Quality of print difference between Epson 9900 and Canon 8400

[iCanvas]

Hi all,

Quite a controversy over the two printers concerning clogging. I have a 9900 and use more ink on cleanings than I do on printing. I have recently replaced the capping station and still can't trust a nozzle check. I have had the printer for almost 5 years and it has produced thousands and thousands of prints so I can't complain all that much. It has paid for itself many times over. I would like to know from those who have both about the print quality. Is there any discernible difference between the two. By the end of the year I will be buying another printer and don't know if I want to put up with the hassle of constant cleanings. I only print on canvas so any input here would be appreciated. My intent here is not to start any controversies. Is the Canon 8400 faster? Time is of the essence in my work.

Gar

[Wayne Fox]

both produce outstanding work, and while perhaps some subtle difference may be observed upon very close examination on prints side by side, they really are insignificant.

In five years with a canon, based on your feedback on the Epson and clearing clogs, you easily could require two sets of new heads. There is no free lunch with either printer. (and then you might luck out and only have to replace them once).  But it seems 18-30 months is normal for head life on the Canons.

to me the Epson wins big on paper handling, both sheet and roll feed.  The canon wins big on ink swapping (which I don’t ever do so one reason that’s not big for me).  The canon also wins big in the fact that it manages the nozzle clogs without any real user intervention which can save user time. But it’s not without it’s own concerns, after about 18 months you better have spare heads on hand because you never know when they will suddenly need replaced.  And while many claim they’ve never had a problem mid print, it has happened to me with a canon and I’ve seen it mentioned by others as well.

But as far as TCO, everyone assumes the Canon wins because it doesn’t “clog”, which isn’t true, and the cost of 4 new heads over 5 years would buy a lot of ink.

with either printer, if you want to keep the clogs under control (so less ink to clear clogs on the epson, longer head life on the Canons), keep them in a 45% humid environment.  I have a 4 year old 9900, not used that often (will sit weeks without being turned on).  I still have the original maintenance cartridges in.

but again back to your original question, I don’t believe the Canon print quality would disappoint at all compared to your 9900.  (if you stay with Epson, I think the 9890 would be something to consider as well).

[Rob Reiter]

I went from the 9800 to first the Canon 8100, then 8300 and now the 8400. I'm happy with the switch. Daily head cleanings on the Epson wasted about as much money in ink cost as I have spent on heads for the Canon-two heads in two and a half years with the 8400-but less the daily hassle and ruined prints. I've not experienced any mid-print problems yet. Speed wise, Epson caught up to the Canon with their 9900, so probably not much difference for you. The high speed setting on the Canon is a lot faster and not a big difference in print quality, but I rarely use it.

I'ver never purchased an extended warranty on my Canons, and have never needed it. I always made use of it on the two big Epson printers I owned-for out of warranty head replacements. Consequently, even with buying heads for the Canon, I've still come out ahead. Canon is also more aggressive in their pricing.

I print commercially, so I use it everyday. Glad I made the switch.

Hi all,

Quite a controversy over the two printers concerning clogging. I have a 9900 and use more ink on cleanings than I do on printing. I have recently replaced the capping station and still can't trust a nozzle check. I have had the printer for almost 5 years and it has produced thousands and thousands of prints so I can't complain all that much. It has paid for itself many times over. I would like to know from those who have both about the print quality. Is there any discernible difference between the two. By the end of the year I will be buying another printer and don't know if I want to put up with the hassle of constant cleanings. I only print on canvas so any input here would be appreciated. My intent here is not to start any controversies. Is the Canon 8400 faster? Time is of the essence in my work.

Gar

[iCanvas]

Thanks Wayne for that unbiased comment. You seem to like both. I hope by the end of the year Epson comes out with a new model with updated technology that improves the clogging situation. I probably would not buy another 9900.

Gar

[iCanvas]

Thanks Rob for your input. Your comments certainly steer me toward Canon. Let's see what happens by the end of the year. The 9900 was announced in 2008. A little long in the tooth these days as far as technology is concerned. 

