New printer vs old printer

[Bercy]

I am still running a Canon 9950 - which is A3. I only use genuine inks which I get from GEM office supplies - happy to plug because they have excellent service. I use a variety of media, but Canon paper is most reliable (no surprise). However the prints are notorious for fading - I have no problems with personal prints - just make another, but quite a number of shoots are ending up on peoples walls, and looking at the framing ($$$) - well I have apprehensions.

Trouble is the 9950 wont die. It doesn't clog, band, make noises, flood the excess ink traps, leak, crack - nothing. It is as perfect now as the day I took it out of the box.

Besides getting prints done at a pro shop (and me losing part of the satisfaction) - I'd like to look at an A3/A3+/A2 printer.

Not much has changed with printers, but Epson has a new 4900 which looks interesting. Any comments, especially a2/3 afficionados or professional users (i.e. give their machines a hammering) would be appreciated.

[I @ M]

Every time I have looked at the price of a capable printer to use at home I keep equating the cost to the number of commercially printed images that you would get for the same price.

In the end, the specialist printers have won and all the work goes to them. Sure, we are missing out on the fun and totally instant print job but the cost factor still wins to me.

Keep the old and proven one you have and balance the load of your printing between it and commercial labs?
Best of both worlds maybe?

[kiwi]

The fading is interesting, I bought a 2nd hand 1410 mainly because it used long lasting pigment inks

It was only $400

But like Andrew said I only use it for convenience and for personal work otherwise off to rgb digital