Home > Consumer Reviews > Epson Stylus R800 Inkjet Colour Photo Printer

Brilliant when new and when nozzles don't get blocked. So it reviews well in mags , as they only have it running for a few days.
Truly excellent print quality for a year or so. I was SO impressed when it was new.

And then it gets a bit older... blocked nozzles... and, boy, it drinks more than a thirsty elephant.

So, as an example, this is what happened today...
The R800 informs me my Magenta cartridge is empty.
I insert a new one and it then uses so much ink cleaning that I now also have to replace Red, Matte Back, Cyan , Blue and Yellow. Sixty quids worth!!
I put in the new Epson Cartridges and press the button and it does it's stuff.

A test print shows blocked nozzles. I clean, test,clean, test... SIX times!!

Still nozzles blocked, still more cleaning, still more wasted ink.
More wasted money. More money into Epson's Bank Account.

So, of those NEW espensive cartridges, the Ink level gauge now shows Magenta:50% , Cyan:50% , Matte-Black:75% , Red:75% and Blue:75%.
(That's probably a tenners-worth of ink absorbed in a soggy sponge inside the printer)

DISGUSTING - and the nozzles are STILL blocked!!!
So, I still couldn't print a photo if I'd tried. It would be cheaper to take a Taxi to Boots to get something printed.

You'll be impressed when its new, but quite honestly, after 15 months just switch it OFF and throw your money down the drain.. it's quicker.

In future I shall buy a printer where the nozzles are in the cartridge.

SUMMARY:- Forget it. It's not a cheap printer to buy and darned costly to run.

Post Script: Another couple of cleans and there goes the Gloss Optimiser.
Choose another brand. My previous Epson was nearly as greedy and I didn't believe the 'private' reviews. Waste of money.

I bought this printer 18 months ago for general letter printing and occasional photo work. I have been disappointed with the results. Yes, photos are stunning when they print properly, but sometimes they come out far darker than they should, sometimes borderless prints end up with a border and the printer nozzles often clog up, leaving bands of missing colour. (I'm using the genuine Epson cartridges too)

If you only print a few photos or pages each time you'll find you don't get much printing done before the cartridges run out. The print heads get cleaned every few power on/off cycles, which uses the ink up quickly. It's best to save up your photos and print out lots in one batch. A full set of replacement cartridges costs over £100.

I rarely use this printer now, I bought a Dell cn3110 colour laser and although it doesn't do glossy prints, image quality on plain paper is not far off the Epson, and the colour matching is far better.

I am getting really involved in digital photography and I needed a printer that would deliver results similar to the labs. I can honestly say that this is THE best photo printer I have used. The price has come down now enough for regular photo shooters to go out and buy this printer. You get stunning results straight out of the box! But bear in mind that this is still more expensive than some all-in-one printers, such as those made by Canon. If you print text documents regularly go for one of those. But if you are printing photos more frequently, buy this because you wont regret it. If you want the best quality, go out and buy this. It has a larger number of cartridges which means you get a larger range of colours in your prints. I've started reading up on colour management, and I think anyone who is a bit more involved with their picture taking will love this printer. So in summary: Highly recommended for the enthusiast, but if you
are after a budget printer go for a Canon Pixma (such as the 6700D).

Having agonised over several reviews and online forums concerning the Epson R800, I decided to mate it with my iMac. First prints were too dark. After brightening-up, they were acceptable and colour balance was almost spot-on. Tweaking the image in the advanced set-up in the driver was enough to produce a good print. However, first comparisons with my existing Epson R300 were that the R300 was better - had more punch. The R300 uses dye inks. The R800 uses pigment inks. After various test prints, I have decided that the R800 is offering more subtle shading and colour accuracy but not more detail. The prints from the R800 do however look like quality photochemical prints without a `digital' look.

I once showed some R300 prints to a colleague, who remarked that as good as they were they did not "look like the photos he was used to". I agree; they had that `digital look'. The Epson R800 does not. It crosses the barrier between the digital and photo look. It gives purer colours. I made a print of clouds in a blue sky and was amazed at how much more natural the sky was rendered by the R800. The R300 looked artificial in comparison.

Many uses have griped at the cost of the inks. I used to use Cibachrome Paper - expensive; and chemicals - expensive, run developing tanks at constant temperature - more expense. The point is; if you want quality then it is unrealistic to think that you can get it on the cheap. Technology costs money and the ink technology is quite specialised. People will spend £800+ on a digital SLR and balk at the £12 or so for an ink cartridge, even if multiplied by seven. There are cheaper printers available but if you are considering the R800 then you presumably appreciate quality. I'm afraid you will have to pay for it and not automatically assume that Epson are trying to put one over on you. My experience with compatible inks was not good; the price was right but the results were wrong - not a good trade-off. Epson Ultrachrome Inks have a predicted 75+ years resistance to fading. No compatible inks can touch this.

As to ink usage, I was quite suprised to see that ink levels did not decrease at the rate of galloping horses as some users report. I make 6x4 test prints and ensure they are right before ever printing to A4 (always using 'Best Photo' setting). On my first set of inks I printed about 30 6x4's, 4 5x7's and 10 A4's and the cyan, yellow, magenta and gloss optimiser inks are more than half full. The red, blue and Matt black seem little used at all, and the photo black about 25% used, despite using ink for the initial dosing of the system on set-up. I would say I am satisfied.

I've had this printer for a couple of years now and find it difficult to rate really. 5 stars for print quality and -5 stars for ink consumption. If you don't use the printer often it will require a clean and this seems to drink ink.
Example: I put in a new Cyan cartridge 5 months ago. I did 6 x A5 size photos, and have since only used it for mono (black ink only) text quite a lot. Blacks half-full and Cyan now empty. Other colours getting lowish. Why?? How?? (No, I don't want to know). It is truly terrible.
On the other hand, quality of photo printing (on a good medium) is truly excellent. Without a magnifying glass you'd be hard pushed to tell they hadn't been done in Boots. Works well with cheap Staples heavy photo gloss paper.

Obviously I am trusting Epson that the cartridges were filled properly and that the ink monitor is hopefully accurate. Difficult to prove.

Summary: Very expensive to run. Estimate about £60 per year if using genuine Epson cartridges. Brilliant print quality but ink costs are daylight robbery. I could not recommend it as an 'occasional' printer. Next time I buy a printer I'll do a bit of research into ink consumption (rip off) first.

Hopefully newer Epson printers have been to AA first to cut down on their drinking!! BUT check first, this is an important income stream for the manufacturers and to make it waste or use excessive ink is in their direct interests.