I've just got a (fairly cheap) digital camera (Olympus C960) and now I'm looking for a decent photo printer to go with it.
Has anyone used the above printers, and was the experience good or bad?
Also (and I'm sure someone has asked this before but I can't find it anywhere) why is the resolution different in one direction to the other on some printers? Surely it should be the same both ways.
Oops! 
The printers I was talking about are the 680 and 790 photo models.
The Epsom printers with the word "Photo" in their title use two ink cartridges - a 5 colour plus black, and give outstanding results. They've received much praise on this very site and I'm sure will suit you and your Olympus just fine.
tom.
I have an Epsom stylus photo 870.
The prints are excellent right up to A4, depending on the original. (and I mean compared ones from Boots etc..)
The only down side is consumables, ink and paper is quite expensive, and does not last that long (I also have a Laser printer HP4L, toner lasts years at £45 a pop).
Also I would recommend buying genuine Epsom products Ink and Paper (although you may get away with the paper, if you use HP or some other well known company). The photo 1270 we had at work used non Epsom ink, and was gummed up after a month, and Epsom were not to keen to fix it.
They are also probably better at photos, than written print.
Bottom line good photos, expensive consumables, use Epsom if possible, your letters will not look there best.
Mick,
This is my opinion, but with my home and work experience, I have seen a few printers good and bad (Epsom and HP tend to be good).
[This message has been edited by Hawk (edited 21 May 2001).]
The cost may well be outside your limit given the cost of the camera, but a new Canon colour printer has just been launched and is reviewed in the July issue of PCPro. Claimed to be up to 6 times faster than the Epson range and with comparatively cheap consumables. Individual colour cartridges for each colour etc. Downside ..... around 300 of them but very well received.
Keith
Canon got a better review than Epson and HP in Amateur Photographer.
PDF reprint is available at the Canon website.
I currently use an old Epson Stylus600, has given great results (on proper glossy paper and using Epson inks) but is tired (started banding).
I'm saving up for the Canon....
Adam
To attempt to answer the other part of the question...
Ideally, you want equal resolution in both directions, but, there's a body of research work that shows that when the detail being shown is near the resolution limit of the eye, then it little matters if one direction is sharper than the other. Effectively, the picture will look sharper if you increase resolution on one axis only. Of course, if you increase it on both axes, you win more, but you're into the laws of diminishing returns. So, if there's a compelling reason why resolution can't be improved one way, but can the other, then it's still worth doing it.
I'll be happy to go into more detaisl in a week or so, I'm on holiday now and confidently expect to need at least 2 mores weeks to get over the workload of this holiday 
Thanks for the tips, folks. I got the Photo 790 (120 quid at PC World) and it certainly gives fantastic results on the glossy photo paper.
Spending all day trying to get the new USB card to work took the fun out of it a bit though.
It's using ink frighteningly fast, by the way. The colour cartridge only costs about £18, I think, which is quite a bit cheaper than the one for my old HP 500C.
Jim, you're right about ink. These printers use lots of it and it costs. There's no way round that. I tried using cheap inks (Jessops) and gave up very quickly when it clogged the print head. Since then, I'm back on Epson inks and just have to accept that quality colour printing is expensive.
quote:Originally posted by Alan Roberts:
Jim, you're right about ink. These printers use lots of it and it costs. There's no way round that. I tried using cheap inks (Jessops) and gave up very quickly when it clogged the print head. Since then, I'm back on Epson inks and just have to accept that quality colour printing is expensive.
Oops, sorry about that last post.
Alan, you are right about the cost, it's not cheap, but we might as well keep the cost down to an absolute minimum. I get my Epson Inkjet cartridges from :- www.7dayshop.com They are based in the channel islands, and due to the "fairly" low costs, it seems there are no VAT costs. Does anyone know of a cheaper site ??
Have a look here also, prices not to bad, and official site linked from Epson.
Best thing you can see everything available for you printer (and make sure it's the right stuff). I notice all the 790 stuff has same part number as 870.
www.buyepson.co.uk
Mick
P.S. Have used them a few times quick, and reliable.
Thanks Paul, I'll check them. I get mine from Neat Ideas (£15.29 black, £12.29 colour, for my 750) and any cheaper source would be good to find.
The cheapest prices in the UK for inkjet consumables can be found at the 3 following sites. 7dayshop and MX2 seem to be operated by the same company in Guernsey. I have ordered from them for the past year and found their prices by far the best, and have no complaints of their service and delivery. I also know professional photographers who get there stock from 7dayshop instead of their normal trade suppliers.
www.7dayshop.com www.mx2.com www.photoglossy.com
If you have the Epson 870, 890, 1270, 1290 or 2000P, you should try the Premium semigloss and Premium gloss paper.
I sold my old epson and bought a new 1290. On premium paper the results are outstanding. If the shot is properly lit in the first instance and exposed properly the epson 1290 print is better than conventional wet process and film processing!!!. I was amazed to hear a local professional photographer has stopped using his hassleblad camera and switched off his wet process developer. He solely uses a Fuji S1 camera and Epson 2000P printer. I have seen samples from both his conventional processing and digital and you cannot tell the difference. He actually claims digital is better, black/shadow detail is enhanced with digital!!! Although for location photography such as weddings, you have to watch out for high contrast lighting. Film is more forgiving than digital for exposing up or down a F stop or 2 at the processing stage. When digital is overexposed, there is little recovery other than major photoshop work.
I own myself a Fuji S1 and with the power of photoshop 6 and the 1290 & Premium paper combination have a setup in my own home that prints professional studio quality up to A3+.
Regards
Mark Stuart
Marks' comments prompt an observation about my Olympus. The only problem I have is that whaen it has to cope with heavy overexposure in a scene, it "blooms". The overexposed parts appear to be slightly misregistered. Since that can't be true, it must be to do with the way the ccd deals with the excess charge, by dumping it into the overflow channels (yes, they have electronic overflow channels on the ccd). With too much light, it can't get rid of it all equally in the RGB world, so I get slight colour fringing on highly overexposed bits. No big deal, but it doesn't happen in film (but plenty of other things do).
Just to let you know that the Olympus E10 is aflicted with exactly the same "digital give-away" Alan. It's something that's going to have to be addressed as it makes high contrast prints look like misregistered guns of a TV set.
tom.
Yes, I'm convinced it isn't a specific fault to one ccd or brand of them. It's a common problem, one we'll have to get used to or find a better way of driving the ccd chip itself to accommodate high over-exposure. Personally, it doesn't worry me too much, but it can give a misleading impression when you use a still in video and zoom in too far.
Mark,
I took your advise on the paper, went to www.photoglossy.com I've just tried their Premium Photo paper (260g).
The quality of the prints are most impressive. It's the best paper I have used to date. This might cost me a small fortune in future printing.
Highly recommended.