🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.periphs.printers
Article #2436

S9000 still a viable option?

#2436
From: M i c C u l l e n
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:10
52 lines
3316 bytes
A supposed *friend* sent me a link earlier today, which showed the Canon
S9000 being run out for just AU$593 including shipping. (REAL friends
don't tempt you to spend money like this, do they? :-)

Given that the Epson 2100 (2200 for the US) is about AU$1700 and the
newer Canon i9100 is AU$1076.51, that price is pretty tempting. (A 2100
went secondhand for $1300 a month or so ago here in Perth.)

I simply cannot afford the 2100 (much as I'd like one, but I've spent
too much on glass and flashes and ... well, you get the idea) and I
can't see any benefit in the i9100 over the S9000. (Am I wrong?)

I don't care about the speed particularly, although it's a nice thing,
and I'm not chasing archival prints particularly. (A mate has the 2100,
(we've both got calibrated screens), so if I NEED it, I've got the
capability nearby, and I've got a Lexmark Optra R+ workgroup laser and a
Canon S600 for general printing here, although the new printer would
probably take over from the 600.)

I'm shooting with a Canon 10D (6MP) with some nice lenses, and I'm
printing for myself and friends - no clients to worry about.

I guess the thing I'm worried about is buying 'old' technology, although
I've read in a couple of places that the S900 and the i9100 share the
same printhead anyway, so that's that worry taken care of.

I have googled this to death (both web and newsgroups) and, not
surprisingly, found nothing definitive :-)

I did see a few people complaining that the S9000 was colour-shifting
after just 2-3 months no matter what they did to prevent it, which
didn't thrill me, although it didn't say what paper/ink combination was
used. While I'm not too worried about photos lasting 70 years (nobody
would care, I'm not AA) I'd like them to last a bit longer than 60 days.

A lot of other people, however, are saying lots of good things about the
S9000.

I'm also planning on using third-party inks, although a CIS is probably
going a bit far for my intended usage, so it'd just be a 'fill the
cartridges' thing.

Would be a lot easier if it was either completely brilliant or
completely crappy :-)

Your opinions please.
--

cheers, Mic     (Reply address works...)

"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."
            -- Mark Twain
Technical Details
Message-ID: <i7uavv8c1l99999i4ca9f897bul3sfceb8@4ax.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!nntp.waia.asn.au!203.30.44.185.MISMATCH!funnel.arach.net.au!not-for-mail

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 104d8a,1d8fabcbabed852d,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid104d8a,public
X-Google-Thread: 109d17,1d8fabcbabed852d,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid109d17,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-02 06:11:55 PST
From: M i c C u l l e n <nospam@cross.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.periphs.printers,aus.photo
Subject: S9000 still a viable option?
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:10:49 +0800
Organization: Cross Purposes Studios
Reply-To: nospam@cross.com.au
Message-ID: <i7uavv8c1l99999i4ca9f897bul3sfceb8@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.89.171.174
X-Trace: funnel.arach.net.au 1073052653 202.89.171.174 (2 Jan 2004 22:10:53 +0800)
Lines: 53
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!nntp.waia.asn.au!203.30.44.185.MISMATCH!funnel.arach.net.au!not-for-mail