Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Jozef Zajaz on April 18, 2011, 12:49:31 pm
-
Hi!
Im going to buy one of theese. What is all the advantages and disadvantages? Ink, paper, quality and so on?
Most ppl here in sweden say epson is the best and canon machines is shit?
The 9890 will cost me about 1000-1500 more than the canon. (prices are high here in sweden.)
-
Hi!
Im going to buy one of theese. What is all the advantages and disadvantages? Ink, paper, quality and so on?
Most ppl here in sweden say epson is the best and canon machines is shit?
The 9890 will cost me about 1000-1500 more than the canon. (prices are high here in sweden.)
If you are going in for high end equipment like that, do a lot of research on the internet, by reading serious review articles and discussions that already exist for both printers, and deal with a retailer who has these machines set-up, can show you how they work and what they produce, even with your own image files. Don't take seriously people saying a Canon ipf8300 is "shit". Who are these people and what do they really know about it? Have they worked with this printer to come to such a drastic opinion? I personally use an Epson 4900, but I've made profiles for the Canon ipf6300, and seen sample results from it, (its the smaller brother to the ipf8300) and frankly you can hardly tell the difference in print quality. Most of these high-end printers produce excellent output. What matters more is the system and features you prefer, and you only learn that by doing a fair amount of your own reading and hands-on research.
-
Mark is right. There is a lot of good information on this forum, and elsewhere on the web. A good place to start is with an article that I found very useful when faced with the same decision late last year. . .
http://www.on-sight.com/2010/04/25/canon-x300-printer-review/
Terry.
-
Have been extremely pleased with the iPF8300. It's a huge improvement over the old 9880. Gamut hugely better, and the overall sharpness of prints on canvas is a revelation.
Superficially one gets the impression of a lot of plastic when looking at the 8300, and I think this leads to a kind of negative meme-scape on the net.
However, it is plastic very well used and the peeks I have taken at the overall mechanism suggest it will be extremely durable over the long haul. It's metal where metal counts, and the bearing schemes and drive mechanisms are first rate. I've worked on the designs of many industrial machines, and I'm impressed by this one. The guys who designed it understood the process of making prints and it shows.
I've been driving it hard over the last few weeks and it hasn't given me a single problem or a single bad print. Hasn't cost me any time for nozzle issues. No software issues, no scrapes, and by some miracle I have not had a single dust spot! I'm even liking the weird low-slung roll position and feed scheme, so nice not to have to lift those 44" rolls up high!
My only legitimate complaint is it finishes prints too fast to take a decent coffee break or a post a decent article on LuLa! Oops, next print...
-
They are both great printers, but I would definitely get the 8300 over the 9890. The 8300's Epson counterpart would more likely be the 9900, not the 9890. I am a happy 8300 (and 9900) user, and I prefer to use the Canon for most print jobs.
-
They are both great printers, but I would definitely get the 8300 over the 9890. The 8300's Epson counterpart would more likely be the 9900, not the 9890. I am a happy 8300 (and 9900) user, and I prefer to use the Canon for most print jobs.
Andy, this is interesting. What key factors drive your preference for the 8300?
-
A few come to mind:
* wake up time on the 9900 is much longer
* I don't like switching black inks, even though the 9900 does it electronically. It takes time and uses some ink. Epson should have another print head after all of these years.
* I have had some issues with bad ink cartridges from Epson (has happened more than 6 times) and I stress out every time I have to put a new ink cart inside, which usually ends up with a call to Epson to get a replacement. 6 times out of 15 or so changes is unacceptable.
* I really like the Canon Photoshop plugin.
I do like the 9900 for cut sheets over the 8300, and that is what sways me to use my 9900 in that circumstance.
-
A few come to mind:
* wake up time on the 9900 is much longer
* I don't like switching black inks, even though the 9900 does it electronically. It takes time and uses some ink. Epson should have another print head after all of these years.
* I have had some issues with bad ink cartridges from Epson (has happened more than 6 times) and I stress out every time I have to put a new ink cart inside, which usually ends up with a call to Epson to get a replacement. 6 times out of 15 or so changes is unacceptable.
* I really like the Canon Photoshop plugin.
I do like the 9900 for cut sheets over the 8300, and that is what sways me to use my 9900 in that circumstance.
These are the kinds of things prospective customers need to know about; beyond print quality is general serviceability and convenience. Your experience with the cartridges is kind of shocking. Never heard of such a high failure rate before. How do you find your 9900 on noise when it's not printing and not sleeping, but in ready mode? And what about nozzle clogs?
-
I have found more complains with the Epson about bad cartridges, and clogging the head. Haven't found any problem with the ipf8300 about bad cartridges and clogging heads.
Thanks,
Greg
-
I haven't had any complaints regarding the sound of the 9900 at all. It's a nice and quiet machine by my standards. Nozzle auto cleaning happens more often than I would prefer, and I guess that is another reason why I prefer to go towards the 8300. There was a period of time when I still had my Canon iFP8100 and I used the 9900 most of the time over a few month period. I still had quite a few nozzle cleanings, which takes a while.
If I printed on larger cut sheets most of the time, I am sure that I would prefer the 9900.
-
A few come to mind:
* wake up time on the 9900 is much longer
* I don't like switching black inks, even though the 9900 does it electronically. It takes time and uses some ink. Epson should have another print head after all of these years.
* I have had some issues with bad ink cartridges from Epson (has happened more than 6 times) and I stress out every time I have to put a new ink cart inside, which usually ends up with a call to Epson to get a replacement. 6 times out of 15 or so changes is unacceptable.
* I really like the Canon Photoshop plugin.
I do like the 9900 for cut sheets over the 8300, and that is what sways me to use my 9900 in that circumstance.
Thank you. Why do you prefer the 9900 for cut sheets over the 8300?
-
The 9900 has a great way of loading cut sheets: just drop it into place and the printer does the rest. All other wide format printers (44" models) you have to line up this line with that line, move a bar, wait a minute for the printer to check for skew errors, etc etc. The Epson is a load it-and-go setup, which is very very easy.
-
The 9900 has a great way of loading cut sheets: just drop it into place and the printer does the rest. All other wide format printers (44" models) you have to line up this line with that line, move a bar, wait a minute for the printer to check for skew errors, etc etc. The Epson is a load it-and-go setup, which is very very easy.
Okej thats not good, haha i was planning to use both roll paper and sheets. But wonder if its worth the 1500 diffrence though.
Is the 9890 set up in the same way?
-
Okej thats not good, haha i was planning to use both roll paper and sheets.
Jozef, I have an 8300 and for perspective, it is not difficult to load and print on cut sheets. I came from an Epson 3800, which is a great cut sheet printer. I would say that loading my 44" Canon is no more difficult than loading a sheet of paper in the rear manual feed of my 3800. Actually, it's probably easier. However, it's not quite as easy as loading paper in the regular 3800 top feeder.
