Canon 5100 vs. Epson 3880

[Clarence1]

Help an old guy out.

I'm trying to decide between these printers.  Any help you guys can provice would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Clare

[tonywong]

Help an old guy out.

I'm trying to decide between these printers.  Any help you guys can provice would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Clare

I doubt there there is an overwhelming preference for one or the other, and even if there was, you should probably stipulate what your needs are so others can really give you some thoughtful advice.

Printer prices, media costs, gamut, drivers, application support, print longevity, media types, (regional) service and support are some factors that can move you towards one product or another.

[Josh-H]

I doubt there there is an overwhelming preference for one or the other, and even if there was, you should probably stipulate what your needs are so others can really give you some thoughtful advice.

Printer prices, media costs, gamut, drivers, application support, print longevity, media types, (regional) service and support are some factors that can move you towards one product or another.

Yup - agreed. Also size of ink cartridges is a critical item if you are going to be doing a lot of printing - since thats where a lot of your money is going to go.

[Pete Berry]

Aside from the Canon's approx. 60% larger ink carts, it is the only fully featured 17" professional printer. By this I mean it has full time matte and photo blacks, roll feed (powered), and state of the art vacuum paper hold down like the larger Epsons rather than the 3880's "pizza wheel" mechanical system, which can occasionally mar some more sensitive paper surfaces.

The downside is that it is significantly larger and heaver than the 3880. My older 5000 leaves little space on its 2x4' counter top, and its ejection/cassete tray projects out a good 9" from the front. The other factor you should consider is the possibility of print head failure, which is unusual but costly at $600 each. They are user-replaceable. Most failures reported on the Canon LFP Wiki have been the old PF-1 series, and the newer Teflon coated nozzle PF-3 heads in the 5100 seem more reliable and are warrenteed for a year.

Both can produce stunning prints.

Pete

[neile]

As Pete mentions the roll feed on the Canon is great. One thing to watch though: you can still get pizza wheel problems on the Canon. If you use cut sheets, some papers (like Ilford GFS and thick Hahnemuhle papers) will show pizza marks in dark areas. Also, depending on your media settings, the pizza feed mechanism kicks in even if you are using roll paper (I've noticed Special 5 does this).

Neil

[Josh-H]

As Pete mentions the roll feed on the Canon is great. One thing to watch though: you can still get pizza wheel problems on the Canon. If you use cut sheets, some papers (like Ilford GFS and thick Hahnemuhle papers) will show pizza marks in dark areas. Also, depending on your media settings, the pizza feed mechanism kicks in even if you are using roll paper (I've noticed Special 5 does this).

Neil

I have never experienced this problem with my IPF5100 with either Ilford GFS or Hahnemuhle FAB, PhotoRag Baryta or Museum Etching. I have all three profiled for Heavy Weight Semi Gloss Photopaper 2 (with the exception of Museum Etching) and head height set to high with maximum vaccume.

Another thing about the Canon IPF5100 - it is extremely frugal with its ink and with the much bigger cartridges you get HEAPS of prints out of them. Which makes the economy of scale well worth it IMO.

[DanielStone]

to me, the roll feed was the butter on bread. I looked at the 4880, but at the time, I got a great deal on my 5100 slightly used. so I had a monetary reason to go with the Canon.

so far, no complaints. albeit, I haven't printed as much as I thought I would have up til now.

I haven't experienced the 'pizza wheel' with any prints of mine so far, but I have been printing primarily on Espon's luster and Ilford's Smooth Pearl.

some of the Inkpress papers are very nice too, and I've gotten great results from them

having just found a new, cheaper source of ink (albeit from Hong Kong) at $64US a pop with free shipping(minimum 4 cartridge order though), its cheaper by a bit than my local shops that I was using before. Occasionally I still get one from them, but lately, from internet sources duet n to my restrained student budget right now. FWIW, I haven't used this source yet, so I can't vouch for them, but they have plenty of POSITIVE feedback from int'l customers for what I am looking to buy.

Along with less problems of head clogging during periods of non-use, along with the great vacuum function to keep paper flat just sealed the deal for me in the end though.

I would recommend though to go with your gut. Only you can decide which is the best tool for you. I just wish that Canon had a larger version of their cartridges, like Epson, but say, a 250ml. that would be sweet. especially if re-printing your port or a small display of your work.

-Dan

[Wayne Fox]

Aside from the Canon's approx. 60% larger ink carts,

60% more, but the 3880 has more than adequate size (80ml) vs. the ipf series at 130ml.  From a price perspective the difference is far less than 60%, in fact the cost difference per ml is only about 10%.

I've had both (well, sort of.  ipf5000, ipf6100, and 2 3800's).  To me the key differences between the two ...

size and weight-  The 3880 is more compact and lighter, so if space or need to move around is an issue this might be important.

Roll Feed  - not available on the 3880 so if you want to print on rolls the canon is the only way to go.  If using only sheets however I prefer the 3880 ... I had issues with the ipf5000's oversize (huge) paper tray and other sheet feeding options.

Black ink swap - only an issue if you are going to need to switch a lot. If so, the Canon, otherwise cost to switch a 3880 is pretty minimal. (Many don't even use MK ink anymore with all of the new terrific papers available that use PK ink.)

Along with less problems of head clogging during periods of non-use, along with the great vacuum function to keep paper flat just sealed the deal for me in the end though.

While this may apply to other Epson printers, the 3800 is the one Epson that rarely clogs.  You can search many forum threads about the 3800 and you will see this is echoed my many users.

