Epson P7000 OR Canon Pro-2000

[Totemical]

Hello there, I am looking to purchase a new printer for my fine art business.
I'm looking at both of these 24" models that are roughly the same price.
I am having difficulty determining what printer would better suit my needs.

Epson SureColor P7000 or Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-2000?

This will be my first wide format printer, Many of my artist friends swear by Epson.
However when researching it seems Canon has made some great improvements to their printers.
I will be only be doing 1-2 prints per week, so not High volume.
I am looking for good contrast in my images, Using Matte papers primarily. 

What are your opinions on which printer would be a good option?
What printer has the lower ink / maintenance cost?
Thanks in advance for any advice. 

[Wayne Fox]

search the forum.  There are hundreds of discussions about the pros and cons of each printer.  Both produce outstanding work.

[Mark D Segal]

Good advice from Wayne, but I would amplify a bit to suggest that you will find so much information you can get confused. It would be good for you to prioritize in your own mind what features are most important to you and base your purchase decision on which feature set is likely more important to you. It could also be desirable to see them in operation where people have them set-up and working if that is a possibility for you. You should also inquire about access to service where you live and the quality.

One possibly important factor, depending on the nature of your fine art work, could be the gamut capabilities of these printers. The Epson HDX inkset with orange and green inks are capable of producing a somewhat wider gamut than the Canon, but that only shows in a rather limited range of possible colours which may or may not affect you, and on matte papers I doubt it's an issue. My Pro-1000 review covers some of this - it's the same inkset as the Pro-2000.

It's very hard to say which would have the lower ink maintenance cost; so much depends on specific operating conditions.

[Totemical]

Thanks Wayne & Mark.
Definitely have been researching for a few weeks so far, Doesn't seem to be a clear winner Since most people seem to love both!
This Forum has appeared the most active and knowledgeable, Which promoted me to join up to ask further how the two weigh up.

From what I understand is that the Epson's Print head can't be replaceable ( but should last a long time )
Where as the Canons print head is replaceable but might not last as long?

Ink with Epson seems a bit more reliable in terms of archival quality, which is what my clients are interested in.
I'll definitely be doing a bit more research before purchasing, Just wanted to make sure There wasn't something I missed on either printer that might mark a clear winner.
 

[enduser]

Also consider extended warranty costs.

[Wayne Fox]

Thanks Wayne & Mark.
Definitely have been researching for a few weeks so far, Doesn't seem to be a clear winner Since most people seem to love both!
This Forum has appeared the most active and knowledgeable, Which promoted me to join up to ask further how the two weigh up.

From what I understand is that the Epson's Print head can't be replaceable ( but should last a long time )
Where as the Canons print head is replaceable but might not last as long?

Ink with Epson seems a bit more reliable in terms of archival quality, which is what my clients are interested in.
I'll definitely be doing a bit more research before purchasing, Just wanted to make sure There wasn't something I missed on either printer that might mark a clear winner.

to Mark's point yes perhaps there is so much information it makes it a little confusing. This question gets asked so often it sort of wears on those that hang out here a lot.

They are both great printers.  They use different technology to create the droplets.  Epson uses Piezo heads, which usually last a long time, and typically outlast the life of the printer. Canon uses a thermal head, cheaper to make and not as long lasting, but they design it as a "consumable" item, making it easy for a user to replace. They typically need replaced every 1 to 2 years, the variance is pretty broad between users.  Epson has dramatically improved the need for cleaning and the amount of ink needed to clean their nozzles in this last generation, so at this point it I'm not sure there is a clear winner as to wasted ink.  Both use ink to maintain the printers, just the nature of the beast and some users of both machines seem to have poor experiences while most don't have much of an issue.

To me a couple of differences are paper path/handling for the Epson which I think is a little better than the Canon, and mk/PK ink difference.  If you are going to constantly change between MK/PK inks the Canon doesn't require an ink swap which can be important.  I think the Canon is a little "bigger" from the ones I"ve seen at trade shows, it appears it is a few inches deeper so will extend out into the room.

Longevity issues are another area which may be different.  Epson made some nice improvements to the yellow bringing them closer to HP and Canon.  Canon's inks have been great performers in this area, but for some reason no data or information is forthcoming about the new inkset.  It's delayed long enough now to perhaps be of some concern, although I think they just decided to not pay Wilhelm to run the tests feeling they didn't make enough changes to cause a problem.

