Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: CityShooter on June 03, 2011, 03:25:50 pm
-
Hi guys,
I've been an Epson loyalist for years now, and I'm hear Canon is better. Be great to have some feedback from all the wonks on here. Hit me with your thoughts if you have them. Thanks!
-
Hi guys,
I've been an Epson loyalist for years now, and I'm hear Canon is better. Be great to have some feedback from all the wonks on here. Hit me with your thoughts if you have them. Thanks!
How can any one seriously answer a question like that? Why are you thinking of changing? What kind of work do you do? What are your requirements? What are your expectations? What are your criteria?
-
I can.
Don't switch !
/Sven
-
I can.
Don't switch !
/Sven
Huh? On what basis are you advising that?
-
After ten years of printing with Epson LFP, 4000, 9600, 4800, 7880, 4900, 9900, 11880 and GS6000, I tested both the IFP 6300 and 8300, and when the OP ask such question, I answer: Don't switch to Canon. That's my opinion.
/Sven
-
I can't answer your question per se. But beyond Canon versus Epson issues consider that swapping printers can be a very big deal that takes a lot of time and effort.
I switched mainly because my Epson was seriously high mileage and the Canon was almost a give away and I had a block of time to do the transition. And nozzle issues with my 20+ liter printing heads were getting out of control. Lacking any one of those it would have been a bad idea.
In addition to mere physical installation and learning curve time, you will also probably have to re-tweak your images, remake profiles, and much more. I completely failed to anticipate the work involved in reprocessing and reproofing my image library.
Quality wise the Canon wins hands down over the 9880, but I don't know about the 9900.
-
I have and use, both an Epson 3800 and a Canon 8300. I could provide a perspective that might be helpful but I agree with Mark, there's limited value in my sharing what I might do if I were in your situation.
Terry.
-
I have and use, both an Epson 3800 and a Canon 8300. I could provide a perspective that might be helpful but I agree with Mark, there's limited value in my sharing what I might do if I were in your situation.
Terry.
True at least until one knows what the "situation" of the OP is!
This thread isn't moving beyond assertions - not a very productive or useful discussion of what could be an interesting topic.
-
For several years now we have watched and participated in many forums where printing is a focus. My opinion based on that is merely to share my feelings about the two brands.
It is clear that there are many more postings about clogging in Epson printers, Canon very little. This seems to be to do with how each handles clogs. Canons do clog but a system of analyzing where clogs happen and re-mapping the heads so as to keep printing works well. The downside comes when clogging is too widespread on the head and a new $500 one is needed, followed by the second one failing soon after.
Epson tries to clean heads as it goes, often using much ink as it does so. It seems to me that you can therefor get your frustrations bit by bit with Epson, or as a big hit when you need to spend $1000 on new heads. At that point, at today's prices the Canon is a throwaway, IT supplies now offering a 6100 for $1799 with 24 starter 90ml cartridges thrown in.
We use ipf6100s and like them. I'm sure if we had Epsons we'd like them too.
-
3 months now with Epson 4900 - zero clogs. I turn the printer off generally, after printing.
The 4000 and 4800 I had prior to this printer would have needed a dozen nozzle checks with auto cleaning, at least, in those three months. I never ran power cleans, preferring to wait and re-run nozzle checks until good...
This 4900 has nozzle clogs beat, finally.
-
Interesting 1st post ... because he "hears" Canon is better (with no definition of better) wants to know if he should switch (hint, if your Epson 3880 prints aren't fantastic, it is NOT the 3880's fault), wants advice and then calls us all wonks? That's not a particularly flattering term in any of it's definitions, and in some it's down right insulting.
Of course then to assume because Canon is "better" (hey my buddy said so), and to extrapolate out that a generation old ipf5100 is better ... now there's a stretch. The ipf6300 and 3880 print quality wise are terrific and very close ... certainly worthy of comparisons ... but both are better than a model introduced in 2007 (not that it's bad, it just isn't as good as any of the current printers)
Since it's a 3880 we're talking about the whole clog nozzle part of the discussion doesn't apply since they rarely clog. I think I've cleared less than 10 clogs on my several year old 3800 that sits idle for weeks at a time most of the time.
