Hot - Sony DPP-SV55 Digital Photo Printer - Dye Sublimation - $99.99 + tax AR!!

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: kewl

i have an i850 and it's great.

Just a data point for anyone interested: In Consumer Reports this month, the i850 is ranked as number four after Canon S520, Canon S530D, and HP 995c.

Everything - And I mean EVERYTHING - In consumer reports is bunk. Utter filth and rubbish.

They base their reviews off of ad revenue. Anyone who has the intelligence of a chimp and the computer experience of an Amish baby could tell you that.

The i850 is a lovely printer. Not a bad price point for what it offers. Unfortunately, its small 2-picoliter droplets cannot compensate for the lack of a 6-color system. Where photo-quality output is tantamount, you're best off with either an Epson 925 or a Canon 950. Anything HP is crap too. I'd explicate that, but it would take too long to explain how the print techonology on their newest models lags behind Canon and Epson by at least 2 years.

 

[nguyendot1]

yupyup i used a S900 for 2 years.. best printer so far...well I havent cracked open the box to the i950 yet, but i'll get around to it soon 😛 It'll be the s900's replacement for a while.. 2pico liter AND 6 color printing..AND <40 second 4x6 borderless prints..weeee

 

[artist99]

Where photo-quality output is tantamount, you're best off with either an Epson 925 or a Canon 950.

you can keep the epson, my pick would be the canon. in addition to being a better printer, the canon has separate color cartridges, saves a lot of money compared to the epson which has only black and a color cartridge.

The quality of Canon ink and paper is also better than Epson.

Epson 925 review

Canon 950 review

 

[nguyendot1]

Originally posted by: artist99
Where photo-quality output is tantamount, you're best off with either an Epson 925 or a Canon 950.

you can keep the epson, my pick would be the canon. in addition to being a better printer, the canon has separate color cartridges, saves a lot of money compared to the epson which has only black and a color cartridge.

The quality of Canon ink and paper is also better than Epson.

Epson 925 review

Canon 925 review

Actually from my personal experience, the Epson paper works better when used in Canon printers 😛

I won't argue that Canon is a better printer, because at work I have my choice of any printer I want, as well as any paper I want to use with it. The ink is certainly better, as well as the 3700 print nozzles that spits out an 8x10" in about a minute. Alcohol based ink makes the pics dry before the paper is even spit out....and 2picoliter ink drops. I have used all the papers in the 2 aisles of it we have at work in the Canon printers, and the best of the best is the Olympus Pictora paper.. its $19.99 for 20 sheets...ouch buck a sheet..but its 100lb paper which is heavier than real photo paper. The 2nd best is the High gloss paper from Epson, it seems to absorb the ink better from Canon printers and has a heavier gloss...which is really nice. Then is the photo paper pro...which is canon's.. its great but the lack of gloss kinda makes the pictures a lil textured and washed out. I have used all the settings, etc in the canon menu, and cannot make the Canon paper look better than the Epson paper, and it's coming out of a Canon printer! Ah well.. same price for both papers, when i print pictures tho I use the epson paper. BTW..if you use canon printers, AVOID IBM inkjet and HP papers because the ink will not stick to them, but rather just sit on top and smear off...

 

[artist99]

would you also say that matte paper is better by epson than canon, or vice-versa?

 

[007bond]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: kewl

i have an i850 and it's great.

Just a data point for anyone interested: In Consumer Reports this month, the i850 is ranked as number four after Canon S520, Canon S530D, and HP 995c.

Everything - And I mean EVERYTHING - In consumer reports is bunk. Utter filth and rubbish.

They base their reviews off of ad revenue. Anyone who has the intelligence of a chimp and the computer experience of an Amish baby could tell you that.

The i850 is a lovely printer. Not a bad price point for what it offers. Unfortunately, its small 2-picoliter droplets cannot compensate for the lack of a 6-color system. Where photo-quality output is tantamount, you're best off with either an Epson 925 or a Canon 950. Anything HP is crap too. I'd explicate that, but it would take too long to explain how the print techonology on their newest models lags behind Canon and Epson by at least 2 years.

