Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers  (Read 2767 times)

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9959
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2017, 08:25:20 PM »

It is a bad precedent to market and then review these printers without stability "longevity" numbers.  After all, we are printing with pigment inks because of these supposed longevity numbers.

I shall continue to selectively review new printers regardless of whether we have the longevity data beforehand, because there are many other aspects of the printers people wish to know about in order to make purchase/investment decisions; print longevity is one variable inter alia. That said, I too am very much in the "transparency" camp and would like to see detailed test data published as soon as possible with or shortly after product launch. Potential customers have the ultimate market power of not buying the printers if longevity is a very high priority concern that they think is not sufficiently addressed for their purposes and they do not have confidence that today's papers and OEM inksets will prove-out as adequate if or when the data does get published. Speaking personally, as I keep most of my prints in dark storage I am less concerned about light-fading, only mildly concerned about OBA fading, and would not hesitate to update my printer if I thought there were compelling reasons to do so. But I would certainly be happier having the longevity data than not having it, and in light of that I shall continue to be a supporter of Aardenburg Imaging's work on this issue.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

slwinder

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2017, 07:00:55 AM »


I recently did another test comparison of the colour appearance of Canon Pro-1000 versus Epson SC-P800 versus Epson SC-P5000 using a very colourful photo drawing on a wide variety of colours, printed on Hahn Photo Rag Baryta, and honestly I'd be very hard put to see a telling difference between them. But I have also printed photos wherein a narrow slice of highly saturated yellow-green gamut printed more accurately from the Epson SC-P5000 because of its wider gamut in those areas of the colour spectrum.

Mark:

Have you observed any difference in the level of vibrancy of the Canon Pro-1000, 2000, 4000 inkset compared to the Epson SC5000, P800 inkset? I have the Epson 3880 and always felt the inkset lacked vibrancy and was somewhat flat. Thanks.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9959
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2017, 07:24:21 AM »

Mark:

Have you observed any difference in the level of vibrancy of the Canon Pro-1000, 2000, 4000 inkset compared to the Epson SC5000, P800 inkset? I have the Epson 3880 and always felt the inkset lacked vibrancy and was somewhat flat. Thanks.

Firstly, the Epson SC-P5000 and SC-P800 are not "an" inkset. They are different inksets only to the extent that the SC-P5000 adds green and orange inks, which explain the difference of gamut between the two models and the ability of the SC-P5000 to produce more vibrant tones in parts of the colour spectrum as I demonstrated in my article reviewing the SC-P5000. the Canon Pro line, to speak loosely in terms of gamut - and for Luster paper tested, fits between the SC-P800 and the SC-P5000 (but closer to the P800), again as mentioned and illustrated in the review. I should add that the Epson SP-3880 was/is capable of producing vibrant colour - doesn't quite reach the Black density of the SC-P800/SC-P5000, but nonetheless, depending on your image editing, remains a very good printer. That said, the new generation of Canon and Epson printers are just that bit better, as to be expected. Inkjet printing technology matured some years ago such that successive models show incremental improvements, not sea-changes.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 09:16:18 AM by Mark D Segal »
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5931
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2017, 02:35:26 PM »

Historically speaking the Epson injets used to be better for "fine art" style matte work, while the Canons handled glossy media slightly better. Also, the Epson canned profiles for their own media are excellent.

Edmund

Firstly, the Epson SC-P5000 and SC-P800 are not "an" inkset. They are different inksets only to the extent that the SC-P5000 adds green and orange inks, which explain the difference of gamut between the two models and the ability of the SC-P5000 to produce more vibrant tones in parts of the colour spectrum as I demonstrated in my article reviewing the SC-P5000. the Canon Pro line, to speak loosely in terms of gamut - and for Luster paper tested, fits between the SC-P800 and the SC-P5000 (but closer to the P800), again as mentioned and illustrated in the review. I should add that the Epson SP-3880 was/is capable of producing vibrant colour - doesn't quite reach the Black density of the SC-P800/SC-P5000, but nonetheless, depending on your image editing, remains a very good printer. That said, the new generation of Canon and Epson printers are just that bit better, as to be expected. Inkjet printing technology matured some years ago such that successive models show incremental improvements, not sea-changes.
Logged

NAwlins_Contrarian

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2017, 02:22:49 PM »

Quote
Any recent data on longevity? This might be way more important than a tiny bit of gamut difference. Any news on these new ink sets ?