-
Countless amount of aspects can make a specific printer "better", so I find any general statements stupid.
From my point of view - iPF5100 is faster, more economic, it prints from a roll and has a cutter, contrary to SP3880. I'd sacrifice the fact that qualitywise LUCIA II is little bit worse than Ultrachrome K3 VM for better productivity and versatility, or wait for iPF5300 with LUCIA EX.
I've also used Epson printers for years, and didn't like iPF at first glance. But in the end I switched to iPF6350 and now I don't look back. Not that it's "better", but because it simply works better for me, YMMV.
-
3 months now with Epson 4900 - zero clogs. I turn the printer off generally, after printing.
This 4900 has nozzle clogs beat, finally.
Actually it doesn't. I'm pleased if it works fine for you, but mine shows Cyan channel clogs if not used for a few days in a row. Do you print daily?
-
I think I've cleared less than 10 clogs on my several year old 3800 that sits idle for weeks at a time most of the time.
Wayne, yes, that was my experience too with the 3800. In this respect, my accumulating experience indicates the 4900 is a step backward.
-
After four years with a 3800 I finally had a clog - but it was one which could not be cleared and resulted in the demise of the machine. I replaced it with a 3880. I'm not exactly over the moon with the new "vivid magenta" but I wouldn't change to Canon. I still see it as a toss-up either way.
-
I use the 44" Canon now and it has been the easiest system I've ever set up from day one. So far it's been a dream for color and I haven't worked with monochrome yet.
However, I've used the 3800 and 3880 on occasion and I have to say I think this is the best design Epson has ever made. Back in the old days I always wanted something that would produce 16x20s color and bw with all media on the fly like that and take up very little space. The quality is outstanding and it's like half the size of the Canon 5100. It's a great sharp printer for smallish prints. I actually wish I had one my self to play around with. They also don't seem to have a lot of the issues that the 4000 series has had in regard to ink starvation, etc. I can't understand why Canon has to make these desktop units so damn big. If I were going to buy something that massive I'd certainly buy a 24" printer of any of the brands, and have a much bigger print size available.
john
-
Hi guys,
I've been an Epson loyalist for years now, and I'm hear Canon is better. Be great to have some feedback from all the wonks on here. Hit me with your thoughts if you have them. Thanks!
Being a newbie rather than a wonk I would like to add my opinion into this thread.
No, You should not switch. Why? Because I think You shouldn´t base Your decisions on what You hear. I think You should find out the facts and base Your decisions on them.
-
Actually it doesn't. I'm pleased if it works fine for you, but mine shows Cyan channel clogs if not used for a few days in a row. Do you print daily?
No, sometimes a week or two between printing. Well, let me state explicitly that in the same environment, the 4900 has not yet shown ANY of the multiple clogs I was getting from my 4800.
-
No, sometimes a week or two between printing. Well, let me state explicitly that in the same environment, the 4900 has not yet shown ANY of the multiple clogs I was getting from my 4800.
I agree, it's a big improvement over the 4800, and it allows for cleaning two channels at a time, which saves ink; but at least in my case, it clogs much more than my former 3800, which hardly ever clogged, same environment too.
-
How often will you be using it? What will you be printing on?
Each printer has it's pros and cons.
If not using it a lot it might not matter much either way what you choose.
If you will be printing a lot and experience troubles with the Epson it will drive you nuts and cost you a lot of time and media.
If you will be changing rolls several times a day the Canon will likely drive you nuts and eat your fingers at some point.
Just kidding about that last part, though the Canon loading process leaves a lot to be desired.
If you live in a dry climate you will have to work real hard at keeping the humidity up more so for the Epson than the Canon.
I have both and I am trying to get away from printing canvas and fine art matte papers on the Epson. I think part of my clogging issues are coming from paper dust. Not using the automated cutter might help but I'm too lazy for that.
I hope to end up printing mainly just the luster paper on the 9900 as any dropped channels or clogs that arise won't be as costly as they are with canvas.
If there is a big price difference take the cheaper one.
Talk to your dealer and ask them about any issues they are hearing from their clients. I've talked to a few and it is pretty clear which one they hear the most troubles about.