How do they "base their reviews off of ad revenue?" I thought they do not have any advertisements in their magazines.

 

[ckkoba]

Just my own two cents... but unless you had some urgent reason to print out pictures immediately, wouldn't it bbe more cost-effective to go to Costco and print there for .21 cents a picture? They use Fuji paper and it prints out on that big developing machine.

It doesn't really make sense to be paying .40 cents in paper and inks just so you can print out maybe 2 pictures on a inkjet, which ur not guaranteed from fading...

 

[artist99]

It doesn't really make sense to be paying .40 cents in paper and inks just so you can print out maybe 2 pictures on a inkjet, which ur not guaranteed from fading...

if your time is worth anything, why spend an hour to go to costco when you can do it yourself in a minute or two? the gas to go their costs more than the 20 cents you'll save, and color prints today fade with time and exposure as well.

 

[nguyendot1]

Originally posted by: ckkoba
Just my own two cents... but unless you had some urgent reason to print out pictures immediately, wouldn't it bbe more cost-effective to go to Costco and print there for .21 cents a picture? They use Fuji paper and it prints out on that big developing machine.

It doesn't really make sense to be paying .40 cents in paper and inks just so you can print out maybe 2 pictures on a inkjet, which ur not guaranteed from fading...

And the prints costco puts out are guaranteed to not fade? Have you noticed many color photos out there that are old? Usually not, because regular photos fade rather quickly. Canon's ink has been tested to over 25 years, which is quite a long time, and don't forget that it's a tad more difficult to edit your photos and print them at costco. What happens if you edit a photo, get to costco, print it out, and learned u didn't do it right? You have to drive all the way home, fix it, and drive all the way back. With my canon printer I can just fix it in 30 secs, and wait another 30 for the 4x6 or 60 for another 8x10 to print...

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: nguyendot1

Originally posted by: ckkoba Just my own two cents... but unless you had some urgent reason to print out pictures immediately, wouldn't it bbe more cost-effective to go to Costco and print there for .21 cents a picture? They use Fuji paper and it prints out on that big developing machine. It doesn't really make sense to be paying .40 cents in paper and inks just so you can print out maybe 2 pictures on a inkjet, which ur not guaranteed from fading...

And the prints costco puts out are guaranteed to not fade? Have you noticed many color photos out there that are old? Usually not, because regular photos fade rather quickly. Canon's ink has been tested to over 25 years, which is quite a long time, and don't forget that it's a tad more difficult to edit your photos and print them at costco. What happens if you edit a photo, get to costco, print it out, and learned u didn't do it right? You have to drive all the way home, fix it, and drive all the way back. With my canon printer I can just fix it in 30 secs, and wait another 30 for the 4x6 or 60 for another 8x10 to print...

Also. what if you don't have a Costco around?

 

[Moogoo112]

is there any programs that make using this printer easier from printing from the pc? the image size is always wrong, actually im gonna go to frys and buy a sd card to pc adapter making it easier to use. tried it with my friends memory stick n it was a breeze but with the pc it doesnt come out right.

 

[vette98]

I own the Sony DPP-SV77 and is definitely the best photo printer I ever owned. I compare the qaulity of my 4" X 6" photos to my friends inkjets and their is no comparison. Plus show me an inkjet photo you dip in a cup of water and then just wipe off and not be ruined. These photos are made to last even when they get wet. For comparison my friend had a picture printed by Ofoto.com and I printed the same picture. Mine was much more sharper and vibrant. Plus being able to edit the picture and print it in 90 seconds is great. I have taken my printer to many parties and was able to print photos for the guests right there for them. It was great.

 

[nguyendot1]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: nguyendot1

Originally posted by: ckkoba Just my own two cents... but unless you had some urgent reason to print out pictures immediately, wouldn't it bbe more cost-effective to go to Costco and print there for .21 cents a picture? They use Fuji paper and it prints out on that big developing machine. It doesn't really make sense to be paying .40 cents in paper and inks just so you can print out maybe 2 pictures on a inkjet, which ur not guaranteed from fading...