Gar

[dseelig]

I have been using Hp Z 3100 and now 3200 spent a hundread bucks on new heads in 10 years. Print Quality is great nuetral black and white, cheap on ink. What is not to like. Oh and I can profile a paper on it.

[Wayne Fox]

Thanks Wayne for that unbiased comment. You seem to like both. I hope by the end of the year Epson comes out with a new model with updated technology that improves the clogging situation.

Let's see what happens by the end of the year. The 9900 was announced in 2008. A little long in the tooth these days as far as technology is concerned. 

Technology isn’t moving much with printers anymore.  Even the ipf8400 wasn’t a big step up from the ipf8300.

But with the new Epson inks it means new larger epson are in the works. They may not show up until 2016. my “inside” man at Epson won’t spill the beans   Hopefully they can improve the heads to reducing missing nozzles .... not sure why the 3880 was so good.

I do like output from both printers, but I will admit I do not like working with the ipf8400 as much for a couple of reasons, first paper handling (I know, not a biggie), but I also do have some papers I like to use where I feel the Epson gives me a cleaner look.  Blacks on the canon seem to be a little bit “muddy” (for lack of a better word) on some papers. But only compared side by side, and here to use one of Michael’s expressions the difference is r really a “quibble”.

I keep the printer in a clean environment at 45% humidity.  Clogs are rare for me.  I have gone to service printers that were problematic, and many operate in somewhat dusty environments.  Tough on either brand.

But for those that print occasionally or can’t avoid very dry or even dusty conditions, the canon maybe the better option.

[Jglaser757]

I am very new to this game,,I have a 9900 purchased in November. I see a difference in the prints, mainly in gradation and that has to do with the size of the droplets of ink.. But, it is a personal preference. I went to distributor to see the difference on test prints..I go thru alot of ink but im not mass producing prints..

[Pete Berry]

I am very new to this game,,I have a 9900 purchased in November. I see a difference in the prints, mainly in gradation and that has to do with the size of the droplets of ink.. But, it is a personal preference. I went to distributor to see the difference on test prints..I go thru alot of ink but im not mass producing prints..

Are you checking prints with a 10X loupe?! More germane, with the Canon prints, were the files saved in 16-bit mode out of RAW, and printed through the excellent Canon 16-bit plugin? With my now ancient iPF5100, switching to 16-bit ProPhoto-RGB out of ACR and using the 16-bit plugin solved the rare gradation problems I encountered. Is the 9900 16-bit output enabled?

Pete

[Jglaser757]

Are you checking prints with a 10X loupe?! More germane, with the Canon prints, were the files saved in 16-bit mode out of RAW, and printed through the excellent Canon 16-bit plugin? With my now ancient iPF5100, switching to 16-bit ProPhoto-RGB out of ACR and using the 16-bit plugin solved the rare gradation problems I encountered. Is the 9900 16-bit output enabled?

Pete

Yes, I use pro-photo 16 bit enabled,,

[Czornyj]

I am very new to this game,,I have a 9900 purchased in November. I see a difference in the prints, mainly in gradation and that has to do with the size of the droplets of ink.. But, it is a personal preference. I went to distributor to see the difference on test prints..I go thru alot of ink but im not mass producing prints..

The size of droplets is virtually the same, Epson uses more bright inks (approx. 30% more total amount of ink per photo on average)

[cybis]

How do both printers compare as far as the color tint of pure black and grey inks is concerned? I'm familiar with the Epson HDR brownish tint. I've read both HP and Canon inkset have very neutral K, LK, and LLKs, is that right?

While it's possible to precisely control the tint of grayscale images of Epson x900 printers using QTR, it takes a lot of work building curves and is potentially susceptible to variation of the printer over time. Epson Advance Black and White feature is nice and brings it 95% there, but I’ve needed QTR and lots of work to get to the last 5%. I feel the problem is with Epson brownish K, LK, and LLK ink.

[Czornyj]

Lucia EX is more neutral, and there's Bowhaus TrueB&W RIP so you can print only with neutral inks, use more PGY to get smoother look etc.