Does anyone have experience with the HP 722 vs. the HP970 printers? Is there a significant quality improvement when printing 4x6 or 8x10 photos on the HP970 or Photosmart 1000 printers over the HP722(using the same quality photo paper of course)? I currently have the HP722 printer and am pretty satisfied, but always open to big improvements. I know the Epson 870 is great, but I'm still interested in the HP970.

-- Virgil Howarth (vhowarth@aol.com), July 14, 2000

Answers

Don't have any experience with the HP printers, but I strongly recommend the Epsons!!!!

Fred

-- fred (fdeaton@hiwaay.net), July 14, 2000.

Well the 970 and Photosmart share the same "print engines" so the output quality of these two printers is virtually identical. I would say that the 970 is a nice improvement over the 722C. The 970 prints faster, has a smaller droplet size and a resolution increase. From my experience, the 970 is a very durable printer and the "photo" quality is certainly as good as it gets from an HP right now. My only gripe with HP is that in photoret mode, HP's color layering technology, they use a composite black, mixing all the colors to achive black. I'd have to say for the same money the Epson 870 is a better picture printer but if my work involved 50% work, 50% photo, I'd get an Epson 900 or HP970, something better suited towards general use.

-- Cris Daniels (danfla@gte.net), July 15, 2000.

I currently own and use the 722C and a HP932C. In answer to your question. There is a very noticable difference between the two. The 722 is a nice printer but is only RET2. The differnce between it and REt3 on the 932 as far as i am concerned there is no comparison in the photo quality. The prints are very sharp and clear. Now i have a very untrained eye and am no professional. For the money i think you can`t go wrong.

-- Harold Martin (hmartin@mmcable.com), July 17, 2000.

I also own both printers. I also own an Epson Color Stylus 740. All three are excellent photo printers. However, the 722c is beginning to show its age. When I bought it 3 years ago, it was the best out there. But technology keeps improving. The HP 932c prints an absolutely beautiful photo.

So does the Epson, as long as you use it on a regular basis. The print heads tend to get clogged if you don't use it at least once a week. For a hobbiest like me that just prints occasionaly, it's a real pain. But when it's working right, it also prints a beautiful photo.

-- Steve Buttram (swb@mac.com), July 17, 2000.

Thanks folks, just the answers I needed.

-- Virgil Howarth (vhowarth@aol.com), July 18, 2000.

I own both a HP 722C and a Epson 870 Photo Stylus. I do photography as a hobby and am very pleased with the HP 722C for most tasks but when doing 5x7 or 8x10 pictures from scanned photos (@300dpi) I rely on the Epson 870 to give me photo quality results and it does. The 722C vs 970C or Photosmart 1000 is a question of how much you are willing to spend and what features are important to you. The Rte II in the 722C and Rte III in the 1000 is very close. The difference I feel comes in the extra features of either the 900 or 1000 series. The choice is up to the buyer. Everyone has their own special interests. They all are good printers,so make the choice that fits your needs. Craig Billings

-- Max Craig Billings (madmax49@concentric.net), January 19, 2001.