Something you should research is minimum margins and minimum paper size. When you print from a roll in the Canon 8300 the minimum margins for most media is 0.20" on all sides. With cut sheets it's 0.20" on three sides and 0.91 on the trailing edge. This means you can't quite print an 8x10 on an 8.5x11 sheet. So, I buy rolls make sure my the left-overs are large enough to facilitate my standard sizes. The smallest side a cut sheet can have is 8" or 8.5" (can't remember which). You should look into any restrictions Epson may have in this regard.
Here are the things I most appreciate about my 8300. . . .
- In almost 4 months I have yet to have a clog.
- The prints are sharp and colourful, and I've had very positive customer feedback.
- Matte and gloss black are always available (no ink swap needed).
- I really like the Canon Photoshop plug-in, and the control it gives me.
- You can define and name custom media types. These allow you to control ink loading. The names automatically appear on both the printer menu when you load paper and on your computer. Very powerful.
- When you set up a media type for roll media, such as canvas, the printer will print a test pattern to determine if length compensation is needed. On a 20" canvas print without compensation I'm 1/8" short. With the compensation, which is embedded in the custom media type, my 20" prints comes out exactly 20". On my 3800 I had to compensate when I prepared my canvas files for print.
- The printer automatically agitates the inks periodically to keep the pigment from settling.
- You can run a calibration routine to align the printer with a set of factory specs. It prints a pattern, reads the pattern and then calibrates the printer. It's very nice to have a built-in reference point you can align to as things drift over time.
- The built-in cutter works great, even on canvas.
Terry.
-
Speaking of clogs, one thing that should be kept in mind is that Canon printers also experience nozzle clogs, but they are handled differently. The Canon heads have many more nozzles than they need to use, so as they clog the printing process uses other open ones, until it reaches a point when you need to change the print head. They cost hundreds of dollars. When that happens would depend on usage and other factors. The Epson design philosophy is different. For Epson the head is not considered a consumable, there are no spare nozzles, so when clogs occur you clean them. I have no idea which approach ends-up being more economic in respect of nozzle clog management, but it's important to know that both brands have clogs, dealt with in different ways.
-
Jozef, I have an 8300 and for perspective, it is not difficult to load and print on cut sheets. I came from an Epson 3800, which is a great cut sheet printer. I would say that loading my 44" Canon is no more difficult than loading a sheet of paper in the rear manual feed of my 3800. Actually, it's probably easier. However, it's not quite as easy as loading paper in the regular 3800 top feeder.
Something you should research is minimum margins and minimum paper size. When you print from a roll in the Canon 8300 the minimum margins for most media is 0.20" on all sides. With cut sheets it's 0.20" on three sides and 0.91 on the trailing edge. This means you can't quite print an 8x10 on an 8.5x11 sheet. So, I buy rolls make sure my the left-overs are large enough to facilitate my standard sizes. The smallest side a cut sheet can have is 8" or 8.5" (can't remember which). You should look into any restrictions Epson may have in this regard.
Here are the things I most appreciate about my 8300. . . .
- In almost 4 months I have yet to have a clog.
- The prints are sharp and colourful, and I've had very positive customer feedback.
- Matte and gloss black are always available (no ink swap needed).
- I really like the Canon Photoshop plug-in, and the control it gives me.
- You can define and name custom media types. These allow you to control ink loading. The names automatically appear on both the printer menu when you load paper and on your computer. Very powerful.
- When you set up a media type for roll media, such as canvas, the printer will print a test pattern to determine if length compensation is needed. On a 20" canvas print without compensation I'm 1/8" short. With the compensation, which is embedded in the custom media type, my 20" prints comes out exactly 20". On my 3800 I had to compensate when I prepared my canvas files for print.
- The printer automatically agitates the inks periodically to keep the pigment from settling.
- You can run a calibration routine to align the printer with a set of factory specs. It prints a pattern, reads the pattern and then calibrates the printer. It's very nice to have a built-in reference point you can align to as things drift over time.
- The built-in cutter works great, even on canvas.
Terry.
Great thank you. I will probably not print on cut sheets that small though.
How big does it bring borderless?
-
"Clogs" that cost me nothing in wasted paper, wasted ink or (much more importantly) wasted time are not "clogs" in my opinion.
Advanced technology that protects me from all the above is offered by Canon. All I have to do is pop out a head when its useful life is over and pop in another. No wasted paper, no wasted ink, no aggravation... effectively no "clogs".
By the way, Epson heads have to be replaced from time to time too... just read the forum. Not as often of course, but they fail too. To do that you pay for a tech visit as well as a head. Meanwhile you waste time, ink and paper (and colorful swear words, I like to save those for special occasions) cleaning clogs.
Tom
-
Speaking of clogs, one thing that should be kept in mind is that Canon printers also experience nozzle clogs, but they are handled differently. The Canon heads have many more nozzles than they need to use, so as they clog the printing process uses other open ones, until it reaches a point when you need to change the print head. They cost hundreds of dollars. When that happens would depend on usage and other factors. The Epson design philosophy is different. For Epson the head is not considered a consumable, there are no spare nozzles, so when clogs occur you clean them. I have no idea which approach ends-up being more economic in respect of nozzle clog management, but it's important to know that both brands have clogs, dealt with in different ways.
Great input, anyone else have ideas about this?
-
"Clogs" that cost me nothing in wasted paper, wasted ink or (much more importantly) wasted time are not "clogs" in my opinion.
Advanced technology that protects me from all the above is offered by Canon. All I have to do is pop out a head when its useful life is over and pop in another. No wasted paper, no wasted ink, no aggravation... effectively no "clogs".
By the way, Epson heads have to be replaced from time to time too... just read the forum. Not as often of course, but they fail too. To do that you pay for a tech visit as well as a head. Meanwhile you waste time, ink and paper (and colorful swear words, I like to save those for special occasions) cleaning clogs.
Tom
Hold the phone Tom - let's not get things mixed up. Technical faults and routine clogs are different animals. Any piece of equipment can have technical faults.
The main difference I'm talking about here is whether you spend more money on ink cleaning Epson's clogs, than you spend on replacing Canon print heads once they are clogged-up, which are not cheap. Clogs are there in both. You can't just define them away based on a convenience criterion. But it is perfectly legitimate to prefer one way of dealing with them over another. My only point was for the OP to be clear that it happens whatever the pigmented ink printer.
-
Hold the phone Tom - let's not get things mixed up. Technical faults and routine clogs are different animals. Any piece of equipment can have technical faults.
The main difference I'm talking about here is whether you spend more money on ink cleaning Epson's clogs, than you spend on replacing Canon print heads once they are clogged-up, which are not cheap. Clogs are there in both. You can't just define them away based on a convenience criterion. But it is perfectly legitimate to prefer one way of dealing with them over another. My only point was for the OP to be clear that it happens whatever the pigmented ink printer.
