Hi,
I'm in the market for a good quality printer. I am thinking of a 17", perhaps the Epson 3800.
My concern is this. I'm not a professional photographer: I'm just a fairly keen amateur. At times, I'll do a fair bit of printing in a short period. At others, my day job intrudes into my leisure time, so the printer might remain unused for a month or even two.
Will I have problems with head clogs if I get an Epson? Are there precautions I can take? I live in Manchester, England, so it ain't hot and it certainly ain't dry (although my attic study can get a bit stuffy from time to time).
All recommendations gratefully received.
Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119455\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have a 9800, 4800, 2400, canon ipf5000 and currently am testing a z3100. Regarding the head clogging issue, most will probably tell you that is a negative about the epson ... leaving it off for long times and then starting it up. The other printers recommend you leave them on all the time I believe - but hard to do for a month. I'm not sure I completely concur, and think other considerations are probably more important.
Normally when I start up one of the epsons, I do a nozzle check (automatic process). It sometimes is clear, others it takes a few times, and yes, consumes some ink, but soon the printer is running great. I'm not sure how the heads of a the other two printers would handle this off for a month/ on for a day or too process, and not sure how much ink they would consume because they will occassionally run some type of head maintainence/ink pumping thing while they are on. I personally believe both technologies are very good, but I do get nervous about any component that is user replaceable (ie they think it can wear out).
I have been terribly dissappointed in the canon printer, mainly because of its difficulty of use and poor software. The z3100 is far more expensive, and though I find it's self profiling helpful, I find those profiles still not optimum, and even after extensive profiling using Bill Atkinsons 4096 patch targets, I find the gradations and detail of the HP is lacking compared to my 4800. (though I'm just retesting using the newest firmware and can see some improvements). The Gloss optimizer of the HP is the main reason I"m interested in trying it.
I think the 3800 has a better sealing mechanism so it may perform better than the 4800,9800 regarding the concern you mentioned. I know the 2400 seems to be better in my experience. The fact that its takes a miniscule amount of ink to change to matte black with this printer and its price point, for the money you should give it strong consideration. The new Canon (ipf5100?) may address its weaknesses and actually deliver a printer that should be considered, if it's an option you may want to wait. It doesn't sound like you have in your budget enough to consider the HP, and even though everyone seems to be jumping on the HP bandwagon, (kind of grass is greener on the otherside, after all, it has more inks so it must be much better), I still think it's way too early to draw any firm conclusions. As far as the quality of a finished print, I'm not sure HP can deliver anything superior, especially for the money.
All 3, when operated well, deliver OUTSTANDING image quality. Its more about price point/ convenience, features etc.
