Cheap 8x10 digital neg printer - used R800? Other?

[walter23]

Okay, this is something that has come up over and over, but it's hard to find good recommendations. I'm looking for budget but reasonable quality.

In one thread (from 2006 on apug (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum128/24628-epson-r800-digital-negatives-kallitypes.html)) some people say the R800 sucks because of "pizza wheel" banding, and in another here (dec. 2009) (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=56614) sanking says it's a great printer for diginegs. Any consensus on this?

Other suggestions?

I currently meddle with cyanotype and van dyke, but want to print 8x10s (instead of 4x5 contact prints). At the moment I neither need nor want one of the nicer wider format printers - they're getting out of my budget, and I really am most happy with 8x10 as a print size. Big prints are way overrated; 8x10 is my ideal.

[Marko]

The real question to ask is how many digital negatives have both the complainers and the praisers produced using that printer? Too many people are too quick on offering third-hand advice, especially if it is neither their money nor their work on the line.

Another question to ask, AFAIK, is whether the ink is UV-friendly.

Personally, I'd take Sandy's recommendation over most others on this matter because he's been around that particular block more than many others and also because he does not seem to give praise easily.

[Marko]

If the dye printers will work, then a 13" Epson 1400 can frequently be had for under $200 new from B&H, sometimes even shipped. I got mine for $170 and am very happy with it.

But I think there is a UV (non)transparency problem with those inks. Might a way around this problem might be conversion to Cone inks? If so, then it would make a great dual purpose printer...

[jon.oman]

I would be interested in this as well, since I have the R800. I just wish the inks were cheaper!

Jon