How much does the canon heads cost?
-
As i understand the canon comes with a smart plugin, the epson would need some kind of rip to get the same functionality?
-
The Canon heads are $560 each (two required) at Vistek in Canada. You replace them yourself. You can find information on how long they last by searching here or looking through the Canon Wiki (http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/home). Someone else will have to comment on the total cost to replace Epson 9890 heads.
On my Epsons (2200 and 3800) I started each print job by running a nozzle check. I never have to bother with the Canon, which translates into piece of mind. I have never had a print ruined by an ink clog. The 3800 was actually pretty good, but I became concerned about how one of the large printers would fare in my dry climate, based on the reviews I was reading.
Having heads for both matte and gloss black inks is another piece of mind thing. I used to hold off on doing work until I could batch up gloss or matte prints, to avoid unnecessary changes. Yes, it's an easy switch but there is some wasted ink.
Terry.
-
As i understand the canon comes with a smart plugin, the epson would need some kind of rip to get the same functionality?
I'm not sure I would characterize things that way. The Canon plug-in for Photoshop bypasses the traditional printing process and provides a different method for dealing with paper handling, applying ICC profiles and making monochrome prints. I've read some comments that suggest it may produce slightly better gloss images, but I have yet to make that comparison. It is however, dead easy to completely turn off colour management in the plug-in and send an untagged file to the printer.
You may be thinking of the custom media utility, which allows you to specify the overall ink limit in five steps. However, this provides only one area of control, relative to a RIP.
Terry.
-
before tossing the canon heads, i'd suggest suspending the jets in an ultrasonic cleaner ($29 at harbour freight). don't see any reason if it's just a clog in a mechanically healthy jet, that a good cleaning couldn't solve.
-
before tossing the canon heads, i'd suggest suspending the jets in an ultrasonic cleaner ($29 at harbour freight). don't see any reason if it's just a clog in a mechanically healthy jet, that a good cleaning couldn't solve.
Anyone tried this?
-
Yes, it's an easy switch but there is some wasted ink.
Terry.
To clarify, the amount of ink consumed in the 3800 for a round-trip between matte, photoblack and return is about 4 ml. or about 5% of a 60 dollar cartridge, so 3 dollars or so.
-
If you have an Epson printer and are looking at a "plugin" with more features than some RIPs, I can highly recommend looking at Mirage fron Dinax:
http://www.dinax.de/mirage/
One friend of mine decided it was worth the price just for the canvas wrap feature alone! It's really very, very good.
-
If you have an Epson printer and are looking at a "plugin" with more features than some RIPs, I can highly recommend looking at Mirage fron Dinax:
http://www.dinax.de/mirage/
One friend of mine decided it was worth the price just for the canvas wrap feature alone! It's really very, very good.
Hi Phil,
I went to their page and downloaded the manual to have a look. The price for the 17" version is not unreasonable as far as RIPs go. I've always been leery about the need for a RIP. Not to say that the Epson driver for Mac is exactly a cake-walk, but one learns its idiosyncrasies and then it's usable. What would you say are the key features of this RIP that make it worthwhile? I also note that if I wanted to go the spectroproofer route, between the cost of unit itself, and the two Mirage licenses needed to generate my profiles, the investment would be in the range of 2000 Canadian. I wonder whether this is truly a cost-effective option.
Mark
-
The main difference I'm talking about here is whether you spend more money on ink cleaning Epson's clogs, than you spend on replacing Canon print heads once they are clogged-up...
Except you are not comparing apples to apples. You cannot just talk ink costs. You are not only out the INK costs for unclogging Epson printers, you are out the paper when nozzles clog and, as I clearly stated, out the most important factor of all, your TIME. None of the later problems occur with our Canon printers. No lost paper, no lost ink, no lost time. Been there, done that... so we bought Canon. Have had four so far and are presently running three all day every day.
And the amount of ink we are running through these things (several liters every other week through three printers that are run every weekday) is considerable. In the last year we have replaced two heads in those three printers... both the heads shooting MBK ink which we consume at about four or five times the rate of the next most used ink color. I think we got 6 plus liters of MBK alone just through the one head on each machine. $475.00 heads that snap in in seconds are a cheap, cheap, cheap price to pay for that "turn it on and it just works" reliability.
And we NEVER stopped during production because the heads clogged up or a nozzle quit working mid-job.
Tom
-
If you run a nozzle check before you start the print job, chances are you won't waste much. I agree with you that the time factor checking and cleaning the printer as needed in a high pressure production environment is a considerable factor. Much depends on circumstances when confronting these choices.
-
Hi Phil,
I went to their page and downloaded the manual to have a look. The price for the 17" version is not unreasonable as far as RIPs go. I've always been leery about the need for a RIP. Not to say that the Epson driver for Mac is exactly a cake-walk, but one learns its idiosyncrasies and then it's usable. What would you say are the key features of this RIP that make it worthwhile? I also note that if I wanted to go the spectroproofer route, between the cost of unit itself, and the two Mirage licenses needed to generate my profiles, the investment would be in the range of 2000 Canadian. I wonder whether this is truly a cost-effective option.
Mark
Hi Mark,
Do you need two licences for that? The one package (the top end) should cover it in one?
At any rate, for me it's useful for people who have the need for nesting with correct colour management, it's really slick and fast and versatile. If you want to make custom profiles with the spectro (no other software does this with the Epson spectro). If you want automatic resizing and gallery wraps for canvas. It covers all the printers from the 4000 onward including the white ink WT7900 (and it can handle white ink usage and alpha channels for deciding what will be white and what won't and whether you lay it fron or back etc).
To boil it down, it's efficient and does far more than the driver in terms of print management and it does it accurately for colour and previews. There's a trial version available which I think is the best option because how it fits into an individual workflow is something that usually one can only decide for oneself.
I believe that most people don't need a RIP for photo printing, but if you do, this is well worth a look and is very cost effective compared to a lot of RIPs.
-
Thanks Phil. Good to know about. I'll look into it as time permits.
-
One of the points that has been brought up frequently in this forum, is that the Canon re-maps clogged nozzles as necessary. When people mention this, they generally say "Oh, the cost is probably a wash between the Epson way and the Canon way".
It seems to me that it should be possible to quantify this. In order for the function to work, the Canon firmware has to maintain a nozzle map in non-volatile memory. As far as I know, the map isn't brought up to the user interface, but has to be there somewhere. Someone from Canon should be able to create a utility which reads the re-map information. That would allow the cost of lost nozzles to be quantified.
Making this information accessible would be a service to Canon owners, as it would be possible to predict the point at which head replacement will be necessary. I'm sure that Canon owners would be a lot happier to know how much nozzle re-mapping capacity is still available, then discovering one fine day that their printer won't print until new heads are ordered, shipped to site, and installed!
