Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Gemmtech on January 21, 2011, 10:25:39 pm
-
It seems like most all here are Epson "whores" Why? I received sample photos from Canon and granted I believe they are "ringers" (too good especially gloss) but why do people here buy the Epson 4900 when they could buy the Canon 8300 44" for the same price? Is Canon really that far beneath Epson?
-
It seems like most all here are Epson "whores" Why?
You might wanna be a little careful about calling anybody a whore...not very PC if ya know what I mean...
Epson took an early US fine art printing market lead. Canon has been playing catchup ever since. HP is about out essentially of the market these days so a lot of the current economic situation is a direct result of Epson having been #1 and Canon and HP (now sort of out of the running) trying to chip away. Part of that is trying to impact the market with pricing...but if you spend any time on LuLa you'll see there is a fundamental difference between Epson and Canon/HP. And it has zero to do with anybody being a whore...
-
Jeff,
maybe a bad choice of word, however I have been mostly an Epson whore since the Photo EX, except for when speed was important, but that advantage has seemed to disappear. Let's not use the word "Whore" let's say strong bias towards Epson? HP far behind? Really? Reading Canon reviews it seems they are close if not surpassed Canon in certain areas, yet they seem very far behind?
I know you are very biased towards Epson, do you ever test Canon LF printers? If not, why not?
-
HP far behind? Really?
Not far behind...the "current versions" of HP printers are fine. But it seems the company, HP, has pretty much closed down their fine art inkjet efforts and have turned their attention more towards the graphic arts Indigo efforts...so don't expect to see much movement in the HP initiatives moving forward...
As for Canon's current efforts, they are laudable but considering how far they've had to come to compete with Epson, it's been a struggle. I think Canon is behind Epson when it comes to connecting with fine art printing as apposed to "photo printing" (there is a distinction ya know).
Yes, I've compared the state of the art Canons against the state of the art Epson printers (such as the 9900). Nothing Canon has done has prompted me to consider changing from Epson to Canon...part of that my be my bias because of my Epson relationships, but in my mind, competing purely on price (which is the current situation since the Epson/Canon state of the art is so close) simply isn't in my wheelhouse...since I HAVE a 9900 that produces excellent prints, why would I give that up for a Canon? No good reason in my mind...if you haven't yet made a commitment, then the question is different, ya know? It's really down to a two horse race at this point and I'm already on the Epson pony...
-
interesting ... personally I think this forum is Canon biased and anti Epson more than the other way around.
-
"interesting ... personally I think this forum is Canon biased and anti Epson more than the other way around."
I'd say that this forum seems to be more biased relating to problems or lack there of regarding the two, with the Canon receiving the kudos for never clogging or breaking down, though as you have stated many times, "The Canons do clog, but you don't know it until you have to replace the $500.00 print head"
The bias I was talking about was the members here seem to buy Epson over Canon 10-1, yet the Canon LF is getting excellent reviews and seems it's as good as Epson in most areas and better in some like bronzing / GD?
-
The bias I was talking about was the members here seem to buy Epson over Canon 10-1, yet the Canon LF is getting excellent reviews and seems it's as good as Epson in most areas and better in some like bronzing / GD?
That may partly be due to dealer availability ... there are usually good dealers in most markets for Epson printers, not so much for Canon, and there is a comfort level with a local dealer. Local dealers means inks are easy to get on the spur of the moment ... with a Canon you may have to stock some ink because it might be a couple of days away if you run out.
As far as "better" than Epson, hard to say. Bronzing and GD are a function of both the inks and the paper, and I don't see any real issues of it with the Epson. I've never seen any inkjet paper that had no GD at all, but it's minimal and you have to look for it ... just doesn't present a problem once a print is framed on the wall. Similar with bronzing. I know my ipf6100 certainly had more issues with GD than the 11880. I've only seen ipf8300 prints at trade shows, and while it appears they have improved this, I can't say it's "better", and even if it is it's like saying a BMW is better than a Mercedes or vice versa .. they're both pretty darn good.
They're both great printers, I've used both and I still prefer Epson ... sort of like Jeff. I love the output and I'm already on that pony. I actually believe on extremely high quality images in the hands of skilled printers you can get more out of an Epson --- I've just never seen anything printed in the Canon booth that rivals the prints I see in the Epson booth at trade shows. But that's certainly a subjective observation and perhaps reflects far more on the choice of images used and the company used to produce those images than the printers themselves.
-
Hi,
Don't know, but with Jeff Schewe we have a heavy weight in the Epson corner.
Best regards
Erik
interesting ... personally I think this forum is Canon biased and anti Epson more than the other way around.
-
... I received sample photos from Canon and granted I believe they are "ringers" (too good especially gloss)...
I'm curious as to whether this is possibly true? Have you had a chance to get any of your own images printed?