One other thought is availably of parts or need to keep parts on hand.  If you run out of ink, or in the Canon's case a head dies, how accessible are replacements or do you need to tie up money keep spare ink/heads on hand.  Just a thought.

[Jasper]

I'm considering one of these two printers as well, so will chip in with a few questions.  In all of the following questions, I am more concerned about print quality and reliability over cost.

I have read from other posters that the Canon would be a better choice if you regularly go a few weeks without making prints (concern that Epson's heads may clog in this scenario).  Is this correct or has Epson improved its maintenance cycle so if it is left unused (but powered) for several weeks, this is not an issue?

With regards to B&W printing, is there a clear winner?

Finally, the only other real option in this category is the Z3200 - is this worth considering or does its decade old technology mean the Canon/Epson are better quality?

Thanks for any insight.

[Mark D Segal]

.............

To me a couple of differences are paper path/handling for the Epson which I think is a little better than the Canon, and mk/PK ink difference.  If you are going to constantly change between MK/PK inks the Canon doesn't require an ink swap which can be important.  I think the Canon is a little "bigger" from the ones I"ve seen at trade shows, it appears it is a few inches deeper so will extend out into the room.

Longevity issues are another area which may be different.  Epson made some nice improvements to the yellow bringing them closer to HP and Canon.  Canon's inks have been great performers in this area, but for some reason no data or information is forthcoming about the new inkset.  It's delayed long enough now to perhaps be of some concern, although I think they just decided to not pay Wilhelm to run the tests feeling they didn't make enough changes to cause a problem.

.....................

There is one very big difference in the paper feeding arrangements between the two printers: the Epson has a straight-through pass which allows for printing on very thick media such as posterboard and aluminium plates, whereas the Canon does not. This may or may not be important depending on what media the O/P intends to use.

As for the size of the printers, the Canon will fit through a standard North American door, and it is shorter than the Epson SC-P7000 because the ink tanks are mounted behind rather than on the two sides.

Regarding longevity, of course Wilhelm is not the only game in town - there is Aardenburg. I haven't checked whether Mark McCormick Goodhart has any Canon Pro-1000/2000/4000 samples under test, but worth checking just in case he does. Whatever the reason why Canon has been silent on longevity, I think it's a marketing error on their part, which of course doesn't mean that their longevity is a problem - we just don't know and that in itself is a problem!

Regarding Jasper's questions:

Both printers use pigment inks and the longer they are left unused the more prone they will be to needing cleaning. As neither Canon nor Epson are transparent on this matter, we don't really know which uses more ink for these procedures.

There is no clear winner for B&W. Both can make excellent B&W prints. It depends on how well you prepare them for printing and what media you use.

I don't use HP printers, but from all I've seen and read, it doesn't seem that the age of the technology is much of an issue - people who own them generally think very highly of them in terms of print quality and ease of maintenance, and they have unique profiling features worth looking into. The only concern I would have is about HP's relatively scant presence in this market, though I haven't heard of this being a specific problem in any way.

[Jasper]

Both printers use pigment inks and the longer they are left unused the more prone they will be to needing cleaning. As neither Canon nor Epson are transparent on this matter, we don't really know which uses more ink for these procedures.

Thanks Mark.  I don't really mind how much ink they use (within reason of course) - my only concern would be whether after (say) 2 months of being unused, the printer has done sufficient maintenance during that period that it hasn't clogged (or if there is clogging, something which a cleaning cycle would sort out).  Is either Canon or Epson less prone to issues when unused over such a period, or would both be fine in this scenario? 

[Mark D Segal]

The printers don't do maintenance when they are switched off unused. After two months of non-use you can expect a lot of cleaning activity from both, though they work in different ways. It is best to run them with at least one full page letter size print of a real photo or target that exercises all the channels at least once or twice a week.

[Jasper]

The printers don't do maintenance when they are switched off unused. After two months of non-use you can expect a lot of cleaning activity from both, though they work in different ways. It is best to run them with at least one full page letter size print of a real photo or target that exercises all the channels at least once or twice a week.