-
I think the likelihood having to replace the heads on the Canons is overstated. If you're a service bureau cranking out tons of prints all day every day, then sure. But Shark_II has already made the case for that being a small price to pay compared to the wasted materials & time with clogs on the Epson.
For photographers printing their work, I think service lifetime of the heads is much less of an issue/concern. I originally purchased a used 5000, printed on it for a couple of years, and then sold it to someone else who is still printing on it. The print heads have not needed replacing yet, despite the fact that the heads in the 5000 supposedly don't last nearly as long as the latest generation of heads in the x300's. I'm now printing on a 6300, and fully expect that by the times the heads go out I'll probably be ready to upgrade to a new model anyway.
Conversely, the clog issues with the Epsons are going to be even more of a hassle for low-volume printers. To me, the thought of having to load plain paper and print a nozzle check before each print job is unthinkable. I would never accept this as normal and I find it pretty amazing that some folks seem to be OK with having to do that.
IMHO the bottom line is that the Epson printers are best suited to a high-volume printing environment. For lower-volume users (which probably includes many if not most photographers printing their own work), the Canons are infinitely more practical.
-
One of the points that has been brought up frequently in this forum, is that the Canon re-maps clogged nozzles as necessary. When people mention this, they generally say "Oh, the cost is probably a wash between the Epson way and the Canon way".
It seems to me that it should be possible to quantify this. In order for the function to work, the Canon firmware has to maintain a nozzle map in non-volatile memory. As far as I know, the map isn't brought up to the user interface, but has to be there somewhere. Someone from Canon should be able to create a utility which reads the re-map information. That would allow the cost of lost nozzles to be quantified.
Making this information accessible would be a service to Canon owners, as it would be possible to predict the point at which head replacement will be necessary. I'm sure that Canon owners would be a lot happier to know how much nozzle re-mapping capacity is still available, then discovering one fine day that their printer won't print until new heads are ordered, shipped to site, and installed!
Neither of them are terribly interested in transparency on issues of ink wastage.
-
If you run a nozzle check before you start the print job, chances are you won't waste much. I agree with you that the time factor checking and cleaning the printer as needed in a high pressure production environment is a considerable factor. Much depends on circumstances when confronting these choices.
That has not been my experience at all. I have many times run into the situation where I run a nozzle check that comes out fine and then go to print the image only to have it ruined because of a clog.
I have two 40 x 60`s sitting in the trash can because of this issue (you think I would have learned after the first one). My Epson 9900 needs to be babysat almost constantly. When I have a lot of orders to process that is a real pain. I recently made a 40 inch by 200 inch print on the Epson and I was sweating bullets the whole way through (it came out great thankfully).
My Canon on the other hand just cranks out print after print.
Once you factor in the lost ink, paper, and TIME spent on my Epson I can`t see the Canon losing the $$$ battle on this one.
The 9900 does have some advantages to be sure (media loading for one) but efficiency is not one of them.
Maybe I have a lemon who knows, maybe my sample size of one is not meaningful to anyone out there but it is meaningful to me!
When the 9900 gives up the ghost I doubt I`ll replace it with another Epson. That day may be soon coming, the printer makes a lot of noise these days. The worst is on an ink switch which sometimes sounds like a 5 year old girl who just saw the boogeyman in her closet!
-
Hi Phil,
I went to their page and downloaded the manual to have a look. The price for the 17" version is not unreasonable as far as RIPs go. I've always been leery about the need for a RIP. Not to say that the Epson driver for Mac is exactly a cake-walk, but one learns its idiosyncrasies and then it's usable. What would you say are the key features of this RIP that make it worthwhile? I also note that if I wanted to go the spectroproofer route, between the cost of unit itself, and the two Mirage licenses needed to generate my profiles, the investment would be in the range of 2000 Canadian. I wonder whether this is truly a cost-effective option.
Mark
What options are available for canon?
-
If you're having to babysit your 9900, it has a serious problem. You should be getting it looked at by Epson.
-
I think the likelihood having to replace the heads on the Canons is overstated. If you're a service bureau cranking out tons of prints all day every day, then sure. But Shark_II has already made the case for that being a small price to pay compared to the wasted materials & time with clogs on the Epson.
For photographers printing their work, I think service lifetime of the heads is much less of an issue/concern. I originally purchased a used 5000, printed on it for a couple of years, and then sold it to someone else who is still printing on it. The print heads have not needed replacing yet, despite the fact that the heads in the 5000 supposedly don't last nearly as long as the latest generation of heads in the x300's. I'm now printing on a 6300, and fully expect that by the times the heads go out I'll probably be ready to upgrade to a new model anyway.
Conversely, the clog issues with the Epsons are going to be even more of a hassle for low-volume printers. To me, the thought of having to load plain paper and print a nozzle check before each print job is unthinkable. I would never accept this as normal and I find it pretty amazing that some folks seem to be OK with having to do that.
IMHO the bottom line is that the Epson printers are best suited to a high-volume printing environment. For lower-volume users (which probably includes many if not most photographers printing their own work), the Canons are infinitely more practical.
Unfortunately, this has been my experience with nozzle clogging on a 9900. I do not print daily. More like every other week. I have to print out a nozzle check each time. Invariably, the nozzle check print will show a clog in one of the color channels. So, I do a nozzle cleaning and reprint the test. Now, the color that was originally clogged is usually clear, but the black channel is completely clogged. Three or four rounds of nozzle cleanings will generally get the job done. This is completely ridiculous in a high end printer that is now in its 5th generation.
-
Unfortunately, this has been my experience with nozzle clogging on a 9900. I do not print daily. More like every other week. I have to print out a nozzle check each time. Invariably, the nozzle check print will show a clog in one of the color channels. So, I do a nozzle cleaning and reprint the test. Now, the color that was originally clogged is usually clear, but the black channel is completely clogged. Three or four rounds of nozzle cleanings will generally get the job done. This is completely ridiculous in a high end printer that is now in its 5th generation.
You are raising a real good question. I, for one, would like to hear more from Epson about why nozzle clogging continues to be an on-going issue. I'm particularly intrigued by the fact that I hardly had ANY with my 3800, but with my new 4900, after months of accumulated experience, I am seeing more of it than I expected based on using my 3800 for three years in the same room, same environment - still not nearly as bad as the 4000/4800 were and it cures easily, but still more than I expected, based on all the work Epson has been doing to mitigate this problem and their advertising. The problem is that ALL these corporations are very non-transparent when it comes to issues of ink wasted in maintenance and clog performance, so it's hard for individuals to disentangle the norm from the machine-specific.
-
Another vote for the Canon. I ran for years with the Epson 4000 and ImagePrint. The output was stellar, once the clogging was resolved. My experience almost completely matches hcubell's. Now I have an iPF8300 and I just hit 'print'. Very nice.