In the UK, Canon sample images are available from http://www.sampleprint.co.uk (http://www.sampleprint.co.uk)/ - I'm pretty sure that at least some of these are genuine, since they have some of my own images in the set you can choose from :-)
As someone who's recently got an iPF8300 and looked at offerings from HP/Epson/Canon, I can say that the differences are getting very close in printer performance.
I'd say we're at the point where many people couldn't easily spot the difference in a blind test - particularly if they didn't know the image really well.
I can measure different factors and point to lists of numbers, but when it comes to prints that someone might want to put on their wall, many of these differences are pretty meaningless. Granted, there are applications where different technical parameters are important, but the proportion of such users is smaller than they might perhaps like to think ;-)
Of course it doesn't always suit 'experts' in -any- camp to point this sort of thing out :-) :-)
-
"I'm curious as to whether this is possibly true? Have you had a chance to get any of your own images printed?"
They have to be or everybody would be praising Canon's pigment gloss prints and they aren't. The Canon sample prints are the only pigment prints I've seen with no GD. Obviously dye prints don't have the GD issue. Every sample print I have received from Epson have had GD albeit minor, but there. I haven't had a chance to have my own images printed with a Canon, but I know I'd be disappointed and will continue to use dye with gloss. If I could get a pigment gloss print like the one Canon sent I'd use it for most gloss prints, but it's not realistic. I admire Epson for being honest, they don't send out "ringer" prints, they are very nice but the GD is still there.
I thought HP didn't have any GD or bronzing issues because they use a clear gloss topcoat?
-
But what paper was used? I'd be curious to know.
Out of curiosity, what office/division of Canon sent you the prints?
I can only speak from my personal dealings with the large format people at Canon UK, but they would be mortified if they found that someone was sending out false prints in their name.
-
I received the prints from Canon USA done on the IPF6350, the first print I looked at was a woman in a wedding dress with flower petals around her, this print was on Canon Fine Art Photo Rag 188gsm by Hahnemuhle
2nd print old man Canon Premium RC Photo luster
Both these prints looked very good, but I can't say any better than the Epson prints except that there's very little GD on the 2nd print and to be honest, just looking at the print now do I see the GD for the first time. you really have to look for it and have the light hit it just right.
3rd print I threw this one off to the side at first because it was a glossy print and I know pigment inks are lousy with gloss media. But then I picked it up and looked at it and I was amazed at how well it looked for a pigment gloss print. It's a green motorcycle with flames Media is Canon Glossy Photographic Paper 240gsm and again if you tilt it just right I guess one can see a little bit of bronzing, though no GD, but I'm sure with a blown highlight, crashing wave, bright sun etc. you'd have GD, but this is certainly the nicest pigment gloss print I have seen, not to dye standards but probably good enough.
-
Thanks - I'll have a look with some glossy media on my 8300.
I just don't normally print glossy at all, but I'll have a look since I've got a few misc. boxes of Canon media around after testing the 6300 last year.
I still have a 44" unopened roll of Epson PGPP that was a freebie back in 2004 with our Epson 9600 - perhaps time for it to see the light of day at last :-)
So, are you still minded to regard them as 'ringers'? :-)
-
This isn't an interesting discussion as of yet, so let me throw my $.02 into the ring.
If you were to ask me about Canon or HP inkjet technology 3 or 4 years ago, I would have told you that Epson was the 5,000,000 pound gorilla that threw the other guys out of the ring. As of this moment in time, I think all 3 players have very viable products out on the market and the quality gap is very very close, depending on your own specific needs or sensitivities. As a guy that has all 3 of the latest 44" printers (Epson 9900, Canon iPF8300, HP Z3200), they are all good a different things. I think it comes down to usability, access to support, TCO, paper handling, etc etc etc.
I think there are more anti-Epson folks on this forum than die hard supporters, primarily because I think Epson didn't have the right large format products on the market for a long time (switching of black inks was a huge pain until the 7900/9900 models came out), and also because of clogging issues. The clogging issues is an interesting one, because on the thermal heads on the Canon and HP models there is still clogging, but with more nozzles you never know about them until the head has died. The replacement cost is much much less than the Epson, but it is still a cost and hassle.
As an independent guy who happens to create profiles for an inkjet paper company, as well the running of fine art digital printing workshops, I need to own many different printers on the market. We are living in good times right now, as the quality of these products is quite high and costs are coming down (especially with the Canon and HP models). What's not to like?
Personally, I don't enjoy printing on the Z3200 due to speed, paper handling (rear paper loading is a pain, as well as cut sheets), and I am very happy printing on the Epson 9900 and Canon iPF8300. The new Epson 4900 that I obtained this week is a dream when compared to the Canon iPF5100, which I won't even bother turning on. Too bad Canon and HP don't have an answer to the Epson 3880, because more competition would be a good thing.
