Two aspects of Canon vs Epson 17" and 13" printers

[Jeffrey Saldinger]

In my deliberations about buying one of the current 13” or 17” printers from Epson or Canon, there are two variables I’d like to understand as separately as possible from all the other variables.

The first is the significance of the 13” units not having replaceable maintenance cartridges.  Someone has told me this will probably lead to a point where, although the printer remains otherwise perfectly fine and the inks are still available, the unit would have to go back to the manufacturer for replacing the maintenance cartridge.  This suggests the prospect of a regular routine of cycling the unit between me and the manufacturer, which looms as a tedious inconvenience at best.  Of course this situation doesn’t exist for the 17” unit with its replaceable maintenance cartridge.  I should add that I have no interest in perusing the option I’ve read about of attaching some sort of tubing and bottle to the 13” unit to take the place of the OEM-installed maintenance cartridge.  (I don’t make borderless prints; would this make any difference vis a vis the lifetime of the maintenance cartridge?)

The second variable is the difference in ink sets between the Canon 17” and 13” units.  Assuming the difference between the names of the inks (Lucia Pro vs Lucia respectively) can be ignored for now (I am aware the difference could be significant), what is one to make of the 13” Pro-1 having 3 grays (plus the two blacks) and the Prograf-1000 having 2 grays plus the blue ink.  (Most of my most serious work is in black and white.)  I assume the blue tank extends the gamut of the 17” beyond that of the 13” for color prints (which, all things considered, doesn't seem significant to my work), but if that third gray on the 13” unit makes a difference in the BW prints, then is something lost in the BW prints of the 17”?  Given my understanding that the third gray tank will give better tonal gradations, wouldn’t that be more important on the 17” printer with it’s greater maximum image size?

With thanks in advance...

Jeffrey

[Czornyj]

The PRO-1000 has brand new, totally reformulated LUCIA PRO inkset that IMHO is offering the ultimate print quality. Frankly, I don't see any trace of tonal quality difference between K4 B&W prints from PRO-1 or SC-P10k and new iPF PRO.

There are, however, huge differences in build quality - contrary to PIXMA models or small Epsons, the iPF PRO-1000 is build like a tank, has the same printhead, vacuum and spectrodensitometer like professional large format iPF models. As a result it should be virtually immortal, and the cost of printing should be way lower than in case of smaller printers in the long run.

[Jeffrey Saldinger]

Thank you for this helpful reply.

I'd be grateful for anything you or another reader might add about the maintenance cartridge and inkset questions I raised.

[FabienP]

In my understanding 13" printers are meant for low volume printing tasks. They do not have a replaceable maintenance tank under the assumption that the normal user will never make enough prints in the lifetime of the printer to require a tank change. That certainly was my case in the 10 years I had an Epson R2400.

This boils down to how much you intend to print over the lifetime of the printer.

IMO any medium to high volume user should prefer 17" printers, if only for the larger ink cartridges which will lower ink costs. That would solve the problem of the maintenance tank, too. Even if we ignore the difference in ink cartridges, sending the 13" printer to have the tank replaced would make the printer more expensive to operate than buying the 17" printer outright.

Speaking as a user of an Epson SC-P600 who bought it shortly before the SC-P800 with roll support was announced, I fail to understand why you would consider the 13" printer with the same inkset, given your worries with the maintenance tank.

Of course, that is only valid for Epson. If the Canons have different inksets, it might be a good reason to prefer the smaller printer if it results in better prints.

Cheers,

Fabien

[GrahamBy]

Ardenberg's testing suggests that the Pro-1 is actually quite expensive for low-volume use because of its expensive use of ink for maintenance purposes. The Pro-100 is much cheaper in that way, as well as in up-front costs. Otoh, it's not suitable for matte papers, or for ultimate durability if that is important to you. If you use it a lot, you will be swapping ink tanks a lot.