Shark_II's advice re: time saved is a real boon. I used to run photographer co-ops out of my studio and the first 40+ minutes of each session was devoted to unclogging the printer (we were obviously distracted and discussing our work, not babysitting the printer). A real pain. It took me a long time to even consider switching from Epson, given the quality of the output. Now, it will take me a long time to consider switching back.
Unless you need the Epson straight paper path for rigid substrates, I strongly recommend the Canon.
-
Thank you all. I now feel confident buyint the canon saving the 1500$ (which will give me 3 print heads)
What about costs of ink, same for canon/epson?
How much ml does either machine consume?
What about the best price for 12 700ml cartridges i can get out there?
-
You are raising a real good question. I, for one, would like to hear more from Epson about why nozzle clogging continues to be an on-going issue. I'm particularly intrigued by the fact that I hardly had ANY with my 3800, but with my new 4900, after months of accumulated experience, I am seeing more of it than I expected based on using my 3800 for three years in the same room, same environment - still not nearly as bad as the 4000/4800 were and it cures easily, but still more than I expected, based on all the work Epson has been doing to mitigate this problem and their advertising. The problem is that ALL these corporations are very non-transparent when it comes to issues of ink wasted in maintenance and clog performance, so it's hard for individuals to disentangle the norm from the machine-specific.
I wonder if the clog issue is model specific. I had an Epson 2880 for 18 months and ran through multiple sets of cartridges (they are really small, about 12 ml) and never once had a clog. Because of ink costs I moved up to a 3880 a year ago and again, have not had a clog to date. I've grown pretty complacent about this machine, often not doing a nozzle check prior to doing a series of prints (I know one should always check things). I don't know what the installed base is out there in terms of the number of Epsons versus the number of Canons but we constantly read about Epson problems much more than Canon. Of course this alone cannot be taken as a statistically representative sample. Curious indeed.
-
I've followed this thread with a lot of interest, and it seems that Epson really hasn't solved the clogging issue at all and why would they? They are in the business of selling their liquid gold and by the sounds of it, a lot of it goes in the maintenance tank, only to be replenished once again by the faithful. I for one believe it's a intentional design intent. Surely, this problem has been around since my 660 days and after so much grief, I rolled that thing to the curb. Every subsequent Epson printer I've had, it clogged just as good as the 660 did, and at the most undesirable time. A good example is with my 4000. Right in the middle of a print run, it decides to do a self cleaning and then automatically I loose a complete color! This is like clock work and apparently a known issue and the good news is it can't be turned off. I have to spend hours trying to unclog it if I'm desperate to get the job done. Otherwise, I now stop the printing and do a puddle cleaning and resume printing the next day. It's sad that the newest generation printers still do the same thing. Thank God the maintenance tank is large enough to accommodate all the cleaning cycles needed and Epson engineering has given us so many choices of cleaning systems too!
The good new is that we now have alternative to the Epson. Canon seems to have listened to all out cry's for help and have brought out products that work and work without doing puddle cleanings and wiper blade maintenance. It seems that replacing the heads on a Canon are easy compared to the Epson and it's the same price. I hope Canon comes out with a replacement for the 5100 soon because I would really like to see what unattended printing really feels like. I'm too scared to send too many prints to the queue in fear of seeing many magenta, or blue or green pages when I come back. What's it like to have reliable unattended printing? Is it good?
Hopefully soon, I can finally roll that beast to the curb once and for all. I don't have the gall to sell it to anyone.
Finally it appears we have real choices.
Paul
-
I wonder if the clog issue is model specific. I had an Epson 2880 for 18 months and ran through multiple sets of cartridges (they are really small, about 12 ml) and never once had a clog. Because of ink costs I moved up to a 3880 a year ago and again, have not had a clog to date. I've grown pretty complacent about this machine, often not doing a nozzle check prior to doing a series of prints (I know one should always check things). I don't know what the installed base is out there in terms of the number of Epsons versus the number of Canons but we constantly read about Epson problems much more than Canon. Of course this alone cannot be taken as a statistically representative sample. Curious indeed.
My experience is that clog behaviour is model-specific and it takes some months of use to assess it properly. My 4000 was horrible, the 4800 better, the 3800 excellent, and the 4900 somewhere between the 4800 and the 3800 - small clogs if idle for a few days and no big deal to clean-up. Never had a clog yet mid-print in the 4900 which would produce a noticeable impact.
The installed base of Epson must be much larger than Canon, because Canon was very much later to the game, had an early disaster on their hands with the ipf5000, and Epson had a lot of incumbent advantage. It's probably starting to even-up as the more recent Canon printers seem to be very good performers, produce high quality prints, priced competitively and people look at alternatives.
-
I've followed this thread with a lot of interest, and it seems that Epson really hasn't solved the clogging issue at all and why would they? They are in the business of selling their liquid gold and by the sounds of it, a lot of it goes in the maintenance tank, only to be replenished once again by the faithful. I for one believe it's a intentional design intent.
Paul
I don't believe in those conspiracy theories. No company has an interest in the bad press Epson has been getting over years of printer clogs, and they know better than we do that eventually technological competition can come back to bite them. In fact they say so themselves in their corporate strategy documentation, some of which you can download from corners of their websites. I think the cause of this problem's persistence is more related to technical constraints and their decision to perfect their basic technology rather than make a fundamental U-turn, because they seem persuaded based on their research that this technology provides the most accurate lay-down of ink and the highest resolution of image detail. So in the mindset which may prevail there, and I'm hypothesizing here, a judgment may have been made that the clogs are a reasonable trade-off for maintaining the merits of the basic technology, and they would pour resources into trying to heal the clog problems within the framework of that technology. They've been more successful with some models than others, from what I've seen and read, but why I don't have any idea.
-
I agree with Mark, no conspiracy here. But I believe Epson became complacent. And Canon is going to eat their lunch if they stay that way.
Tom
PS: Although I am a hard-core Canon guy now, feedback from Epson 3800 owners seems to be that the clogging problem was pretty minimal. What is the big difference in technology that keeps Epson from translating that apparent desktop printer success into their large format printers?
-
PS: ......... feedback from Epson 3800 owners seems to be that the clogging problem was pretty minimal. What is the big difference in technology that keeps Epson from translating that apparent desktop printer success into their large format printers?
As a happy former 3800 owner with very few nozzle clogs over three years, and now a 4900 owner with a return to nozzle clogs, I ask myself - and Epson - exactly the same question, and I'm not getting any clarity on it. It makes me suspect that the gaps in the nozzle print-outs maybe are not clogs, but ink droppage from the head. I understand the design of the head and the ink feeding systems are not identical between these models, but from there to really explaining it, no transparency.