I added up the number of inkjet printers I have, and it is kind of mind numbing:
Canon Pro 9000 II
Canon Pro 9500 II
Canon iPF5100
Canon iPF8300
Epson 2200
Epson R2400
Epson R1800
Epson R1900
Epson R1400
Epson 3800
Epson 3880
Epson 4900
Epson 9900
HP B9180
HP Z3200
And I have access to the Epson 4800 and 4880 at my assistant's home.
Ok, this is getting long-winded. /out
-
So, are you still minded to regard them as 'ringers'? :-)
I just don't know, all I do know is pigment printers don't do well with glossy prints and this print I have from Canon on glossy media is a nice print.
"I added up the number of inkjet printers I have, and it is kind of mind numbing:"
WOW
-
That's a lot of printers, I've had many of them here, but unfortunately they had to go back to their real owners. Then again, I don't think my wife is keen to have the house return to the state it used to be in ;-)
...but seriously, I'm finding it much more difficult to say what's new (that you'd notice) when looking at new printers, and I agree it's a lot more about overall usability than it used to be.
Looking at the Canon iPF5100, there does indeed appear to be a glaring hole(s) in the range. An iPF5300 would make for an interesting addition to the market, given Canon's aggressive pricing strategy with the iPF8300 ...or at least in the US that is, since there seems to have been considerably more discounting of late than we've seen in the UK
-
I've been an Epson user(whore) :P since 95, and printed on nearly all of them, esp. LF (today 11880, 9900).
Last week I was at Canon Center and printed my test-images on the 8300 for a couple of hours.
Nice output, but something, which I don't exactly can explain, is not like an Epsonprint.
It's still sort of "synthetic" over a Canonprint. To saturated, to much color, darker. Like an ad for a car company.
And the media/paper handling isn't my cup of tea.
So, I'm in Jeff and Wayne's corner until something different can convince me.
/Sven
-
Sven, I'm assuming you didn't get to profile the printer for your paper? It wasn't until I'd had a 6300 for a while and created some of my own profiles that I decided I liked it :-)
It's just that your comments about the colour echo my first thoughts when I had the 6300 turn up.
This is one of the reasons I'm a bit skeptical when I see test prints at trade shows ;-)
-
The Canon sample prints are the only pigment prints I've seen with no GD.
Well, it's certainly possible to print without gloss differential on most new printers, even subjects with a lot of "white". My first look at real output from the 8300 was last February at the WPPI trade show, and even had some images of mine printed. It's there, but definitely improved over the 61/8100 series. The output also looked cleaner to me, but not sure if that was imagined or not. I talked briefly with David Sparer from Canon, and one comment he made might explain that ... they put a lot of effort into reducing/eliminating the "tail" of the droplets (his word) to get a cleaner more evenly shaped droplet.
AT this point it seems to be more about features and price than anything. I have no problem with MK/PK switch because I just hardly ever use MK (and when I do I just print on my 11880). But to others this is a big deal. I personally like the straight through paper path of the Epson, and find it handles more media types easier than my 6100 did. I love the spindle free roll loading of the Epson, and I feel the printers menu system and driver setup on my Mac is simpler and easier to use (that may be improved on the new Canons, my experience dates back to the 6100). Clogging isn't an issue for me, sure I get em, but they aren't that frequent anymore. But the printer is used frequently and that definitely helps an Epson.
And as a Canon dealer, Canon still just doesn't seem that interested in really making their printer division a factor through their dealer network. I guess it's not a problem, since I've only ever had one request for a quote on a Canon printer and that was from another state. Makes me wonder what Canon has in mind - maybe the LF printer division is more like a hobby.
-
Sven, I'm assuming you didn't get to profile the printer for your paper? It wasn't until I'd had a 6300 for a while and created some of my own profiles that I decided I liked it :-)
It's just that your comments about the colour echo my first thoughts when I had the 6300 turn up.
This is one of the reasons I'm a bit skeptical when I see test prints at trade shows ;-)
It was Canon profiles on Canon media. And I really liked the 300 gms HW Gloss Photo.
And yes, I was thinking about profiling after my reply. Making your own profiling and fine-tuning the printer, media and handling,
taking everything out of it, makes all three brands (E, C, HP) to workhorses.
/Sven
-
And as a Canon dealer, Canon still just doesn't seem that interested in really making their printer division a factor through their dealer network. I guess it's not a problem, since I've only ever had one request for a quote on a Canon printer and that was from another state. Makes me wonder what Canon has in mind - maybe the LF printer division is more like a hobby.
Oh, it's not a hobby at all for Canon...they are very serious about their printers. The problem is it's really a different division from the camera division in Japan and they aren't very good at marketing and dealer relations here in the US. That has always been a weakness for Canon US in the photo/fine art printer markets...
-
Oh, it's not a hobby at all for Canon...they are very serious about their printers. The problem is it's really a different division from the camera division in Japan and they aren't very good at marketing and dealer relations here in the US. That has always been a weakness for Canon US in the photo/fine art printer markets...
