I wasn't going to play in this thread, but there are just so many out and out pieces of nonsense (sorry, it's true), that some comment seems appropriate.
Some of the most hated quirks of Epson printers are probably their PB/MBK ink switching and clogging and after asking some semiconductor professional, we theorized the following:
Which semiconductor professional? This is basically an appeal to authority. It's like an ad that puts an actor in a white coat to suggest that what's being said must be true. Unless you provide details of the experience and expertise of the authority, it's just a magic trick.
- Epson cannot control the individual color channels of the Piezo print head which means one of the black ink cannot be "parked" in the dampers and be applied when the appropriate paper is loaded
So by "theorized" you really mean "made up some stuff", right?
In what way can't they control individual channels? You can print or not from each individual channel. You can clean in channel pairs (and if they wanted to, clearly it could be done by individual channel but it would just require more hardware). Also, they already have printers that either switch late in the path (3800/3880/P800) or have all channels available at all times (11880), amongst others. So what on earth are you theorising here?
One customer wants both channels available all the time. Another customer doesn't ever want the other channel. Some customers are in the middle. Whether you provide it permanently, on demand, or never, some customers are happy and others aren't. There is no perfect solution for the entire customer base (most of whom are not photographers by the way).
- The piezo element vibrates globally and if there are "parked" ink in one of the heads, it will be applied to the paper.
Demonstrably untrue. The very nature of piezo is that individual elements activate at controllable levels to produce variable-sized dots of ink on demand. If every channel had to fire at once, you couldn't make any prints. Really, were these semiconductor professionals 6 years old?
- This also explains why Epson cannot build redundant nozzles in their printhead.
No, it doesn't. Firstly, because it's nonsense so it doesn't explain anything. Secondly, the individual piezo elements already can fire or not fire, or fire at different rates and volumes (producing variable dot sizes) on demand, so remapping wouldn't be an issue other than the general principle of not needing to do it because of how they work (and there would obviously be a cost element).
Unlike the more advanced thermal printhead of HP and Canon, there are sensors that monitors each and every nozzle that detect clogs and activates the backup nozzles.
Monitoring individual piezo elements is not only possible, it's already done. The thermal heads available now are indeed very advanced and high-performing. Thermal heads, though, basically only work with aqueous (water-based) inks. They are limited in application and they don't translate to variable drop technology very well. Piezo and thermal are two different methods and the results from each demonstrably show that both are valid and advanced solutions to the problem of "how to put ink on paper".
- For Epson, the only time you find out about a clogged nozzle is through a bad print or a a nozzle check print.
Clearly wrong. The systems can detect and warn you about it before you print. Indeed, one of the real complaints is that the system can be overly sensitive and detect issues that, whilst they exist, they don't translate into print quality issues and so they're annoying for some users.
- With inferior Piezo technology, the maximum print head length is reduced and are typically shorter than that of Canon or HP, therefore Epson have to resort to gimmicks such as bloated DPI ratings to attract attention.
It's already been demonstrated to you that this is nonsense. Print head width is not limited by either technology. Check out
https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/616494/epson-launches-new-high-speed-enterprise-inkjet-printer/ and have a look at the new print heads being launched - it's the 6th photo down in the article. How is that width limited?
Regarding DPI ratings - they're not gimmicks. They're statements of functionality. The printers lay down dots at a density that is great than the simple density of the channels on the print head. Both technologies do this. With variable dot sizes, there are even more options available.
- Last but not least, Epson still pulls wool over the users with their "starter" capacity ink. The P800 for example is bundled with the 60ml "Starter ink" while Canon provides the full 80 ml retail capacity. This alone says alot of a company.
With the 3800 and 3880 they were 80ml. How exactly does this pull the wool over anyone's eyes? Obviously there are increased production costs to make two sizes of carts, but there must have been some cost or marketing advantage in doing so. In the larger format printers, this is quite normal to get a smaller set with the printer and then the customer can choose what size they want to run for production, ensuring their ink is turned over at an appropriate rate and balancing their costs against that. It's the same for either technology.
Epson did invent the fine art inkjet market that got alot of people into high-end photo printing but their technology certainly haven't kept up.
You've yet to actually provide any evidence at all to support this premise.
The Pro 1000 which is a lowly desktop printer is brimmed with sensors and technology such as anti-skew, vacuum feed, spectrophotometer, nozzle firing monitoring, auto remapping for blocked nozzle that makes the price look like a complete bargain.
It's an excellent printer. If this was an ad for Canon, you could have just used that one line.
I can tell the engineers put their heart and mind towards this machine despite being a low cost model.
Really? I'm sure they put all their energies into everything they do - from every company.
I've seen a LOT of people post about pros and cons about their printers and the others in the market, but this, honestly, is the most unfounded load of codswallop that I think I have ever seen here. It's as if a day-one intern at Canon, with no marketing training, decided to write a FUD piece.
It is important that people talk about their experiences and preferences and likes and dislikes with printers, cameras, lenses, and so on. It really is. But even most fanbois don't make such a long list of demonstrably incorrect or unfounded statements (and claim some level of authority due to "professionals").
Tell us all the great things you are finding with your Canon 1000 and how it's meeting your needs. Other people considering it or already using it will benefit. You don't need to convince people (or yourself) by writing nonsense about other technologies - that is not helpful, because the vast majority of people here know that what you've written is nonsense and so will discount what you have to say on other topics.