-
I had a 2200 that would clog at inopportune times. It was especially difficult in the winter, when it would get very dry. I finally had to run a humidifier and the problem became much less of an issue, as was the case when the weather warmed up and the humidity rose. It seemed like the clogging became a significant issue around 28% relative humidity and lower. That printer failed and I bought another one (both used) and to my delight, it was much better in the winter. Still, there were issues periodically, but they were far fewer. Something had obviously been wrong on the first one.
I wanted to print larger so I bought a 3800. I was pleasantly surprised at how seldom I had nozzle clogs. They happened, but it was very infrequent. Still, I would always run a nozzle check before starting a print session and a few times it avoided a ruined print. Over two or three years I think I lost one or two prints to a nozzle clog mid-stream. Relative to my 2200's, the 3800 clogged very little and was a great printer. It's a lot of printer at an attractive price, and I'm about to convert it run custom monochrome inks.
I bought the 8300 to print on canvas, and to take over my colour printing. I've had it up and running since early January, during our low humidity season, and it's been flawless. In fact, I went almost two months before I realized I had never done a nozzle check. I ran one just to be sure, and it was fine. I haven't bothered to run another.
That's been my clogging experience with three Epson printers and one Canon, fwiw, in essentially the same printing environment. To be fair, I really need more time with the Canon, but my experiences with it are in alignment with the user reports I've read.
Terry.
-
The nozzle check pattern definitely represents a non-delivered droplet, Mark. Whether that's because of a blockage, lack of ink (air buble, although very unlikely), failure of the head to fire, or some other reason will obviously vary, but it's definitely due to a droplet not being delivered to the media.
It's also important to remember that this corner of the web is photographers, which does not represent the largest portion of large format printer users in the market for *any* of the manufacturers (particularly not for HP and Epson), so any statistical analysis of "complaints" here isn't representative.
Ink usage, though, is a bit like pixel peeping. When I drive my car, I can get instantaneous fuel consumption data that is accurate to the second, but what I really want to know is my average over longer distances in different conditions because the instantaeous data from range from 0.0l/100km to over 40.0l/100km depending on if I'm coasting or if I've slammed the accelerator down from the start, whether on a hill up or down, so and so on. In the same way, what you really want to know, is how many prints you can get from a set of cartridges and, if you do have wastage from bad prints, the frequency and cost of that as a percentage overall.
If you look at the proofing market, which makes ink and printer usage in the photo market look small, then that is a reasonable guide to reliability and consistency. Some of these users check colour multiple times a day, or even with every print (FOGRA for example).
By comparison, I have printers that don't get used for weeks or even months and then do a few prints or do dozens. Most pro photogs would be some where in between.
One technology masks the issue (not in a devious or bad way, just a different technology) and one doesn't, but instantaneous results are far less useful than long term ones.
-
The nozzle check pattern definitely represents a non-delivered droplet, Mark. Whether that's because of a blockage, lack of ink (air buble, although very unlikely), failure of the head to fire, or some other reason will obviously vary, but it's definitely due to a droplet not being delivered to the media.
It's also important to remember that this corner of the web is photographers, which does not represent the largest portion of large format printer users in the market for *any* of the manufacturers (particularly not for HP and Epson), so any statistical analysis of "complaints" here isn't representative.
Ink usage, though, is a bit like pixel peeping. When I drive my car, I can get instantaneous fuel consumption data that is accurate to the second, but what I really want to know is my average over longer distances in different conditions because the instantaeous data from range from 0.0l/100km to over 40.0l/100km depending on if I'm coasting or if I've slammed the accelerator down from the start, whether on a hill up or down, so and so on. In the same way, what you really want to know, is how many prints you can get from a set of cartridges and, if you do have wastage from bad prints, the frequency and cost of that as a percentage overall.
If you look at the proofing market, which makes ink and printer usage in the photo market look small, then that is a reasonable guide to reliability and consistency. Some of these users check colour multiple times a day, or even with every print (FOGRA for example).
By comparison, I have printers that don't get used for weeks or even months and then do a few prints or do dozens. Most pro photogs would be some where in between.
One technology masks the issue (not in a devious or bad way, just a different technology) and one doesn't, but instantaneous results are far less useful than long term ones.
Phil, I agree with all of this. Indeed I can see from the data I'm collecting on the 4900 that a long period of time will be needed to "average out" the imprecision of the way in which Epson allows the data to be reported. There was a time - in the days of the 4000 - when one could measure ink consumption for prints or for cleaning quite accurately from the data provided on the nozzle check sheets; but that kind of transparency has long disappeared. I think my numbers on consumption per sq.ft. actually printed are OK - it's the remainder that isn't. In any case, I don't think ink is the big ticket cost in making a print. I print on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, which is perhaps the most reasonably priced of the high quality baryta papers here in Canada. Even then, a Super A3 (13*19 sheet) printed with a margin of at least an inch per dimension, is costing me $1.02 for ink and $2.70 for paper. At my current usage rate and with the assumptions I've made about machine cost amortization, capital consumption per Super A3 is $1.62, so of the three cost categories, ink is the lowest. When I think back of what it used to cost for colour enlargements during the film era, we're doing real well nowadays on cost and quality. I don't think anyone comparing printers for purchase should spend too much time focusing on second-order differences between brands with this kind of data. What matters more is print quality and usability considerations.
-
I've been printing about 30 feet of canvas every day for the last 3 weeks on my iPF8300. I have not lost a second to any printer related issue whatsoever. No clogs, no banding, none of that stuff. It has itself elected to run brief nozzle cleaning sequences on perhaps 3 or 4 occasions, took maybe 2 minutes each time. That's it. Did I say canvas? Dirty, dusty, bumpy, uneven, head swiping canvas? The 8300 takes it in stride.
It just sits over there in the corner and spits out prints when I ask it to. Switch on, print, switch off. No begging, groveling, pleading, cajoling, or cursing involved. No elevated blood pressure. No 1/2 to 1 hour long cleaning "events" at 02:00. No filthy fingers from cleaning the wiper. No breathing Windex fumes.
All I have to do is feed it cartridges and media, and I don't even have to mess around getting the media straight!
Back in my 9880 days that would have sounded like Inkjet Heaven.
But yes, the 9880 never messed up a print in progress, except once when it halted mid-print asking for a cartridge change and I was OTL. So credit where credit is due. The 8300 seems to handle the almost-empty cartridge issue by refusing to start a print if there's not enough ink to finish it, which I think I prefer, it lets me leave the room if I wish.
-
I've been printing about 30 feet of canvas every day for the last 3 weeks on my iPF8300. I have not lost a second to any printer related issue whatsoever. No clogs, no banding, none of that stuff. It has itself elected to run brief nozzle cleaning sequences on perhaps 3 or 4 occasions, took maybe 2 minutes each time. That's it. Did I say canvas? Dirty, dusty, bumpy, uneven, head swiping canvas? The 8300 takes it in stride.