Interesting to see differences/similarities between Canon in the UK and US in this respect - perhaps more due to differences in size between the divisions.
-
Interesting to see differences/similarities between Canon in the UK and US in this respect - perhaps more due to differences in size between the divisions.
I can't say exactly how things are now within Canon USA since I'm no longer directly involved any more...but both Canon USA and Canon UK are simply marketing/distribution companies for Canon's mothership in Japan. The real power and decisions are (or at least were) always made in Japan. Canon Japan is a huge company and traditionally, Canon printers and Canon Cameras have been run completely different with little interaction nor much in common other than they are under the umbrella of Canon Japan.
-
It's human nature to make these kinds of comparisons and ask "which is best" questions. Having used Epson and Canon printers, and seen output from the HP LF models, I think we're really splitting hairs trying to come up with a definitive answer here. There never will be a definitive answer that overcomes simple human preference. All three lines of printers do damn fine work.
I believe a far more important element in the final quality of that print will be your own Photoshop chops and the quality of the file you start with. Because unless you are confident that all your files are 'perfect', then any unhappiness in the final print is likely to be more easily affected by going back to Photoshop than it will be by switching printers. Canon vs. Nikon, Phase One vs. Hasselblad-if any one of these cage fights ever had a clear cut outcome, wouldn't we all be using that gear exclusively?
It is far easier to look at these printers and make statements about other factors, such as cost, speed and reliability. Image quality? Man, we're living in a Golden Age of printing.
-
Nicely said, Rob.
-
"It's human nature to make these kinds of comparisons and ask "which is best" questions. Having used Epson and Canon printers, and seen output from the HP LF models, I think we're really splitting hairs trying to come up with a definitive answer here. There never will be a definitive answer that overcomes simple human preference. All three lines of printers do damn fine work."
"Image quality? Man, we're living in a Golden Age of printing."
And it seems that most all agree that the quality differences are so minimal as to be non existent. However, if that truly is the case then wouldn't it be crazy to buy the Epson LF printers? The fact is right now you can buy a 44" Canon cheaper than a 17" Epson, why buy the Epson? You can buy the Canon 8300 for $2600.00 (includes $1000.00 rebate) with $1200.00 worth of extra ink over and above the Epson 4900. The Epson 4900 costs $2200.00 (includes $500.00 rebate) plus $1200.00 for additional ink and we have a grand total of $2600.00 for the Canon 8300 44" printer and $3400.00 for the Epson 17" printer, why would anybody buy the Epson? I still haven't pulled the trigger but I can tell you that I'm probably going to buy the Epson 7900 (once $1000.00 rebate happens), which is totally irrational. Makes me want to buy a Mac Pro too! ;) Just kidding about the Mac
-
I got an iPF6350 for testing - it's really a cool printer, it has huge gamut, clean, vibrant colours, nice contrast and virtually no gloss differential, but...
Am I doing something wrong, or does it have coarser screening than x880/x900 Stylus Pro series? I've set the quality to "highest" possible, the print goes reeeeealy slow, but I can easily see the screening pattern (Hahne Baryta, Canon Semimatte), and it still looks much worse than "SuperFine" setting on my 7880, not to mention "SuperPhoto"...
-
I have found that when profiling these Canon machines the media type used is extremely important, and will affect what you are seeing. Perhaps the profiles you are using could be better made if they had used a different profile.
-
Well, I admit that the standard Canon and Hahnemuehle profiles didn't really impress me, and so or so I've planned to create my own ones, so I'll try to fine tune media settings, make a profile, and will see if it helps...
-
Gang
Wow what a great topic and great feedback.."Golden Age" Wow So Much to consider when choosing a printer..Is It Cost, Is It quality , Is it comfort, Is it..Is it..Today there is a printer for everyone! As a dealer all three channels have there pros and cons. Epsons Playing field for resellers is somewhat fairer than the other two for sure. Since we are in a Photo/Fine art forum Epson Has the leg up..Just one Item that stands out is the straight thru path for me..But I need to throw this out when considering a new printer there are many factors so with rebates now a part of doing business rather than a bonus the Value play changes..sometimes weekly sometimes daily But certainly every month~! The Value play changes all the time. With that said my answer will change all the time depending on who I am speaking with and what they do!
Cheers
Jim Doyle
http://www.shadesofpaper.com
-
Thanks Jimmy for chiming in. I was just about to say if you want a great source for sorting all this out by all means contact Shades Of Paper dot com.
These guys sell and advise on them all and have no agenda to sell one brand over another. They also have had the finest papers and media in the country and have for a long long time. Personally I wouldn't shop anywhere else. Shades follows all these changes on a daily basis and are the best people you could possibly deal with in the US.
j
-
I agree about shades of paper very helpful and for me I trust their opinion. They could have sold me either Epson or Canon made no difference to them. I make prints of my images I am not a printer. Much of what is discussed is pretty much small stuff or personal opinion not necessarily much scientific method being applied. Consider myself lucky I have options I chose one and moved on. In the end when the image is on the wall only about .1% of those viewing it are going to concern themselves with my gamut issues. That is me I am about creating images. I am happy with my choice. Maybe the other is slightly better. Then again I am no longer in a darkroom dealing with toxic chemicals. So I am happy.
