Digital BW, The Print

> I'm not sure what you mean by a '7600 equivalent' to the Canon 8200.
> The 8200 is a 42" printer, so it would be an approximate 9600
> equivalent.  From what I've heard the 8200 is much faster than the
> Epsons, which will probably be of more importance to people doing
> commercial printing.  It's a 6-color printer.  And I've only heard
> one response to prints from it, which said the results were nice but
> just shy of the Epsons.  This is not personal experience, just the
> few tidbits I've heard.  I've heard nothing about the printer's B&W
> capabilities, but it is a CcMmYK printer, so there's no Light Black
> ink.  Which suggest B&W not up to par with the Epsons, but who
> knows.  I'm hardly anywhere near an expert yet.  Just trying to help
> out with what I've heard.
> 
> Mike

Hi

I was wondering if they would do a 24" width version?. The dealer I spoke to
was very keen on pointing out the speed, but since I usually only do a few a
few prints a day, that¹s not the greatest selling point :-))

If the promised 4000 turns up, I'll see about getting some B/W prints from a
Canon as well.

bye for now   

Keith Cooper

Canons are great for speed, but not for fine quality.  and of course dye in=
ks suck 
unless they are for your own use where you don't mind if they fade, or you =
pamper 
them so they will fade more slowly.

There is a reason that all knowledgeable photographers uses Epsons with pig=
ment 
inks, partly not wanting to stick customers with fading prints.

Bill.

> Hi
> 
> I was wondering if they would do a 24" width version?. The dealer I spoke=
 to
> was very keen on pointing out the speed, but since I usually only do a fe=
w a
> few prints a day, that¹s not the greatest selling point :-))
> 
> If the promised 4000 turns up, I'll see about getting some B/W prints fro=
m a

> Canon as well.
> 
> bye for now   
> 
> Keith Cooper