I'm perfectly happy with the prints from my 100, but last week I bought a bargain-priced NIB pro1000... to have the bigger ink tanks. In fact if the pro-1000 ink cost as much as that for the 100, the price I paid for the printer was the same as the ink value...

Now I just have to be patient while I use up the my pro-100 ink.

[Jeffrey Saldinger]

Thank you Fabien and Graham for this extra information.

Fabien, I trust you’ll take following in the courteous way I mean it.  In reply to your statement “I fail to understand why you would consider the 13" printer with the same inkset, given your worries with the maintenance tank”, my curiosity about the 13” P600 derives in part from its lowest weight of the four printers in question.  I work on two floors of my house and not having owned a higher-end printer before I have given some thought to whether the advantage of being able to move the printer myself between one floor and another is worth considering.  As I said in my OP, I’m trying to understand some the variables altogether independently of the others.  Here as in other aspects of my creative life I am intrigued by the manner in which considerations of everyday life impact or don’t impact art.  Space at home (where I work) is at something at a premium too, and I have for some time found 19x13 paper usually large enough for my needs.  To print something large enough that it would require the extra area of 22x17 paper has usually been unnecessary.  BTW, being able to use roll paper holds no interest for me so that factor doesn’t come into play

I remain curious about the Pro-1 having that extra gray tank at the expense of the blue.  I have seen many reports that the tonal subtleties/gradations for BW prints made on the Pro-1000 (two gray tanks) are excellent, so I wonder whether, for a print of a given size (i.e image size) printed on both printers, there are BW images having certain tonal characteristics that would benefit from being printed on the Pro-1 expressly because of that third gray tank.

Jeffrey

[GrahamBy]

I managed to get the Pro1000 up the stairs by myself... but only because it was in a big box that I could tip end-over-end Full of ink, I think it would be a struggle even for two people to do it while keeping it level.

The need to keep things level might also be a factor to take into account with the 13" machine, beyond the total mass.

[FabienP]

Thank you Fabien and Graham for this extra information.

Fabien, I trust you’ll take following in the courteous way I mean it.  In reply to your statement “I fail to understand why you would consider the 13" printer with the same inkset, given your worries with the maintenance tank”, my curiosity about the 13” P600 derives in part from its lowest weight of the four printers in question.  I work on two floors of my house and not having owned a higher-end printer before I have given some thought to whether the advantage of being able to move the printer myself between one floor and another is worth considering.  As I said in my OP, I’m trying to understand some the variables altogether independently of the others.  Here as in other aspects of my creative life I am intrigued by the manner in which considerations of everyday life impact or don’t impact art.  Space at home (where I work) is at something at a premium too, and I have for some time found 19x13 paper usually large enough for my needs.  To print something large enough that it would require the extra area of 22x17 paper has usually been unnecessary.  BTW, being able to use roll paper holds no interest for me so that factor doesn’t come into play

I remain curious about the Pro-1 having that extra gray tank at the expense of the blue.  I have seen many reports that the tonal subtleties/gradations for BW prints made on the Pro-1000 (two gray tanks) are excellent, so I wonder whether, for a print of a given size (i.e image size) printed on both printers, there are BW images having certain tonal characteristics that would benefit from being printed on the Pro-1 expressly because of that third gray tank.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey, thanks for adding that information, which makes your dilemma in choosing between 17" and 13" printers much clearer to me. The ability to move the printer is indeed an important requirement which might make 13" printers much more attractive than I thought for your intended usage.

Besides the difference in footprint and weight, the SC-P600 has one theoretical advantage compared to the SC-P800: the ability to print in 5760x1440 dpi with smaller drops of ink (2 pl compared to 2880x1440 dpi with 3.5 pl for the 17" printer). I wonder if this could be visible on prints, if so probably only on high resolution RC or baryta papers.

Cheers,

Fabien

[Jeffrey Saldinger]

Thanks for your continued engagement in my deliberations, Fabien.  It's good to have your comments.