-
I'm seriously considering moving to Canon. Probably the 6300. I have tested this printer extensively against the 3800 (not the 3880) and I can get a better black from the Canon. Darkest black I can get on the Epson (Semigloss) is about L=3 as measured by the Colormunki, on the 6300 on the same paper I can get down to L=2. The B+W prints are really nice as a result.
There are other reasons too, but this Dmax is quite a big deal I think. I also think Canon have caught up, if not exceeded Epson in many respects. Build quality is not so good though - the Canons are very plasticky. But the results are good and that's all I really care about. Plus, it's possible that the TCO is lower too, which might be a deal maker for some. Hard to measure but the 6300 seems to use very little ink - Canon reckon the fixed inkdot size with a larger number of nozzles gives a 30% less ink usage but I have not tested this myself.
Czorniyj reckons the screening is coarse - not seen that, looks smooth to me. Try turning on 'High Precision Photographs' and turn off 'Fast Graphic Process' in the 'Main' panel (on a Mac). HPP will slow it down a lot but the results are awesome - and you'll need to make a profile with this setting checked. Also make sure it's printing Unidirectional.
-
Do we have, anywhere, some direct dither comparisons on line somewhere from an "unconnected" and demanding user or reviewer?
Tyler
-
I'm seriously considering moving to Canon. Probably the 6300. I have tested this printer extensively against the 3800 (not the 3880) and I can get a better black from the Canon. Darkest black I can get on the Epson (Semigloss) is about L=3 as measured by the Colormunki, on the 6300 on the same paper I can get down to L=2. The B+W prints are really nice as a result.
There are other reasons too, but this Dmax is quite a big deal I think. I also think Canon have caught up, if not exceeded Epson in many respects. Build quality is not so good though - the Canons are very plasticky. But the results are good and that's all I really care about. Plus, it's possible that the TCO is lower too, which might be a deal maker for some. Hard to measure but the 6300 seems to use very little ink - Canon reckon the fixed inkdot size with a larger number of nozzles gives a 30% less ink usage but I have not tested this myself.
Czorniyj reckons the screening is coarse - not seen that, looks smooth to me. Try turning on 'High Precision Photographs' and turn off 'Fast Graphic Process' in the 'Main' panel (on a Mac). HPP will slow it down a lot but the results are awesome - and you'll need to make a profile with this setting checked. Also make sure it's printing Unidirectional.
I'm an old "Epson Whore" since Photo EX, but I'm also seriously considering switching from my 7880 to iPF6300 - I like the compact size and silent work of the printer, the print quality is stellar - the blacks are deep, the contrast is high, the gamut is huge so the colors are clean and vivid, gloss differential, bronzing is virtually non existing, scraching resistance is impressive, and the results seem to be stable and repeatable (I'm also using my printers for contract proofing from time to time, so it's important for me).
The only issue I've encountered with that printer is that for some reason - no matter what quality options I choose - I still see the grain, and can't get the perfect smoothness of screening I easily get from my 7880, or any other x880/x900 (3800 was not that good in this respect). But I still belive it's a matter of my lack of experience with iPF's drivers and it's only a matter of time to eliminate some PEBKAC error.
-
Just my short experience with the Canon IPF 8300 as compared to the Epson's I have used over the past eight years - 9600, 9800.... I have not used the most current 9900 - I bought the Canon instead :)
- The 9600 seems noticeably more solid/ robust and far less plasticky then either the Canon IPF 8300 or even the later 9800. The Canon also shakes more when printing.
- I was really concerned about the non-straight paper path of the Canon but after testing it with all the materials I use (nothing thicker then say H. Museum/ German Etching)
, it is not an issue whatsoever. Even loading sheets is no worse then with the bigger Epsons.
-The Canon just works and is always ready to go...no worrying about clogged heads and I no longer do a nozzle check - nor the subsequent two to three cleaning cycles - before each print session. To me, this is a HUGE deal.
-If the profile is good and the correct media setting used, the print quality is amazing and smooth as can be. If your not seeing this then there is something either wrong with your profile/ settings or there is a defect with the printer/head.
-I absolutely love the software that Canon provides, particularly the 16bit Photoshop export plug-in and the Media Configuration Tool. Epson's driver support has been quite pathetic ever since it moved away from Mac OS 9! for my 9600 and Epson has proven very unreliable in fully supporting older hardware with newer software releases. This was also a contributing factor in leaving Epson, along with their attitude towards third party software such as QuadTone RIP.