The canon printers use far more ink to remain "clog free" than users realize ... personally I think the Epson 3800 uses less ink to keep nozzles clear than the Canons.  If choosing between these two printers I think this is a push ... not a factor.

To me the vacuum thing is also not really an important point.  It isn't strong enough to prevent problems with edge curling on sheet papers ... both printers handle sheets about the same (meaning they can have problems with some edge curl).  Main purpose for the vacuum system in the Canon's is for roll paper.

[NikoJorj]

Roll Feed  - not available on the 3880

Is the 3880 limited to ca. 95cm/37" in length like the 3800?

And about black ink swap, for me I'd feel I'm a bit laughed at : one little printhead less to make the customer buy more ink...
I agree it is less of a problem with the 3800/3880.

This (mainly the pano ability), plus the vacuum paper holder, would really make me turn towards an ipf5100 on the day my R1800 goes to printer heaven (knock on wood).

[Conner999]

With on-going (yup, have tried all the solutions) PW and 'various-other-sharp-bits-in-the-paper-path' based scratch issues with MY COPY (some have no problem or on select papers only) of the 3800  on FA glossy/SG paper larger than letter sized, the vacuum system of the Canon would be a key determinant - all other things being equal (which they are not).

The 3800 works like a dream with sheet cut matte papers, but for glossy or SG FA papers like Harman, IGFS, etc., the scratching issue is a crap shoot based on your copy of the printer (manufacturing variances as you'd expect), papers used (how much they distort when inked), etc, etc.  Love what it produces on matte and Pk paper (assuming no scratches), but for me it is my LAST pizza-wheel based printer.

[Dale Allyn]

I have a couple Canon IPF printers and will get another when I'm ready to spend some money on a new one (trying to resist spending right now). I've been very happy with the Canon printers and the Canon service. Actually, quite impressed with the service as I had one of the original roll-feed gear hiccups occur, long out of warranty, and Canon sent a tech to my home the day after I called. In fact, the part arrived after the tech who had driven over two hours to get to the town where I live, arriving at my home at 8:00 a.m. We waited for the UPS Overnight shipment to arrive, he installed it and returned to his office over two hours away. This was free of charge. I was amazed. Canon treats the 17" printer as they do the larger-format pro printers. Epson may also – I haven't heard either way.

I use the roll-feed a lot, print a lot of matte papers, but use "luster-type" papers for portraits and certain other images. I don't want to organize my printing schedules to accommodate such paper changes, so I really appreciate the no-purge black ink situation of the Canon design. That said, I understand that Epson has worked to reduce the amount of waste for the swap, and kudos to them for that. Still, for me it's a deal breaker. I don't have the data on this computer (I'm traveling) but if I recall the swap costs about $5. If one does this rarely it's not a big deal. But if one might make a couple of round-trips with the MK-PK-MK, change it can add up.

As others have said, the 3800 has been an excellent printer for many users. Epson does a very good job (obviously), but I really wish they'd direct-plumb both black inks. The compact size and excellent output of the printer is lost on me because of this design "flaw". Still, if one is not needing or wanting to use roll papers, doesn't need to swap blacks regularly, or is "space-challenged", the Epson will surely make fine prints. But for the reasons listed in some of the posts above, I prefer the Canon 17" printer.

[gdstaples]

Don't know if this has been mentioned but the Canon printer is almost 3.5 times as fast as the Epson in addition to the other comments about roll feed, ink sizes, gloss performance etc..  I have the 8100 and 9100 and could not be happier with one exception, Canon support sucks and they are fairly slow to roll out up to date drivers for new versions of PS and OS like Vista, Snow Leopard etc.  It took them a number of months for both.  Epson's support is a bit more timely and more readily available.

Duncan

[Dale Allyn]

Don't know if this has been mentioned but the Canon printer is almost 3.5 times as fast as the Epson in addition to the other comments about roll feed, ink sizes, gloss performance etc..  I have the 8100 and 9100 and could not be happier with one exception, Canon support sucks and they are fairly slow to roll out up to date drivers for new versions of PS and OS like Vista, Snow Leopard etc.  It took them a number of months for both.  Epson's support is a bit more timely and more readily available.

Duncan

Yes, I forgot to mention that driver updates tend to be slow with Canon, and generally pretty good with Epson. Other than this issue, my experience with support, both for an on-premises tech call and replacement of defective ink cartridge has been blazingly fast and without issue. I have read of mixed reports though, which may depend on location and specific issues. Fortunately, my need for support has been minimal.

Edit to add: The smallest print size available with the Canon iPF 5100 is 8x10 inches; with the Epson 3880 I believe it is 4x6 inches (as it was with the 3800). If one needs to print smaller than 8x10 this may be a factor. Some have reported being able to print 7x10 note cards on the 5100, but opted for a dedicated 13" printer for this task to avoid possible headaches.

[mcfoto]

We have been using the IPF5000 since July 2006. Been an excellent printer & using roll paper is the way to go. Cut sheet paper is more expensive.
Denis

[Clarence1]

Thanks for all your input.

DFAllen:  I emailed the folks at Canon and found that the smallest print size for the 5100 is 4X8.

Clare

[Dale Allyn]

Thanks for all your input.

DFAllen:  I emailed the folks at Canon and found that the smallest print size for the 5100 is 4X8.

Clare

Hey that's great to know. The iPF 5000 is the spec I mentioned and I was not aware of the change (or I forgot?) in the 5100.