Printer for a Canon digital camera?

[Randall]

Speaking of digital cameras...

One of my clients just got a Canon G2 (or maybe it's a G3) and asked me about inkjet printers. I've got strong HP leanings, but I wonder if a Canon photo printer would make more accurate prints from one of their own cameras.

I see that HP and Canon both support the Exif Print standard, but Canon seems to support it across a wider range of printers.

Randall

[hobbes]

I prefer having the option of printing larger sizes and have been quite pleased with an Epson 1280.

[Jeff]

I'm still using an Epson 1270 and haven't seen any non-epson printer beat its quality.

Then again, all the nozzle cleaning required to keep Epson's printing top quality are a pain in the neck.

[Jeff]

I see that HP and Canon both support the Exif Print standard, but Canon seems to support it across a wider range of printers.
P.S. What exactly does this mean? How do the printers use the exif data?

[Randall]

Then again, all the nozzle cleaning required to keep Epson's printing top quality are a pain in the neck. Yeah, it's the nozzle stuff that makes me shy away from Epson. I've seen some pretty remarkable stuff from my lowly HP 932C -- can an Epson be that much better, or is it just a matter of degree? I can't see for myself because I don't know anyone who has one.
What exactly does this mean? How do the printers use the exif data? Here's some of the stuff I've been reading about it:

http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro_en/faq/general/en/FAQ_gen_en_49.htm
http://usa.canon.com/html/conCprSupport.jsp?type=exif&sname=printers&section=10199
http://h20021.www2.hp.com/

But I'm wondering just how "standard" the standard is. Does "night scene mode" mean the same thing for a Canon and a Nikon? I haven't found any serious evaluations of it, just press releases and marketing copy.

:blah: Randall

[Matt]

I got the Canon S900 and am very pleased with the speed and quality. I have experienced paper feed issues with numerous HP printers and will not buy HP for this reason. The Epson has nice printouts, but it always takes a long time for the head-cleaning cycle to complete. The Canons also have user serviceable print heads, which was another selling point for me. There's a wide format version of this printer available as well, if that's what you're looking for. I've gotten the Canon S900 working at full resolution under Linux if that's a consideration.

Hope you're happy with the printer you finally decide on.
-Matt

[Randall]

It's for a client, not for me. But I don't like to recommend something I wouldn't use myself.

I'm giving the Canon S820 serious thought. HP's new photo printers are getting mixed reviews; some love them, others aren't so sure, and everyone complains that the ink costs are too high. Meanwhile, people are making favorable comparisons between the latest Canon bubble jets and Epson's photo printers. And I've got to think that a Canon camera and a Canon printer would benefit from sharing the same software. No one else is serious about cameras and printers.

Randall

[Jeff]

I still don't quite believe that the close connection between a canon camera and a canon printer and the sharing of exif data for example will improve the quality of prints in any real way yet. For example, while I see the exif data can tell me a lot about the photo (it was shot at this aperture and ISO or with this flash mode, etc.), I don't see how this directly translates into telling the printer what's wrong with or how to correct the photo for an ideal print. Well, maybe if it was shot at a high ISO in low light, the print software could reduce the noise, or it could look for redeye if a flash was used... but to me it seems like that sort of correction should be done either in the camera or with the camera software on the computer, not in the saved image to printer phase. I'd be curious to see it working, but I haven't yet. And I suppose since a single letter-sized inkjet print on glossy photo paper runs me $2-$3, I'd rather tweak the tone curve or saturation myself to make sure every one is just right and as I wanted myself since the tweaking only takes 10 seconds and the inkjet print takes 1-3 minutes. Or I'd rather have the software optimize and correct the photo in the camera -> computer phase so I could see it on screen first before paying for a print that's not as I desired. I want a printer to simply deliver a color-accurate best quality version of whatever is on my screen, if it's a graphic or a photo or a rendering.

[Jeff]

BTW, does canon send out color print samples for their inkjets? I think I'm biased against them because everyone around here seems to have one of the ~$100 ultra-compact 4-color BJC's from 1 or 2 years ago, and those are less than stellar compared to the 4, 6, or 7 color Epsons from 4-years ago to the present. But I bet canon's 6- and 7- color models are much better and I wouldn't be surprised if they're starting to catch up with Epson.

[Randall]

I'm not necessarilly thinking in terms of Exif Print. Just an unfounded, unscientific and possibly wrong suspicion that Canon's printers understand their cameras better than other brands would. That's why I was hoping someone who owns both could offer an opinion, one way or the other.

My belief that inkjet printers work best with the manufacturer's paper has been confirmed by a number of sources, so a camera/printer bias doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.
But I bet canon's 6- and 7- color models are much better and I wouldn't be surprised if they're starting to catch up with Epson. That's the impression I'm getting. Too bad you can't compare printers online as easily as cameras -- I haven't seen anything about requesting print samples.

Randall