Anyway, thus far I'm extremely happy with all aspects of my move to Canon. I do believe they have at least matched Epson with regard to print quality and surpassed them in a few other areas. Right now, it's quite the bargain to boot!
-
I got an iPF6350 for testing - it's really a cool printer, it has huge gamut, clean, vibrant colours, nice contrast and virtually no gloss differential, but...
Am I doing something wrong, or does it have coarser screening than x880/x900 Stylus Pro series? I've set the quality to "highest" possible, the print goes reeeeealy slow, but I can easily see the screening pattern (Hahne Baryta, Canon Semimatte), and it still looks much worse than "SuperFine" setting on my 7880, not to mention "SuperPhoto"...
Yes, at absolute maximum resolution for each printer, single pass printing, the Canon is a little slower. I tested this extensively with an 11880 vs the 6100 and at maximum resolution for the Canon (600dpi, 32 pass, unidirectional, precision ON) I was getting about 8.5 square feet per hour vs the 11880 (2880dpi, uni-directional) at a little over 12. Neither of those are fast, but in all equivalent quality settings the Epson is the faster printer, unless you go to a pretty low quality (300 dpi standard bi-directional) which is very fast (133 sq/ft hour) but the Epson doesn't even have an equivalent setting and certainly the quality was unacceptable for top notch work. But I never feel like I needed to use those settings, lower quality settings are still outstanding and completely acceptable for both printers, so personally I feel the speed comparison is a wash.
As to seeing the screening, I think I can see it but I have to look really really close (with reading glasses), and even then it's so subtle in only shows up in a few small areas. With a loupe not so hard to see.
The Epson is a 360/720 dpi based algorithm that can lay down 2880x1440 individual droplets per square inch at 3 different sizes. The Canon is a 300/600 dpi based algorithm, and lay down 2400x1200 per square inch. I'm not sure about variable dots on the Canon. The Epson has a slightly smaller minimum droplet size. This calculates out to 4.1 million dots per square inch on the Epson vs. the canons 2.9 million dots per square inch. Now I'll be the first to admit that 2.9 million dots and 300 dpi is really really good and from any normal viewing distance isn't a problem. But in printing some very large prints from my p45 a few years back, I always thought the Epson output just seemed a little "cleaner". Perhaps thats the screening, which is incredibly important part of the technology, perhaps it's the resolution or maybe some of both (or maybe I just imagined it). But the 24x72 pano that hangs in my office was printed on my Canon, and I have no problem with it.
As mentioned they both can produce really great output, and the quality of the output from either has as much to do with the files and skill used in preparing the files than anything. After using both for about a year, I prefer the Epson and sold the Canon, but that's just personal preference. I don't knock either one, they both have strong points and weak points.
-
Wayne, is all the above experience with the Canon x100 series? I thought the newer Canon x300 series printers were faster and offered slightly better print quality? Have you compared the x100 to the current x300's?
-
I think the printing speed needs to be compared between, say, an iPF8300 and a Stylus Pro 9900. The x100 line and the 11880 is old old tech now.
-
I think the printing speed needs to be compared between, say, an iPF8300 and a Stylus Pro 9900. The x100 line and the 11880 is old old tech now.
Good point. However, I don't see anything from either company to indicate there were significant overall speed changes to the process of actually laying down the ink.
It all depends on the size, but on large high quality prints, the 9900 didn't improve enough on the 11880 to be significant. Epson specs 40x60 on the 9900 at 1440DPI bi directional at 24:20 vs 25:52 for the 11880. I'm not sure the difference is in pure printing speed, which all my tests were based on ... timing was done from the beginning of the printer laying down ink until the completion of the final pass. Each test was repeated 3 times on each printer, printing a 6 square foot image with nothing in the image at pure white. The new printers will print small prints in less time, but it seems that may be based on Epson shortening some per file prep time, not in speeding up the process of laying down the ink, because the print speed gains seen in smaller images don't translate to large prints at all. For epson users coming from a 78/9880, the speed improvement of the 78/9890 or the 79/9900 is significant. In comparison to the Canon, it just means these Epsons are now similar in speed.
I have never seen any fully published speeds on Canon's printers even though I've looked quite a bit, other than an occasional single speed rate that is based on an unknown output quality setting. I don't remember seeing anything in the press release of the 8350's and other information which indicated anything about printing time or speed, and watching them in operation last year for about an hour at WPPI saw nothing that made me feel they were any faster. It looks like all changes were to inkset/head design/firmware, but mechanically the appeared to perform identically to the previous models. (which isn't a knock, they perform just fine).
If you've seen something else love to hear about it, because you have used far more of these printers than anyone I know of, including the new models. Do you think the new ipf's are significantly faster than the older ones?
-
I haven't done a speed test in a real world sense, meaning best quality setting on both machines, but I certainly feel like the 9900 is every bit as fast as the iPF8300. It's the HP Z3200 that is the dog, but that isn't part of the current thread.