-
You'll notice that the OP has left the building? He made one post and skeedaddled...the rest of this thread is just masturbation.
-
If the original poster is still paying attention, count up which posts use the word "clog" most, Epson or Canon.
-
You'll notice that the OP has left the building? He made one post and skeedaddled...the rest of this thread is just masturbation.
Not even as useful. :-)
-
If the original poster is still paying attention, count up which posts use the word "clog" most, Epson or Canon.
Yes, you'll see the word clog associated with Epson more than with Canon, but that is completely predictable and meaningless, because the technologies are different. As noted over and over again, Epson deals with clogs by letting you clean them as they happen, while Canon keeps them under-the-hood by building in extra nozzles such that when enough of them get clogged you spend 500 bucks on a new print head. We'll pay the price of using pigmented inks one way or another. That said, I'd love to see the Epson 3800 non-clog performance replicated in all their models.
-
If the original poster is still paying attention, count up which posts use the word "clog" most, Epson or Canon.
Why should he do that? I understood that he is already having Epson and so he should know if his printer is having any problems with clogging. (which I doubt)
-
The word "Troll" comes to mind. Drop a stone into the pond and watch the ripples spread . . .
John ;)
-
The word "Troll" comes to mind. Drop a stone into the pond and watch the ripples spread . . .
John ;)
A half-brained Troll? New species? :-)
-
Yes, you'll see the word clog associated with Epson more than with Canon, but that is completely predictable and meaningless, because the technologies are different. As noted over and over again, Epson deals with clogs by letting you clean them as they happen, while Canon keeps them under-the-hood by building in extra nozzles such that when enough of them get clogged you spend 500 bucks on a new print head.
I believe there are two relevant aspects to the clogging issue. One is the ultimate cost of either approach, which we will likely never have good comparative data for, although I would love to see some.
The second is impact on productivity. My 2200 was fussy about clogs, and it cost me time and created worry. My 3800 has been great. It rarely clogs but I continued my habit of checking nozzles at the start of each printing session. It's fortunate I did, as it saved a few prints. There was still a productivity impact but it was much less and my worry was almost gone. As for my 8300, I've only printed one nozzle check, and it was because I thought I should. No productivity impact and no worry.
Bottom line for me. If the current Epson large format printers behaved like my 3800 I would not have hesitated to make a purchase. Instead I looked at Canon, and liked what I saw in the 8300. In the bigger scheme of pros and cons, clogging issues went past my personal threshold of concern. That threshold may be different for each one of us.
In spite of the troll, I've enjoyed our conversation. ;-)
Terry.
-
You'll notice that the OP has left the building? He made one post and skeedaddled...the rest of this thread is just masturbation.
Yep .. thought so from the start. I smell a troll.
-
Thanks to all of you who have posted. I'm definitely not a troll, just a semi-professional photographer with fairly little experience with inkjet printers. I've only had one, and clogging has definitely be a thorn in my side.
Rather than zero in on one issue and narrow the discussion to my personal preferences and usecases, I thought I'd ask a simpler question and see how people answered it.
It seems that there are strong opinions in both camps, which lead me to believe that it's almost a toss-up between the two. I will say, though, that more people voted (in my poll) for switching to Canon by a small margin. It's pretty clear that Canon is building very high quality products and that the word is getting out than Canon is now a force to be reckoned with and that Epson can no longer get away with building products that are frustrating to use.
I'm feeling drawn to Canon. Call it an educated personal preference. ;)
Cheers.
-
I hope it hasn't been educated only by what you read in this thread. I would seriously recommend a lot more real research focused around your own priorities before making this decision.
-
I have indeed done a lot of reading and talked with several techs and two dealers in my area. Canon is definitely coming out ahead based not only what I use the printer for (weddings, portraits, fine art) but also because of image quality and usability. Canon has apparently just worked exceptionally hard at making a better machine than Epson.
-
Welcome to the list CityShooter.
Terry.
-
Sorry - I actually meant the IPF6300, not the earlier model.
-
I've used Epson printers for many years. Clogging is an issue with any printer that pushes ground pigments though microscopic print heads. Maybe someday they will overcome this technical issue, but for now, we have to live with it. But as noted by many other posts, Epson allows you to unclog the heads yourself.