I was (am) pretty sure I'd seen some data somewhere, very likely either preliminary results of Mark's tests (were there some posted on the AI&A website?) or else maybe Wilhelm tests, on the Pro-1000. I will try to look for it tonight. But I thought the overall takeaway was that Canon's new Lucia Pro inkset was slightly less archival than the older Lucia inks--not bad, just slightly less good.

Quote
[T]he "culture" of the industry, and it's not only Canon. They shoot themselves in the feet by not being more transparent, because then people would have a natural tendency to suspect the situation is worse than it may be in reality. This is so obvious to me, it perplexes me as to why it isn't at least as obvious to them.

Amen! To give an example of the permanence / archival properties transparency problems, when Canon announced the Pro 9000 and Pro 9500 (ca. 2006), there was a Wilhelm announcement that he was testing the new Canon inks. At least for the Pro 9000's inks--IIRC the original ChromaLife 100 dye type, not the current ChromaLife 100+ type--there appears to be or at least have been a problem with the black fading. I think Mark has posted some about this. So Canon and Wilhelm announced they were doing tests, but then they never published the results. A cynic would assume that the results were very bad. I suspect that the results were only moderately bad, and not quite as good as Epson's (slightly newer, IIRC) Claria HD dye ink. And then Canon came out with the current ChromaLife 100+ dye inks, which appear to be the current archival-properties leader among dye inks. How much longer-lasting are prints from, say, a Pro-100, compared to, say, a Pro 9000 Mark II? Canon ought to tell us what the tests it's sponsored show.

Another transparency issue: the printer manufacturers need to give us at least good data on when / under what conditions auto-cleanings are done and how much ink they use. Preferably they'd also include driver settings that let you adjust the cleaning schedule / conditions. And the more advanced models with more detailed usage and ink monitoring reporting ought to tell you how much they've used in auto-cleanings.
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2266
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2017, 06:19:08 PM »

Another transparency issue: the printer manufacturers need to give us at least good data on when / under what conditions auto-cleanings are done and how much ink they use. Preferably they'd also include driver settings that let you adjust the cleaning schedule / conditions. And the more advanced models with more detailed usage and ink monitoring reporting ought to tell you how much they've used in auto-cleanings.

Give users the ability to change them, and a very large portion will simply reduce them to whatever minimum they can, and then complain that they get constant blockages or hardware failures.  If you want to know your average usage, then just measure how much you use over a reasonable run of prints/time.  It's very simple.  What does it matter the exact amount of ink used on a particular clean?  The only important cost factor is total ink usage over pages and/or time.

Trying to save pennies by reducing a few cleans is, IMHO, just silly.  Paper costs far more than ink per page.  Ink, as expensive as it is per ml, is still a very small input to your total print costs (from capture to output).  Of course less is best, but having users second-guessing engineers as to when and how to clean will just lead to problems.  Should users also get to decide when a nozzle remaps to another one in thermal inkjet heads instead of the system using its algorithms to decide when it's necessary?  That would let them "extend" the life of those heads, right?  Of course, no.
Logged
Phil Brown

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2017, 10:35:54 PM »

How much longer-lasting are prints from, say, a Pro-100, compared to, say, a Pro 9000 Mark II? Canon ought to tell us what the tests it's sponsored show.


Samples made with both Chromalife 100 and 100+ inks can be found in the Aardenburg database (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/light-fade-test-results/). After logging into the database (registration is free) you can find the relevant samples easily by filtering the ink/colorant field on "Chromalife".  Canon didn't sponsor these tests, and to date along with all the other OEM printer and major media manufacturers doesn't acknowledge publicly available Aardenburg light fade test reports even exist.

The difference is night and day between the two ink sets on microporous media (swellable polymer papers are essentially no longer on the market), and the problem can indeed be attributed mainly to the black ink performance and to a lesser extent the red (orange) ink used by the Canon Pro 9000 Mark II printer.  Neither the PK nor the red(orange) color channel is evaluated in the Wilhelm legacy densitometric test method, and there's the rub! The Wilhelm legacy densitometric test method and WIR 3.0 densitometric endpoint criteria set does not evaluate a maximum density black patch nor any red, green, blue/violet, orange, or skin tone colors. Skin tones would blend some of the weak red (orange) ink, and very deep shadow values plus maximum printable black areas  deploy PK ink. However, even though a max black color patch was not part of the WIR measured patch set, the fade resistance of the Chromalife 100 PK dye was so severe (in the realm of cheap third party dye sets), that it would most likely have been easily noticed by WIR staff if any Dmax text printing was located anywhere on the samples placed into test. Published images of the standard WIR color test target indicate that max black printed areas are indeed present on the standard printed targets even though they are not part of the official test.  And the visually alarming fading signature (the black dye turns reddish brown) in those areas of the the WIR test targets in turn would have certainly been sufficient cause to halt the testing.