It just sits over there in the corner and spits out prints when I ask it to. Switch on, print, switch off. No begging, groveling, pleading, cajoling, or cursing involved. No elevated blood pressure. No 1/2 to 1 hour long cleaning "events" at 02:00. No filthy fingers from cleaning the wiper. No breathing Windex fumes.
All I have to do is feed it cartridges and media, and I don't even have to mess around getting the media straight!
Back in my 9880 days that would have sounded like Inkjet Heaven.
But yes, the 9880 never messed up a print in progress, except once when it halted mid-print asking for a cartridge change and I was OTL. So credit where credit is due. The 8300 seems to handle the almost-empty cartridge issue by refusing to start a print if there's not enough ink to finish it, which I think I prefer, it lets me leave the room if I wish.
WOW! That's sounds like heaven to me! You're one lucky guy. Unfortunately, my Epson is not as nice to me as your Canon is to you, but with the knowledge in this thread, I now know it's possible to walk over to the print button and walk away.
I need a 17" printer. Is the IPF5100 a good choice or should I wait until they announce a 5300 or equivalent x300 series? I wasn't in the market, but I've almost had it with this monster. I just wish for carefree printing. I'm no longer in denial but I see clearly the reality of my situation and I'm tired of fighting it. My time is more valuable than spending hours trying to unlock the mysteries of this printer.
Thanks in advance.
Paul
-
I am also agonizing over the same purchase decision: 9900 or 9890 vs. iPF 8300. I have owned previous Epson and Canon printers and I prefer Canon for mechanics, functionality, and BW printing. But recent test prints that I had done lead me back to Epson for color. I ganged up 9 color files on 13x19 and had them printed on 9900, 9890, iPF 8300, and HP Z3100 (my files are 16-bit Adobe RGB 1998 color space). All of the people who printed for me are making their own icc profiles. The best overall color and best match for my calibrated monitor was the 9890! The 9900 had better greens than the 9890, but overall its color was more anemic and of a less match to my monitor. The Canon color was really over the top- almost too much gamut and too much saturation. A highly exaggerated red flush in face tones was the most worrying problem, since I am about to do an 85-print exhibition with faces in nearly every frame. Other Canon color distortions in my test print include an overall yellowish warm cast that is not on my monitor, sky blues rendered as hot tropical blues, fluorescent greens, and a generally poor monitor match. The 9890, with its smaller gamut, had the best overall skin tones and the best overall monitor match in my test prints. Its only minor deficiency is that some greens are not quite up to those seen on the monitor and in the 9900 print. However, this only applied to man-made greens; foliage was identical in the 9890 and 9900 prints. I don't shoot that many man-made green subjects. I shoot far more faces.
Some of you who posted mention having both the iPF 8300 and 9900 printers. I would like to read your responses to my test results above. I would also like to read your comments about relative ink usage between the two printers.
Thanks in advance.
-
I am also agonizing over the same purchase decision: 9900 or 9890 vs. iPF 8300. I have owned previous Epson and Canon printers and I prefer Canon for mechanics, functionality, and BW printing. But recent test prints that I had done lead me back to Epson for color. I ganged up 9 color files on 13x19 and had them printed on 9900, 9890, iPF 8300, and HP Z3100 (my files are 16-bit Adobe RGB 1998 color space). All of the people who printed for me are making their own icc profiles. The best overall color and best match for my calibrated monitor was the 9890! The 9900 had better greens than the 9890, but overall its color was more anemic and of a less match to my monitor. The Canon color was really over the top- almost too much gamut and too much saturation. A highly exaggerated red flush in face tones was the most worrying problem, since I am about to do an 85-print exhibition with faces in nearly every frame. Other Canon color distortions in my test print include an overall yellowish warm cast that is not on my monitor, sky blues rendered as hot tropical blues, fluorescent greens, and a generally poor monitor match. The 9890, with its smaller gamut, had the best overall skin tones and the best overall monitor match in my test prints. Its only minor deficiency is that some greens are not quite up to those seen on the monitor and in the 9900 print. However, this only applied to man-made greens; foliage was identical in the 9890 and 9900 prints. I don't shoot that many man-made green subjects. I shoot far more faces.
Some of you who posted mention having both the iPF 8300 and 9900 printers. I would like to read your responses to my test results above. I would also like to read your comments about relative ink usage between the two printers.
Thanks in advance.
If the tests are not done with the same paper, profiling system and monitor its kinda pointless.
-
I've used my ipf 8300 for about a year now and its spot on all the time.
-
After going through 2 of Epson's "permanent" heads in 2 years (both out of warranty, no satisfaction from epson at all) I will be installing an 8300 tomorrow. I'll post back on my experience if it will be of help.
There was a lot to love about the 7900, but ultimately random clogging ate up a ton of time, ink, and paper on ruined jobs, and the dead heads (that really cost around 2G to have replaced) forced me off of it. I hope I can find happiness with canon.
-
It just sits over there in the corner and spits out prints when I ask it to. Switch on, print, switch off. No begging, groveling, pleading, cajoling, or cursing involved. No elevated blood pressure. No 1/2 to 1 hour long cleaning "events" at 02:00. No filthy fingers from cleaning the wiper. No breathing Windex fumes.
LOL! Nicely put. Still like my 9890! Wish it behaved like my 3800 (which never clogs).
BTW, I think my MUCH neglected 7800 'clogs' less than my 9890!?!?!?!?!
-
LOL! Nicely put. Still like my 9890! Wish it behaved like my 3800 (which never clogs).
BTW, I think my MUCH neglected 7800 'clogs' less than my 9890!?!?!?!?!
Ah the ipf 8300 never clogs :)
-
OK I've got my 8300 up and running and the initial verdict is....
Love it. In a production environment, I think it's a no-brainer because this thing is WAY less fiddly than my 7900 was. I was very concerned about paper handling, and that's proving to be overblown. It's using less ink for the same jobs I was running on the 7900 by about 30%.
Yes, the Epson paper handling is nicer. Yes, the Canon feels like it's made by a parsimonious elf out of recycled pop bottles. But the bottom line is I'm already cranking prints out faster and more reliably (both from the point of view of workflow and raw printing speed) with spot-on color. Successful jobs are right there on the hard drive and can be replicated instantly and exactly. When I tell the thing I want to do something, it doesn't sit there and warm up for a full minute before I can even make the request. No more "ink cartridge error." No more changing blacks. No more "sorry I decided to run a cleaning just because, please wait and listen to your ink go down the drain for the next 4 minutes."
Top end print quality is equal but slightly different. Shadows are opening up on some things with the canon, but the gamut on the bright end (think sunset with a light sky) is a spec less zippy if you sit and stare. As reported, the canon ink is more durable. On Ilford's baryta, both printers can simply blow you away.