And the prints costco puts out are guaranteed to not fade? Have you noticed many color photos out there that are old? Usually not, because regular photos fade rather quickly. Canon's ink has been tested to over 25 years, which is quite a long time, and don't forget that it's a tad more difficult to edit your photos and print them at costco. What happens if you edit a photo, get to costco, print it out, and learned u didn't do it right? You have to drive all the way home, fix it, and drive all the way back. With my canon printer I can just fix it in 30 secs, and wait another 30 for the 4x6 or 60 for another 8x10 to print...

Also. what if you don't have a Costco around?

Go to walmart, target, walgreens, sams club, etc.

and for vette98, the pictures are very clear up to 3.8 megapixels, however if you use a camera above that, the printer has to downsize and remove pixels from the picture, resulting in jaggies and blurriness. I used that printer for over a year, its very nice output indeed, however compared to a high end inkjet, of the same price...say an i850 or i950, the clarity cannot compare.

403 dpi vs 2400 dpi is no comparison. Keep in mind many of you think you can't compare dye sub to injet dpi, but dpi stands for the same thing no matter what technology ur talking about, DOTS PER INCH. Sony = 403 dpi, Canon = 2400dpi (4800 enhanced). So that means you can print pictures higher than 3.8 megapixels w/o losing pixels, pixels that will make the picture clearer, more accurate, and pixels, mind you, that you paid for on the camera.

You do have a point vetter98, however on the water proofness of the prints...and sony has it good there. The final layer after the CYMK layers is a clearcoat that laminates the print..thereby making it waterproof! That is a great way to prevent scratching, smudging, etc...and its small size make it perfect for as he said, parties... It has its strong points, and its weaknesses...you decide.

 

[unclebud]

i have a s6000 (from the $29 bb deal). it's alright, but noisy!
it's always cycling for a job -- worse if i turn it off, so it stays on for the time being
wonders what settings everybody else is using... superphoto seems to jack stuff up
i have hp paper/od paper/canon paper/epson paper from when od cleared them all out a few months ago for $2 a pack
still liking the hp 9 mil? 10 mil? the best
what settings are people using for printing 4x6? canon's manual stinks!
bleh

 

[Aiyana]

Originally posted by: nguyendot1

403 dpi vs 2400 dpi is no comparison. Keep in mind many of you think you can't compare dye sub to injet dpi, but dpi stands for the same thing no matter what technology ur talking about, DOTS PER INCH. Sony = 403 dpi, Canon = 2400dpi (4800 enhanced). So that means you can print pictures higher than 3.8 megapixels w/o losing pixels, pixels that will make the picture clearer, more accurate, and pixels, mind you, that you paid for on the camera.

Did you get a hot deal on a 138 MegaPixel camera, or did you spring for the 460 MegaPixel camera so that you could print 8x10's at full resolution?

I've also got a 4x6 picture of the Brooklyn Bridge I'd like to sell you that I took with my 533 MegaPixel camera that looks really good when printed on my "enhanced" Canon. (Actually, my camera is only a 1.3 MP, but it "enhances" to 533 MP).

Just wondering....

 

[vette98]

Originally posted by: nguyendot1

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: nguyendot1

Originally posted by: ckkoba Just my own two cents... but unless you had some urgent reason to print out pictures immediately, wouldn't it bbe more cost-effective to go to Costco and print there for .21 cents a picture? They use Fuji paper and it prints out on that big developing machine. It doesn't really make sense to be paying .40 cents in paper and inks just so you can print out maybe 2 pictures on a inkjet, which ur not guaranteed from fading...

And the prints costco puts out are guaranteed to not fade? Have you noticed many color photos out there that are old? Usually not, because regular photos fade rather quickly. Canon's ink has been tested to over 25 years, which is quite a long time, and don't forget that it's a tad more difficult to edit your photos and print them at costco. What happens if you edit a photo, get to costco, print it out, and learned u didn't do it right? You have to drive all the way home, fix it, and drive all the way back. With my canon printer I can just fix it in 30 secs, and wait another 30 for the 4x6 or 60 for another 8x10 to print...