Interesting (and surprising).  I'm coming from a Z3100 which performs routine cleaning itself.  If it is left unused for a few months it will perform regular cleaning/maintenance cycles so when you next come to use it it is fine.  I just assumed that other printers would do the same.  Having to print a test page a couple of times a week would be a bit of a nuisance for me so I think I'd be better off with the Z3200 instead,despite its age.

[Mark D Segal]

Sorry - The Epson 7000 does have automatic checking and cleaning but I believe you'll need to leave the printer turned on for it to work. For the Canon Pro-2000 I do not recall seeing that feature when I reviewed it, nor can I find any mention of it in the manual, nor in Keith Cooper's review.

[Wayne Fox]

As for the size of the printers, the Canon will fit through a standard North American door, and it is shorter than the Epson SC-P7000 because the ink tanks are mounted behind rather than on the two sides.

Thanks Mark, I need to be more specific in my answers.  As you suggest both fit through a door fine, but because the canons put the inks behind rather than on the sides, the printer is shorter but quite a bit deeper.  So it may fit a slightly smaller space in length, it will protrude out into the room further.  Room dimensions and available space may be better for one over the other (shorter and fatter vs longer and not as fat).

Regarding longevity, of course Wilhelm is not the only game in town - there is Aardenburg. I haven't checked whether Mark McCormick Goodhart has any Canon Pro-1000/2000/4000 samples under test, but worth checking just in case he does. Whatever the reason why Canon has been silent on longevity, I think it's a marketing error on their part, which of course doesn't mean that their longevity is a problem - we just don't know and that in itself is a problem!

Unfortunately Mark is having some challenges acquiring enough funding to move forward on most of his tests.  I haven't seen much updated from him for a while, but it doesn't look like he has made much progress.  I agree, we just don't know if it's a problem.  Seems an issue, but last I heard fine art printing isn't the target market for these printers and represents a small portion of the users, so maybe Canon just doesn't care or more likely doesn't get it.

Sorry - The Epson 7000 does have automatic checking and cleaning but I believe you'll need to leave the printer turned on for it to work. For the Canon Pro-2000 I do not recall seeing that feature when I reviewed it, nor can I find any mention of it in the manual, nor in Keith Cooper's review.

I leave my p9000 and p5000 on all of the time. I have yet to see one of them wake up on their own and perform a nozzle check.  Maybe that's happening when I'm not there.  What I do see is if the printer is asleep for an extended period of time it will perform a nozzle check and if necessary clean when you wake it to print a job.  The cleaning cycles don't seem to go on forever like the early 79/9900 series which seemed prone to false positives when performing checks and cleaning several times in succession.  Many times when I wake the printer it doesn't perform a nozzle check. To this point I haven't decided if it's better to leave it on if planning on printing in the next day or two or shut it off.  I still turn it off when traveling and I know I won't be printing for a week or two, and it will check the nozzles when powered on, and about 15-20% of the time run through one nozzle clean.  I'm at over 2 years, and I just replaced my first maintenance tank, so it's performing better than my 9900, which to me wasn't that bad.

[lauripie]

I own a PRO-4000 and at least here in Finland you can make a service deal with Canon, where you pay a monthly 25eur fee + a sum for each A4 equivalent you print, price depending how saturated the print is (there are five categories).

25eur will cover any maintenance costs and you basically don't pay for ink, only per printed area.  As soon as you are out of ink Canon will bring you some more.

I have made this maintenance ageement, so I know before hand how much each print is going to cost.  Maintenance cycles do not concern me in the least, since the ink hence consumed is not billed.

If this arrangement is available to you, it could be a factor to consider.  At least it was with me.

[Totemical]

Thanks to everyone that took the time to reply here, It truly helped inform my decision.
Especially Wayne for the detailed description of each.

I've decided to go with the Epson SureColor P7000.
A huge benefactor is their transparency with the archival inks, Along with the top loading.

I'll be coming back to this Forum for all the great advice!
Everyone here is very experience and its exactly the community I wish to be a part of!

I'll be sure to write a detailed review when I receive the printer so I can provide additional information to people that like me were on the fence.
~ Justin

[ReneP]

Good choice,

Bought mine about a year ago together with the spectroproofer and Mirage software for automatic profiling.
No clogging or any other issues encountered. Simply perfect!

Cheers,
Rene.