I had a particularly unlucky experience with epson heads and permanent clogging (and incredible repair costs), but even apart from that I'm pretty sure I'm going to be saving ink, paper, and TIME with this guy and I'm really really pleased.
-
I personally own a 9890. I manage a lab in a college art department with 9900, 7890 and 4900s. A comment on nozzle checks/clogs: All of these newer generation printers have a well functioning auto nozzle check function. My experience is that its extremely reliable on all but the oldest of this series... the 9900. I still do manual nozzle checks/cleans on that one. The other just print. It's extremely rare that I feel the need to do a manual nozzle check... and I can't remember the last time I had a print ruined by a non firing nozzle. The usability is very similar to what's being reported by Canon users. Many long time Epson users (including myself) tended to intuitively turn the auto check/clean off without even trying it because of how problematic and wasteful similar features were on earlier printers. Not true at all on these. Use it. It works well.
Someone mentioned the 9900 being slow to wake up. It is. The later models (9890) are slightly better. The 4900 is MUCH better. The 4900 gives the user the option of setting a time (up to multiple hours on the latest firmware) before the printer enters sleep mode. I would LOVE to have that feature on a 9900/9890. Those printers seem to enter sleep in minutes.
Bob Smith
-
I own a 8300 for my color prints, a brand new 7880 with K7 inks with for my B&W prints, and a Z3200 for just sitting around but also used to run 4000s, x800s.
I have no problems with any of it, not even clogs on my epson(s).
I like to use the 8300 is because the speed, they way it handles third party paper, which I can use the Media Configuration Tool to specify the paper name on my printer, so I don't have to remember the media setting for all of my paper selections.
The epson has the advantage on loading thick paper with their straight loading path. Which means I can load something like metal sheets into it for special printing.
I'm not sure about the 9890 nor the 9900 since I do see a lot of complaints from different places, including here.
I think if you ask me to buy just one printer, I would still go for the 8310. Giving up on printing some thick alternative media, but besides that, I'm happy with this big daddy.
Aaron
-
As a matter of interest, we have run Epsons, 9600s, 9800s, 9900s for 10 years now, and the clogging is a real issue, we have a guy watching each print with a spotlight to check for clogs. Silly, but its what we have to do. And yes we do have prints that start off fine and a third of the way a head just drops 3 lines of nozzles, ruining the print. If that happens in yellow you wont see it until its on a light table, which can be costly when printing on Hahnemeuhle Museum etching, if fact you might want stand in a corner and have a good cry, before composing yourself and trying again. :)
On the other hand the Epson dither pattern is superior, the fine greys and subtle highlights in skies and skin tones is just plain better and smoother on the epson. Its debatable whether its necessary, but when the client is selling a print for large amounts of money sometimes this is a serious consideration.
Just my two cents worth, but I am thinking of switching, I have noticed the Canon black is much deeper than the Epson 9900 on gloss media and just has a better "feel", you need to see the prints next to each other to understand what a densitometer cant tell you.
Im torn between the two, slight quality edge, vs no clogging, and we don't print on gloss media often.
-
As a matter of interest, we have run Epsons, 9600s, 9800s, 9900s for 10 years now, and the clogging is a real issue, we have a guy watching each print with a spotlight to check for clogs. Silly, but its what we have to do. And yes we do have prints that start off fine and a third of the way a head just drops 3 lines of nozzles, ruining the print. If that happens in yellow you wont see it until its on a light table, which can be costly when printing on Hahnemeuhle Museum etching, if fact you might want stand in a corner and have a good cry, before composing yourself and trying again. :)
It's like I heard myself, I used to be the spotlight guy!
On the other hand the Epson dither pattern is superior, the fine greys and subtle highlights in skies and skin tones is just plain better and smoother on the epson. Its debatable whether its necessary, but when the client is selling a print for large amounts of money sometimes this is a serious consideration.
Just my two cents worth, but I am thinking of switching, I have noticed the Canon black is much deeper than the Epson 9900 on gloss media and just has a better "feel", you need to see the prints next to each other to understand what a densitometer cant tell you.
Im torn between the two, slight quality edge, vs no clogging, and we don't print on gloss media often.
I also preferred the Epson x880-x900 dither in highlights.
In my case it was easier decision - I'm printing a lot on baryta, pearl, and glossy media and love the "3D-look" feel you can get with the LUCIA EX inkset. I also like the fact, that the iPF is faster, and consumes much less ink than Epson (it needs maybe ~70% of ink for the same prints), and doesn't waste time and ink for MK<>PK switch.
Last but not least - I really hated that standing with the flashlight wasting time and paper, now my iPF takes good care of my Hahnemühle.
-
Here's another vote for the Canon Ipf 8300. I had an Epson 7800 and a 9800 and considered myself an Epson guy. I switched about 18 months ago. I originally started looking for the best deal on a 9900 and just missed buying a used one (probably dodged a bullet on that one). As I read this forum, I became more interested in the Canon. What ultimately tipped me over to the 8300, was someone in this forum said they had both a 9900 and an 8300. The said they did a daily nozzle check on the 9900 and never did one on the 8300. Plus, at the time I was able to buy the Canon for almost $2,000 less.
Since then, I've really loved my 8300. It's a perfect fit for my lab where we might not run a print for a week and then we have a day like yesterday where I had 12 big prints to crank out.
-
I have both of these. In my case they are both great printers. I bought them both new within six months of each other. The Canon is a little over a year old and the Epson not quite a year old.
The Epson does use a little more ink due to cleaning. If I had to use it for going back and forth between MK and PK I'd be cursing a lot. That is a waste that still hasn't been resolved by Epson. I do think that Epson wins on droplet size and the finest dither. But for practical purposes most eyes are not going to see it for most work. One thing I really like about the 8300 is that I can make very high quality totally neutral black and white prints on both gloss fiber and matte rag prints without using any color ink at all. I use the TBW software for that. The color gamut between the two is so close as to be a non issue. If you do a lot of sheet feeding, which I don't the Epson is a bit more convenient.
john
-
I know this may be a few weeks later than most responses, but thought I would give my opinion.
For being a reseller, I've had my hand on both printers (which we actually have 1 of both models in our office). They are both great models and very very similar in quality. Epson may have a tad hand on the speed, but quality varies on the media. Granite that Epson's models have print heads that can only be replaced via Epson or a service center where Canon's print heads are user replaceable and cost around $500/ea (2 print heads), but this can happen around 2400ml of ink. Some customers may have the print heads last for many years without a problem. This is just a guestimate timeframe.
Though, Epson has their 3 inks sizes which can be interchanged while Canon only has the 2. Both printers have the ability to switch between the 2 different blacks. The Canon does a better job on changing blacks.
There will be pros and cons from many people that have the printers. Also, if you would like a Hard Drive where your files get sent to on the printer for a quicker print/reprint, the Canon models have the drive included. Epson doesn't, but is still a great brand.