-
Yes, at absolute maximum resolution for each printer, single pass printing, the Canon is a little slower. I tested this extensively with an 11880 vs the 6100 and at maximum resolution....
It's been pointed out before that the carriage speed of the 6100 is slower than the carriage speed of the 44" and 60" Canons. That's mostly why the 6100 is slower than the 44" and 60" Canons. The larger printers on-board processing capacities are improved and having a hard drive on the printer speeds the spooling process (which in turn reduces network problems that can occur when sending huge files). You really need to compare a 60" machine to a 60" machine or a 44" machine to a 44" machine. Totally not fair to compare a 6100 to a 11880. The 11880 is faster than a 4880 as well...
I've found Epson's 9900 to be neck-to-neck with Canon's 44" printers speed-wise. It gets down the the point where you have to determine when you start the timer. Do you start the timer when you hit print or when the printer actually starts printing? The application rendering process takes quite a while when a conventional print method is used for either printer. The application renders a print file and sends it to the print spooler, then the spooler sends it to the printer and then the printer starts printing it. If you're printing a huge file from Photoshop, that first step can take quite a while - think about Photoshop's print progress dialog that stays up a while after you hit print. Canon's Photoshop printing plug-in's print-while-rendering-and-spooling feature allows it to start printing very quickly (often within 7 seconds from hitting Print) and continues to render and spool while it starts printing. When you're working with huge files from Photoshop this can provide a big speed improvement.
And if you need to reprint an image on a 44" or 60" Canon it's stored on the printer's hard drive so you can instantly start printing another one without having to resend the image from a computer. People that send massive files to 60" printers really like that and find it to be a huge time saver.
I have a few clients that are in the business of selling fine art reproductions on a large scale. They keep a nice database of images from lots of artists and often get orders in the 5-50 range for any particular image. When one of these clients found out that they could keep all of their images on iPF printer hard drives and fulfill orders without sending from a computer they flipped out. Storing print files on iPF hard drives has big workflow speed advantages for a small percentage of users. Most people with those printers don't even know about it (or the nesting capabilities or on-board calibration for that matter).
So there's more to this than just basic square foot per hour numbers. As Andy pointed out, when we look at the bigger picture, Epson and Canon are practically identical speed-wise, and HP is clearly way behind. I really love the 9900 and the 8300 and don't have a favorite between them.
-
The x100 line and the 11880 is old old tech now.
Could be but still enough around of both. A friend's iPF9000 is much faster than his 11880 running at the highest resolution to solve banding issues on the 11880 which are not solved by Epson in The Netherlands. It may be nice that the Epson lays down smaller droplets but when they are not consistently layed down you gain nothing by that. It has been like that for more than a year now. His brand new iPF8300 does a good job in his opinion.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
And if you need to reprint an image on a 44" or 60" Canon it's stored on the printer's hard drive so you can instantly start printing another one without having to resend the image from a computer. People that send massive files to 60" printers really like that and find it to be a huge time saver.
I have a few clients that are in the business of selling fine art reproductions on a large scale. They keep a nice database of images from lots of artists and often get orders in the 5-50 range for any particular image. When one of these clients found out that they could keep all of their images on iPF printer hard drives and fulfill orders without sending from a computer they flipped out. Storing print files on iPF hard drives has big workflow speed advantages for a small percentage of users. Most people with those printers don't even know about it (or the nesting capabilities or on-board calibration for that matter).
The HP's printer hard drives offer the same buffered printer data reprints. While you may see it as a unique feature there has always been something alike in the Windows printer spooler. I have used that on Epson 9000's ten years ago, just let the printer spooler keep the jobs and reprint them from there, no rasterising by the driver has to be done again then, the computer-printer connection could be a bottleneck but in time that became faster like printer speeds increased. Of course there is less information what spooler data represents a certain job. Qimage's interactive log could help then with the day/hour originally printed. Most RIPs will have that combination of the spooler and a logbook too like found in the HP and Canon printers with a harddisc.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
The difference is you can fire a print out of the canon without ever going to the computer. I use this from my 9100 all the time. Or at least I did until recently deciding to move to an Epson GS6000 (and Ebay the ipf9100 if you're looking):
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-ImagePrograf-iPF9100-Printer-Large-Format-/230600737305?pt=COMP_Printers&hash=item35b0e00219#ht_500wt_922
Speaking of the Epson GS (and since the thread is Canon/Epson LF) I don't see much talk about it here, but it sure will open up diverse possibilities with everything other than photo prints... Looking forward to uncoated wall murals and possibly canvas though I hear it still may be wise to spray.
