Feedback on Kodak 8500 Printer

Well I did it and here is MY opinion, so please keep in mind YMMV:

First, all images were done on glossy stock -- Canon's for the inkjets and the proprietary for the Olympus and Kodak. Second, we used the same image out of PS for all printers with the only adjustments being the manufacturer's profiles for paper choice. Lastly, the image had both color and B&W tones in it.

The best print out of the four was the Kodak. It just looked the best out of the printer with no tweaking. It had the best tonality in both the color and B&W, and delivered the best B&W image color-wise.

The inkjets were not far behind though, and IMO it is a dead-tie, with the Canon 9000 being better at some things, but the Epson 2200 doing better in others. The 9000 delivered the sharpest print of all the printers (followed by a tie between the Kodak and the Epson, but all 4 were very close here). The Epson had a little better color than the Canon, and did B&W a bit better, but it also showed very slight metamerism that the Canon does not.

The Olympus was okay, but not in the same league as the Kodak -- probably a great dye-sub printer for its price at half that of the Kodak.

Which will I buy? Tough call, but I am leaning towards the Canon. One, it is in stock and $200 cheaper than the Epson. Two, it is the sharpest and delivered great tonal range. Three, I can do 4x6's or 13x19's on it if I want. Of course I am hoping I can get the colors dialed in a bit more accurately, and there is also the archiveability issue relative to the Epson.

If I were only wanting to print 8x10's, or was doing location output, the Kodak would be it. Hands down.

Hope this helps,

I have used a 8xxx series Kodak dye sub for eight years which uses the same consumables as the 8500. The output is impressive, and when I bought it it was easily the best option, even at $8000-odd 1994 dollars. The printer is well-built and has held up well to quite heavy use. Only the network card has ever given us any problems.

I wouldn't buy one now.

Compared to the latest generation of inkjets it has a smaller gamut (especially in greens), is fuzzier on lines and edges, and the print area is restricted. Inkjets are cheaper to run, take a much wider variety of media, and the prints last longer. You will have to use the ultralife ribbons to avoid fingerprint and gas-induced colour shifts. Metamerism is at least as big a problem with the Kodak as with the inkjet prints I have seen, and can be quite bad with B+W prints under fluorescent lighting.

I like my Kodak, and use it still, but it's an amortised asset, not a hot buy.