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.
It'll be the s900's replacement for a while.. 2pico liter AND 6 color printing..AND <40 second 4x6 borderless prints..weeee
Facebook
Twitter