Quote:>I guess my question is how *MUCH* better is the photo
>quality on the 932 (PhotoRet III vs. II) than on my 720?
>Is it worth replacing the printer.
The upgrade from PhotoRET II to III is definitely noticeable. The
dots were noticeable on the II printers even from a normal viewing
distance (not bad, but noticeable). The dots on the III printers are
not noticeable unless you inspect at a very close distance (less than
a foot). These are just my observations, however. If you've got the
money, I would suggest the upgrade. The difference isn't enormous,
but definitely worth it IMO.
Quote:>I know all the rage right now is the Epson 870/1270, but
>(1) I've been extremely happy with the reliability of
>my HP 720, (2) From the guestimates I've seen, the Epson
>will soon bankrupt me in ink costs compared to my HP
>(although I have no idea whether the ink usage data on
>the new 932 is more or less than my 720), (3) clogged
>jets, 'nuff said, and (4) big difference in price: The
>best I've seen in the Epson 870 is $279, while I can get
>an HP 930C for $177.
I'm sure the die-hard 870/1270 users will certainly try to convince
you to buy one anyway. Some of the reasons you listed, however, are
(1) I too have been pleased with the reliability of my HP printers
over the years.
(2) I don't think the ink consumption on the 870/1270 is much more
than the 970/1220... the ZDNet article someone pointed out a short
time ago listed the HP but not the Epson, but Epson's website lists
their color cartridge lifespan and from my calculations (I will post
them if you'd like), they are pretty similar. Of course, this depends
on what print settings you use, how much coverage, etc. The thing
that I was adamant about was that you can use ink refills in the HP
but not the Epson 870/1270. I just started using the refills for my
HP 1220 and let me tell you the quality is identical and MUCH cheaper
(not to mention very easy to do too).
(3) Epson 870/1770 fanatics will tell you that Epson's don't have
problems with cloggings, but I've seen a good deal of them on various
message boards. I certainly wouldn't say that you should *expect*
problems, but it's more likely on the Epson than the HP's since the
HP's have the head built in the cartridge. Yes, the carts are more
expensive, but since you can refill them (and not the Epson's), I see
that as a big advantage. Plus, I've never had to worry about
cloggings on any of my HP printers.
(4) Price, yes. Since the 932 is a lower speed (but same print
quality) printer, you won't be paying as much. This is a person issue
with you, of course so comment is not really neccessary.
Quote:>So, how much of a jump will I see in photo quality at the
The new HP printers can do Draft, Normal, Best (PhotoRET) and Best
(2400x1200). The PhotoRET setting does a decent job with prints
(better than the PhotoRET II printers, obviously) but the 2400x1200
mode looks even better. I've made several prints at 8x10, 10x13 and
11x14 and they all look wonderful. The 11x14's have a few "jaggies"
but that's because I'm only using 1600x1200 digital camera pics. Now
the Epson fanatics can point you to websites that show enlargements of
prints and compare the HP to the Epson - but it's your eyes (and the
eyes of those who receive your pictures) that matters. I've seen the
prints from an Epson 870 and the difference seems negligible to me at
normal viewing distances. At close inspection, I would concede that
the Epson does look better. At any rate, the prints made from the HP
look wonderful to me and those I have made prints for.
Hopefully, this helps a little. My suggestion would be to try the 932
and see for yourself and if you aren't happy, return it.