Also. what if you don't have a Costco around?

Go to walmart, target, walgreens, sams club, etc.


and for vette98, the pictures are very clear up to 3.8 megapixels, however if you use a camera above that, the printer has to downsize and remove pixels from the picture, resulting in jaggies and blurriness. I used that printer for over a year, its very nice output indeed, however compared to a high end inkjet, of the same price...say an i850 or i950, the clarity cannot compare.

403 dpi vs 2400 dpi is no comparison. Keep in mind many of you think you can't compare dye sub to injet dpi, but dpi stands for the same thing no matter what technology ur talking about, DOTS PER INCH. Sony = 403 dpi, Canon = 2400dpi (4800 enhanced). So that means you can print pictures higher than 3.8 megapixels w/o losing pixels, pixels that will make the picture clearer, more accurate, and pixels, mind you, that you paid for on the camera.

You do have a point vetter98, however on the water proofness of the prints...and sony has it good there. The final layer after the CYMK layers is a clearcoat that laminates the print..thereby making it waterproof! That is a great way to prevent scratching, smudging, etc...and its small size make it perfect for as he said, parties... It has its strong points, and its weaknesses...you decide.

You cannot compare Inkjet DPI to Dye-sublimation DPI

Read this article: 3rd paragraph down There are also other articles out there that state the same.
Text

Here is another article:
Text

And another
Text

Just try to think of what you are saying. You are telling me that your 2400 DPI print is 6 times as clearer than my 408 DPI Dye-Sub. Makes no sense at all. If that was true my picture would not even be viewable. Dye-Sub is the way to go for printing pictures. Yes a little more money but better quality and will last alot longer. The Clearcoat in itself makes the printer the winner easily. Why would you take a chance printing a picture that even a minor drop of water or somebody sneezing could ruin your picture. Would you feel safe taking those pictures outside for viewing. Even a thumbprint could smudge it. Plus the clearcoat makes the picture even more sharper. When I print a picture I want it to last. There is no contest!

 

[nguyendot1]

Actually I own a Sony DSC-S75 3.2 megapixel..
And a Olympus C-5050 5 megapixel...
and a Canon EOS-10D 6.1 megapixel... so yeah.

Only the Sony looks decent on the sony printer.. imagine that... but thats cause its is < 3.8 megapixels..

Clearcoat is nice, but who seriously is going to drop any of their pictures in water? And second, it does not make the pictures look better, if anything it removes contrast from the picture as a whole.

 

[mutombo]

Originally posted by: nguyendot1
Actually I own a Sony DSC-S75 3.2 megapixel sony..
And a Olympus C-5050 5 megapixel...
and a Canon EOS-10D 6.1 megapixel... so yeah.

My what a big megapixel you have.

But as everybody knows, it is not the size of your megapixel, it is how well you use it that counts.

Even so, I suffer from pixel envy.

Discussing printers is all so very Feudian.

 

[nguyendot1]

True, but remember more megapixels in general is better.

I've done plenty of research about these sony printers, and there IS a reason that they are so cheap, namely the electronics in them, as well as the lower than usual dpi found in dye-subs.

Their MAIN difference is that when they lay colors down, its not really in dots, but in a continual, gradual change of tones...giving them that nice flowing-look. They found a way to get rid of the dots...buuuut, if they could only up the resolution and it'd be nice. Everyone's saying you can't tell the difference between these pics and those from a real camera, and at first glance its hard to tell, but look closely and you'll see it's not perfect. I did a self portrait with the EOS-10D and when printed out, my glasses were all jaggy, kinda of like a game w/o anti-aliasing. That's pretty bad considering on the i950 i printed the same size picture out on, it was smooth as it should be.

Also, aiyana... full frame prints are equivalent to approximately 35million pixels...
And my bad on the 4800dpi 'enhanced' the i950 puts out a true 4800dpi...whoops.....so that'd mean it's even clearer than the sony by a LONG margin. Oh, and lets not forget about the margin that the dye subs once had.. they have CYM as the colors, 256 gradations of each, 256x256x256=16.7million colors. That's nice and it did hold the candle for a long time, however the i950 supports 6 colors. 6 colors at 49 gradations each.. 49^6=13841287201. So higher resolution, even though dye sub is higher quality for its output, its not that high, and the colors can't even compare anymore. Btw, its 403 dpi, not 408.