-Jonathan
The HP's printer hard drives offer the same buffered printer data reprints. While you may see it as a unique feature there has always been something alike in the Windows printer spooler. I have used that on Epson 9000's ten years ago, just let the printer spooler keep the jobs and reprint them from there, no rasterising by the driver has to be done again then, the computer-printer connection could be a bottleneck but in time that became faster like printer speeds increased. Of course there is less information what spooler data represents a certain job. Qimage's interactive log could help then with the day/hour originally printed. Most RIPs will have that combination of the spooler and a logbook too like found in the HP and Canon printers with a harddisc.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
There is an interactive log on the Z3200-PS too, restart the job on the printer panel using the print data stored on the printer's harddisc. I have not tested what the difference in loading/print speed is between using the printer panel, the Z3200 log from printer utility on the computer or the Windows spooler. I doubt there is a difference between the first two. There could be some difference using the Windows spooler but nowhere near the time a rasterisation step takes. The time to get the inkjet head initialised must be enough to get data transferred for the first strokes.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Storing print files on iPF hard drives has big workflow speed advantages for a small percentage of users. Most people with those printers don't even know about it (or the nesting capabilities or on-board calibration for that matter).
Re: nesting capabilities, are you talking about Canon's Free layout app or something else? I just ordered an ipf8300. Canon is definitely pursuing the gillette razor blade model..I bought if for little more than the value of the inks I currently have to replace in my 8100. I'm always looking for better ways to deal with file transfer and media management with these WF machines.
thanks in advance for your reply.
-
Re: nesting capabilities, are you talking about Canon's Free layout app or something else? I just ordered an ipf8300.
The Free Layout App - it often goes overlooked! I'd bet 90%+ of iPF users have never used it, or even heard of it. Cheers.
-
The Free Layout App - it often goes overlooked! I'd bet 90%+ of iPF users have never used it, or even heard of it. Cheers.
Yes, In conjunction with InDesign, Canon's Free Layout App may not be a powerhouse RIP, but it sure ups the game for photgrapher's needing to send more than one image file at at time to a big inkjet printer.
-
Even with InDesign, the ability to layout several pages to save paper is pretty cool. Of course, more and more photographers are using Lightroom for multi image printing and positioning.
-
I have to wonder if Free Layout is a dead product though, because Canon still hasn't bothered releasing a Win x64 version.
-
I have run Free Layout in 64 bit on my Mac, for what that's worth.
At times it's worked very well. Other times I've had CM issues and a ruined print. Any hints on how to set things so my profile is correctly applied?
Terry.
-
It's not a free option, but for Epson LF printers this is an excellent option for those who want more control over printing or want to make custom profiles with a Spectroproofer (among other things):
http://www.dinax.de/mirage/
-
Cheers thanks for the link
-
Coming late to the party, but add me in as one of the epson haters. My old 4000 and 7600 made me so angry with ink and paper wastage, feed problems, and clogs that I wanted to bash them up with a sledge hammer. Most of the wastage seemed to be built in by design, too. I think that some of that like with the black swapping has been changed with the newest versions, but I'm still bitter.
I just bought my second HP Z3200 ... this time a 44inch PS version to replace my perfectly working never a clog 24inch version. I have been extremely pleased with the cost efficiency of this printer and the quality and easy of use. After hundreds of 17x22 prints, it was still on 10 of the original 12 starter cartridges. I really love how easy it is to build a profile and calibrate for any paper on the fly, like I did with a stack of old Brite Cube paper I had lying around. I think were I wanting to invest in a bunch of profiling equipment and spend the time to learn how to really use it, then the Canon might be more attractive.
-
Just my short experience with the Canon IPF 8300 as compared to the Epson's I have used over the past eight years - 9600, 9800.... I have not used the most current 9900 - I bought the Canon instead :)
-The Canon just works and is always ready to go...no worrying about clogged heads and I no longer do a nozzle check - nor the subsequent two to three cleaning cycles - before each print session. To me, this is a HUGE deal.
-If the profile is good and the correct media setting used, the print quality is amazing and smooth as can be. If your not seeing this then there is something either wrong with your profile/ settings or there is a defect with the printer/head.
I am in the process of changing to a new printer (from the Epson 2400) and considering either the Epson of Canon 24" or 44". I am not a professional and only print form my own pleasure, but like to print big. What drives me to the Canon are price and the fact the clogging problems on the Epson (I do not print daily).
OTOH, I also do not have the time to spend long hours on creating profiles for the Canon. So my question would be whether you need to create your own profiles for the Canon.
The alternative would, of course, be to replace the 2400 be the 3880 and give large prints to a professional printer...But then the price difference between the 3800 and the ipf6300 is not that great. (I am living in Europe where these printers are all significantly more expensive than in the US).
Any advice much appreciated.
Georg
-
It's not really necessary to create your own profiles for iPF6300/6350.
I'd definitely go Canon (in fact I've also switched from SP7880 to iPF6350) - it's much more economical in use than SP3880.
-
(I am living in Europe where these printers are all significantly more expensive than in the US).
Any advice much appreciated.
Georg
I think Epson Europe has nice rebates at the time.
7900 for €3.850 and 9900 goes for €6.225. Plus VAT
/Sven