As such, both WIR and Canon more than likely had to wrestle diplomatically with what followed after that.  What followed was apparently no WIR publishing of any test results for the Chromalife 100 set (nor the Chromalife 100+ dye set, either), and Canon ultimately rectified the technical problems by quietly replacing the weak Chromalife 100 PK dye  with a much more stable PK dye in the Chromalife 100+ set and also by dropping the use of the red (orange) ink while also introducing photo gray channels derived from the new black dye stuff (a first for dye based printers) when the Pro 9000 Mark II replacement, the Canon Pro-100, came to the market.

Hence, the good news is that Canon ultimately did the right thing by going back and reformulating the Chromalife 100 ink set to come up with a new and improved Chromalife 100+ set. More good news is that the Chromalife 100+ set, especially when configured with photo gray inks in the Canon Pro-100 design specification, now place at the top of dye-based print longevity ratings in Aardenburg lightfastness testing, i.e., better than Epson's Claria dye set, and also significantly better than Fuji Crystal Archive II  chromogenic color paper which many photographers erroneously still consider to be the "gold standard" for archival color photo printing.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 12:34:48 AM by MHMG »
Logged

NAwlins_Contrarian

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2017, 01:15:32 AM »

Quote
Give users the ability to change [self-cleaning settings], and a very large portion will simply reduce them to whatever minimum they can, and then complain that they get constant blockages or hardware failures.... Trying to save pennies by reducing a few cleans is, IMHO, just silly....  Ink, as expensive as it is per ml, is still a very small input to your total print costs (from capture to output). Of course less is best, but having users second-guessing engineers as to when and how to clean will just lead to problems.

First, I have a somewhat higher opinion of the users at issue. This thread is mostly talking about fairly upped-end printers like the Epson P5000, P7000, and P9000 and the Canon Pro-1000, Pro-2000, and Pro-4000. People who will buy those printers and take the trouble to drill down into those settings should not be presumed to be idiots. (Or at least, I hate it when manufacturers attempt to idiot-proof products--especially products not designed for the mass market--in a way that seriously inhibits the advanced user's use.) On the contrary, I think the majority of users (or at least main users / maintainers) of such printers are fairly knowledgeable.

Second, there is no reason the manufacturer can't establish a default based on sound engineering, and give the user a major warning before that default is changed, but nevertheless allow the user to change it.

Third, the user can take into account significant variables that the printer cannot measure. The user might appropriately change the self-cleaning schedule / conditions depending on things like the humidity and temperature of the air in which the printer sits and the dustiness of the printer's environment. Unless manufacturers want to build a bunch more sensors into the printers and then use them to modify the cleaning behaviors, the manufacturers ought to let knowledgeable users decide.
Logged

NAwlins_Contrarian

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #28 on: July 15, 2017, 01:32:54 AM »

Mark, thanks for mostly confirming and also clarifying what I thought I recalled about the Canon dye inksets. FWIW I signed up at Aardenburg, read several of your test reports, and made a small contribution.

To expand and document a little what I said above, the Wilhelm announcement from February 21, 2006 of Wilhelm's testing of the original Pro 9000 and Pro 9500 is still up on Wilhelm's site at http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/Canon_Pro9000_and_Pro9500.pdf. Presumably Canon contracted for or at least sponsored these tests. Evidently the results for the Pro 9000 were not published--while the results for the Pro 9500 were (see http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Can9500_2007_12_28.pdf).

Also, at least some of Wilhelm's results show that the newer (?) Canon Lucia inks in the Pro-1 (not the Pro-1000, which has Lucia Pro inks--I was wrong about that) have worse archival properties than the older inks in the 9500. For the Pro 9500 with Canon Photo Paper Plus Semi-gloss SG-201, "Displayed Prints Framed Under Glass" lasted a simulated 104 years; see http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Can9500_2007_12_28.pdf. For the Canon Pro-1 with Canon Photo Paper Plus Semi-gloss SG-201, "Displayed Prints Framed Under Glass" lasted a simulated 71 years; see http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Canon_Pro-1_2012_10_24.pdf.

Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2266
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2017, 03:37:05 AM »

First, I have a somewhat higher opinion of the users at issue. This thread is mostly talking about fairly upped-end printers like the Epson P5000, P7000, and P9000 and the Canon Pro-1000, Pro-2000, and Pro-4000. People who will buy those printers and take the trouble to drill down into those settings should not be presumed to be idiots. (Or at least, I hate it when manufacturers attempt to idiot-proof products--especially products not designed for the mass market--in a way that seriously inhibits the advanced user's use.) On the contrary, I think the majority of users (or at least main users / maintainers) of such printers are fairly knowledgeable.

Second, there is no reason the manufacturer can't establish a default based on sound engineering, and give the user a major warning before that default is changed, but nevertheless allow the user to change it.

Third, the user can take into account significant variables that the printer cannot measure. The user might appropriately change the self-cleaning schedule / conditions depending on things like the humidity and temperature of the air in which the printer sits and the dustiness of the printer's environment. Unless manufacturers want to build a bunch more sensors into the printers and then use them to modify the cleaning behaviors, the manufacturers ought to let knowledgeable users decide.

Do car manufacturers let you adjust the fuel air mixture through a control panel?  Even experienced, mechanically minded drivers?  It's not dissimilar.

I don't have a low opinion of users, but if you see what happens on machines and the kind of things users of all varieties do to try to save a penny (literally in some cases), then opening this up opens up a can of worms and costs to manufacturers for very little benefit.

You can already run additional cleans or set auto cleans off or change some of the basics of them on most machines.  The reality is that the vast majority of *users* (as opposed to owners, because most are not the same), aren't that knowledgeable to be able to outguess the engineers.  They know a lot about prints and printing, but they rarely know much about the mechanics, electrics, electronics, chemistry, and physics that make a large format printer work and the problem is that even if they were knowledgeable, once you open up these functions then a much wider spectrum of users will attempt to fiddle with the settings.
Logged
Phil Brown

NAwlins_Contrarian

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #30 on: July 15, 2017, 09:44:33 PM »

I think we're drifting OT, so this will probably be my last post on this issue, but:

Quote
Do car manufacturers let you adjust the fuel air mixture through a control panel?  Even experienced, mechanically minded drivers?  It's not dissimilar.

Nah, it's much more like changing the oil. In the old days, manufacturers recommended you change it every 5000 miles or whatever. Some were a little more nuanced, like change it every 3000 miles for mostly city driving or every 6000 miles for mostly highway driving, or whatever. Now my car has a computer that monitors my use--it's clearly not just the miles--and recommends what maintenance to get and when. Sometimes it recommends only an oil and filter change and tire rotation, sometimes it recommends something more comprehensive. I am free to take what it tells me into consideration and do maintenance that, less than, more than, or simply different than it recommends. And I bet that if I'd given it maintenance far short of what it recommends, and I'd had a major failure within the warranty period, the manufacturer might use that as a reason not to honor the warranty. And that would be perfectly fair and reasonable, as long as the two appeared probably connected. So why can't Canon and Epson take the same approach, and even give you the option to let the printer do it itself?
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2266
Re: Canon vs Epson Widejet printers
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2017, 03:27:27 AM »

That's the problem, it's really NOT like changing the oil.  There are far more factors involved.  Changing the oil is changing the maintenance tanks or running a heavy clean and then changing the maintenance tanks.  There's no fine tuning involved, there's no need to understand anything other than the purely mechanical process of draining it and replacing it.  So long as you use the specified grade of oil and ensure it's clean, there's not much to it.  The problem is that if all you do to maintain your engine is change the oil then a modern engine will fail.

So, yes, when most people think it's no different to changing the oil, the very concern I've expressed is evident.  They're over simplifying something because they think it should be easy because they don't actually know what's involved.

As I said, there already exists a reasonable degree of tuning from all manufacturers and most people don't even address those.  Adding more, without people first using what they have, isn't likely to help at all.

Regarding the issue of voiding warranty.  Yes, if you don't follow the manufacturer's guidance and have a failure with your car they will void your warranty so far as the law lets them, assuming, as you say, the failure and maintenance are reasonably logically linked.  The problem with what you propose with printers is that it's far more complex than just pages printed or time turned on (with a car, your services are scheduled based on miles or days, whichever comes first), and proving the environment factors involved with a printer in order to tell someone they failed to maintain the unit properly and therefore it's not under warranty is a customer service nightmare that no manufacturer would ever want.
Logged
Phil Brown
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up