently making a standard profile impossible. I listed that as an issue because of the review model and Neil's who had a similar problem.

Epson also sells itself. It has a fanbase and reputation in the industry which despite their own set of issues, seems to always stay on top. Someone posted on luminous landscape that they wished to purchase an A3 printer for 400 UK pounds. Immediately someone suggested the R1800. I suggested they also evaluate the 8750. Within a couple of hours there was the expected post about longevity and water proofness. When I mentioned 102 years with HP paper, it was pointed out that Epson could manage 200 years. I decided to refrain from yet another HP vs Epson flamed debate. The underlying tone was clear, that the mention of an HP printer was distasteful to some and there was ONLY one brand worth considering.

To build up a good pro and con profile as you suggested, means defining a target customer. Most comparisons/reviews want to be more general to appeal to a wider audience.

I have no strong affiliation with either brand. I own printers from both manufacturers. Personally, I have now decided on an 8750 (with bundled colorimeter). I have chosen it because B&W is important to me. I have chosen it because it produces good colour prints as well. And finally I have chosen it because I appear to have an uncurable phobia of Epson clogged heads (dpreview shows a first post from someone who had it with an R1800). And I also chose it, because I cannot justify the 600 UK pounds that the R2400 will cost being a keen amateur who wishes to frame a few of his choice photographs in A3+ size on the wall (or the walls of friends and family)

I am glad that you are happy with your 8750 and I wish you continued troublefree printing.

Jonathan

[Vincent]

The HP 8750 proved itself to be a great printer, but I had to wait for a custom profile first. I hope HP will address this issue and quickly supply an alternative profile. I enjoyed using both the 7960 and 8450 printers and no doubt the 8750 will prove itself to be a desireable printer.

I do feel guilty when I make harsh comments on any equipment, I know the effort and dedication that is put into a new product and its launch. My loyalty stays with the reader/consumer, after all we reviewers praise equipment that is below par then the value of our report, together with the site goes down the drain.