|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>It is very unlikely that you will ever get it both > ways: a very cheap printer, and very cheap ink. Well, we have cheap VCRs and tape. We have cheap CD-RWs and CDs. It is possible to have both. Whether we will remains to be seen. If the market is there, and Epson wants to play, it will happen in order to compete in that market. The archival ink only needs to be cheap enough to compete with the photo market (i.e. Kodak film +paper cost (including processing) = inkjet cost+paper cost) for both their digital camera AND printer sales (and resulting ink sales) to explode. Most home amateur photographers don't really see the difference in quality between inkjet printers and they don't really care that much if the quality of the picture is not up to "real" photos. They are photographing moments in time, trying to capture memories, not win photo contests. I will be amazed if Epson doesn't REALLY go after this market soon. To do so, they must have both cheap printers and archival consumables that can compete in price with Kodak or Fuji, or whomever. And they must be easy to use. I have printed some lower res images on my Epson 700 and can tell you that for most people, they are good enough (if they were only as archival.) But those same people think the consumables cost too much compared to having Kodak process and print their films. Many of them limit their output because of the consumables costs. I think Epson knocks out the archival question this next year, then makes a MAJOR push into that market. But people aren't stupid. If they can make 4x6 photos using Kodak cheaper, they will. I do. But then Epson has never been all that good at marketing, IMHO. We shall see. I'd love to have a digital camera, but it doesn't make all that much sense today. Maybe tomorrow. Charlie - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.