I've printed more pictures from the DVP-S55 and EX5, canon i950, s900, epson 925, hp7550.. than you can imagine. I probably use about $200 a week in ink, paper, etc printing various sizes, types, from 2 megapixel up to 6.1, and sometimes higher if I can find the source. No it's not 6 times clearer, but Canon, HP, epson, each have output far clearer than this Sony, especially when printing above 3.8 megapixels. Considering 50% of all the cameras that leave the door at BestBuy (which you so lovingly mentioned) are higher than 4 megapixels now, considering they have fallen below the $500 mark, this printer would not be the best companion.

Did you mention a site that was mavica only? Didn't the FD mavica that that guy tested on this printer top out at 2.1 megapixels and hold only 7 pictures per disk? His test wouldn't even come close to maxing out the potential of this printer, considering he used an FD-91. It made his pictures look good because dye-subs blur the pixels together, giving him the illusion that his picture was 'clearer'. It's like watching a low quality divx on your tv, or on your monitor. The tv will look better because it softens the picture because of its lower resolution.

Artist99, i like canon's matte paper better, im just talking about glossy. And canon's matte is CHEAP...so i usually use it because I can get quality 8x10 but at a much cheaper price.

Alas tho, in the end, for $99, i won't argue about this printer anymore, it's a steal for that price, and the quality you're paying for is one helluva bang for the buck. I'd take one for $99, but man i950 is mighty appealing... Its next on the list.

 

[forgottenid]

I bought one of these about a year ago, ive run about 200 sheets through it. 4x6 paper can be found online for about 12-14 bucks for 25 sheets (buy a bunch at a time), and they have 3x5 with sticker backs for fun or for the kids.
It is a great little printer that makes excellent prints (esp for 100 bucks!). It will blow away any ink printer - dye sub is great and da*n near photo quality. and these prints should not fade for a long time even with sun expsure.

Oh, for larger than 4x6 Olympus makes an 8.5x11 dye sub printer, but I haven't seen the output. Consumables are rapacious as I recall.

😀

 

[Aiyana]

Originally posted by: nguyendot1


Also, aiyana... full frame prints are equivalent to approximately 35million pixels...
And my bad on the 4800dpi 'enhanced' the i950 puts out a true 4800dpi...whoops.....so that'd mean it's even clearer than the sony by a LONG margin. Oh, and lets not forget about the margin that the dye subs once had.. they have CYM as the colors, 256 gradations of each, 256x256x256=16.7million colors. That's nice and it did hold the candle for a long time, however the i950 supports 6 colors. 6 colors at 49 gradations each.. 49^6=13841287201. So higher resolution, even though dye sub is higher quality for its output, its not that high, and the colors can't even compare anymore. Btw, its 403 dpi, not 408.

You must really feel sorry for the poor schmucks who shell out $900 for the Kodak 8500 Dye-sub which is(Gasp!) only 314DPI, so it must suck, right?

The Fuji Pictrography 4000 Digital Printer prints at a stunning 400dpi, so it must suck, too. Amazing how they are able to sucker all those professional photogs out of 6K and up for that one.

Basically I haven't heard anyone claim that the Sony is a better printer than the i950. You did claim that a pixel was a pixel, which to your thinking would make the i950 print at roughly 144 times better resolution than the Fuji, which is pure BS.

 

[nguyendot1]

Those printers also have a better dithering program integrated than this sony... As well as a downsampler to give a smoother picture... And a larger size..

 

[Aiyana]

Originally posted by: nguyendot1
Those printers also have a better dithering program integrated than this sony... As well as a downsampler to give a smoother picture... And a larger size..

Absolutely true, which clearly demonstrates that comparing pixels is not nearly enough. In fact dpi is just one factor, which may have almost no relevance when comparing printers with different technologies.

Apples and oranges.