My current 7900 is working great. The prints are outstanding. And THAT is the bottom line for me. You need to compare the two units, and determine which output suits your eye.
I will add one comment, Epson's tech support is top notch. I am 100% satisfied with them. And their customer support people are even better.
-
I have indeed done a lot of reading and talked with several techs and two dealers in my area. Canon is definitely coming out ahead based not only what I use the printer for (weddings, portraits, fine art) but also because of image quality and usability. Canon has apparently just worked exceptionally hard at making a better machine than Epson.
Really? Image quality? You can argue features all you want, and if you need the roll feed of a 6300 or the width or the speed, or just don't want to spring for the Epson (big rebates right now), fine. They're both good machines and image quality is not a factor in the decision - if you aren't getting completely fantastic prints out of your 3880 you won't get any better prints out of the Canon ...in fact they will look pretty much identical 99% of the time. You are asking for opinions in a world where there are no objective opinions, add to that asking dealers and techs who may know how to get the machines to print, but do they really know how to print? You don't think they are completely biesed, just like everyone else, based on what they like (or what they make the most money selling). And why in the world would you base any decision like this on a meaningless poll? If Canon is leading, it's simply more Canon users voted, or many like myself that don't bother voting in stuff like this. And of course, your first post is a question that has been hashed to death so many times on this forum. A few searches and you would understand why you look like a troll ... 1st time poster asking a question that has been beat to death for several years now ...
From an image quality difference Canon is not better. An ipf6300 vs a 3880 very close, but don't let the slightly larger gamut of the canon mislead you ... that doesn't add much to image quality except a few rare images ... and in the case of flesh tones and smooth skin transitions in the hands a skilled user that 3880 will come out as good and often better than the Canon.
But don't try to "justify" a switch from an image quality perspective ...because that's not a factor. Unless you need a feature of the ipf6300, ditching your 3880 is a complete waste of money.
-
Was there much of an IQ difference between the 3800 and 3880?
Terry.
-
Was there much of an IQ difference between the 3800 and 3880?
Yep...improved total gamut of color and finer detail due to the improved dithering...
-
Epson "lets you clean the clogs yourself"? How generous of them.. That cracked me up big time. I gotta remember that one. I'll put it in the next tech paper I write. Mark one up for Epson, they let you clean your own clogs :-) .
-
As a former Epson user who has happily switched to Canon for the last four years, I agrees with Wayne's point here. A far bigger influence on the prints you make will be the work you do in Photoshop, not whether your printer is an Epson or a Canon. I'm happy with my Canon 8300 for it's reliability and cost. Image quality is a given in high end printers these days. If you aren't printing commercially, as I am, it will probably be years before you need to replace the heads on a Canon; you get at least 4000ml of ink through each one. And the new head cost is more like $400 or less. I wasted that much ink cleaning my Epson 9800 in the time it took me to need a replacement on the Canon, and I don't suffer the daily aggravation of head cleanings.
And keep in mind that a Canon 6300 or 8300 comes with 330 ml cartridges installed. It took me 6 months to go through those, printing daily for myself and my clients. Shop and price aggressively. It's a buyer's market in printers today.
Really? Image quality? You can argue features all you want, and if you need the roll feed of a 6300 or the width or the speed, or just don't want to spring for the Epson (big rebates right now), fine. They're both good machines and image quality is not a factor in the decision - if you aren't getting completely fantastic prints out of your 3880 you won't get any better prints out of the Canon ...in fact they will look pretty much identical 99% of the time.
-
And keep in mind that a Canon 6300 or 8300 comes with 330 ml cartridges installed.
Only 8300 - iPF6300/6300s/6350 comes with 90ml cartridges
-
Speaking of shopping aggressively, For around $53 you can buy original Canon 6100/6300 carts from China, so long as you buy around 58 at a time ($3000 worth). An opportunity to set up a buying group?
-
I'm wondering where you saw the source for 6300 carts from china in bulk?
-
A long time ago now, but it was somewhere on Alibaba.
-
HongShang Ink ( www.ink4you.com)
They are pretty much the only one who makes canon x300 inkset
and they are not too bad.
FLAAR had an interview with them before.