Epson 9900 vs Canon 8300

[indusphoto]

I am currently considering LF printers for my photographic printing needs. There is this inevitable comparison between Epson and Canon. With the current pricing I can get Canon 44" for the same price as Epson 24". So this is a big reason I am leaning towards Canon and evaluating both.  Now I know this is a topic beaten to death, and I have read many threads regarding this, but unfortunately all discussions whittle down to Epson clog issues and many other questions remain unanswered. I know all about clogging issues (have been Epson owner) and get it, but let us move on to some real questions. 


1. I do a fair bit of cutsheet printing from small letter size to 17x22. My rolls are 24 and 44 inch. How difficult is it to use Canon for cutsheets? Is it a minor annoyance that may cause some loss of productivity at a printing shop, or is this something of a major pain in the neck and is not advised for frequent usage.

2. I print on some very thick/textured paper in both roll and cutsheet (0.5mm-0.7mm). Is this going to be a problem on Canon with its curved paper path?

3. Similarly I plan to print on metal/aluminum and any other exotics that come my way (again both roll and cutsheets). Is this going to be a problem on Canon with its curved paper path?

4. According to reviews, the Epson prints are smoother because of variable dot pitch. Is this something that is noticeable in a large sized print at relatively close distance? Although people are not expected to look closely at large sized prints, but buyers spending hundreds and thousands of dollars on each print do, with a magnifier.

5. Canon Blacks and dMax are supposed to be better than Epson. Again, is this difference noticeable? I do not print B&W currently, but plan to do it.

I will appreciate comments from those who have owned (or evaluated) one or both of these printers. I would really like to walk into a Canon dealer and check the printer myself, but I am not aware of any in my city (San Diego, CA).

Thanks

[ftbt]

... Similarly I plan to print on metal/aluminum and any other exotics that come my way (again both roll and cutsheets). Is this going to be a problem on Canon with its curved paper path?

I have an 8300 and I love it. But, I primarily print on canvas (BC Lyve). Both printers are capable of making stunning prints. However, if you are really going to be printing on metal/aluminum, then I think Epson is the printer you want. Someone more knowledgeable can correct me, but I am not even sure that the 8300 can print on metal/aluminum due to its curved paper path.

[bill t.]

In the last thousand or so prints have never had anybody pull out a magnifier.   

The 8300 is a non-starter for stiff panels, but other than that is my own true clog-free love.

A 9900 with its mega-gamut would be a waste on aluminum.  Used 9800's and 9880's can be had for a song and are a good choice for stiff panels and exotics because of the easy access to the media path.

[abiggs]

I am currently considering LF printers for my photographic printing needs. There is this inevitable comparison between Epson and Canon. With the current pricing I can get Canon 44" for the same price as Epson 24". So this is a big reason I am leaning towards Canon and evaluating both.  Now I know this is a topic beaten to death, and I have read many threads regarding this, but unfortunately all discussions whittle down to Epson clog issues and many other questions remain unanswered. I know all about clogging issues (have been Epson owner) and get it, but let us move on to some real questions. 


1. I do a fair bit of cutsheet printing from small letter size to 17x22. My rolls are 24 and 44 inch. How difficult is it to use Canon for cutsheets? Is it a minor annoyance that may cause some loss of productivity at a printing shop, or is this something of a major pain in the neck and is not advised for frequent usage.

2. I print on some very thick/textured paper in both roll and cutsheet (0.5mm-0.7mm). Is this going to be a problem on Canon with its curved paper path?

3. Similarly I plan to print on metal/aluminum and any other exotics that come my way (again both roll and cutsheets). Is this going to be a problem on Canon with its curved paper path?

4. According to reviews, the Epson prints are smoother because of variable dot pitch. Is this something that is noticeable in a large sized print at relatively close distance? Although people are not expected to look closely at large sized prints, but buyers spending hundreds and thousands of dollars on each print do, with a magnifier.

5. Canon Blacks and dMax are supposed to be better than Epson. Again, is this difference noticeable? I do not print B&W currently, but plan to do it.

I will appreciate comments from those who have owned (or evaluated) one or both of these printers. I would really like to walk into a Canon dealer and check the printer myself, but I am not aware of any in my city (San Diego, CA).

Thanks

1) The Epson 9900 is king of the cut sheets.
2) I have never had any issues here with either the 9900 or 8300
3) I would anticipate the 9900 being much better in this area.
4) I have noticed a slightly higher 'acuity' to 9900 prints, but I had to look more closely than any person would ever need to look.
5) I consider this area a wash. Both are great.

[Rob Reiter]

I load odd sizes of cut sheets all day long in my iPF 8300 and have no problems. Even Japanese papers with a deckled edge can be loaded.

For small (8.5x11) sheets of stiff, but not rigid, material, the Canon might be ok. I've loaded pretty heavy handmade paper. Not sure about larger sheets, but I will be trying some soon. Totally inflexible metal, no.

I can only compare my Canon to the Epson 9800 I used to use, and the blacks are definitely better on the Canon. Also, the ink does not scratch or 'buff 'as easily as UltraChrome ink.

Can't speak to sharpness/dithering patterns, but I'm happy with what the Canon produces.

I love not having to deal with clogs and Canon has been very generous with replacing heads out of warranty (I use mine commercially and print on a lot of fiber based, relatively dusty paper.)

[williamrohr]

I use both an 8300 and a 9900.  The 8300 NEVER clogs, the 9900 frequently does but clears easily.  As others have noted, stiff material such as metal is not possible on the 8300 but unless you are willing to get extremely involved in metal printing and will do it often ... better to send it out (its more work than you will anticipate to get it right).  Even pixel peeping shows very little difference in the end result. Sheet loading is a no-brainer on the Epson, more of a hassle on the 8300, but not particularly difficult.  Are you going to use a RIP ... some work on one or the other .. so that might drive your choice.  Custom or non-Canon papers are easier to set up on the Canon, than non-Epson on the Epsons but again not a big deal.  One last thought .. will you be using it on first floor or higher floor ... the Canon is very heavy and it took two more guys from the moving company to get the Canon to the third floor than the Epson.  Both are great printers but the lack of clogging on the 8300 and the Bowhaus True Black and White RIP for the 8300 make it my favorite.  One man's opinion.

[badbluesman]

I apologize for having posted this as a separate thread before discovering this one on the same topic.   I am deliberating the decision to purchase either the 9900, 9890, or iPF 8300.  I would appreciate hearing from printmakers who have had comparative experience with at least two of these three printers.

I have owned previous Epson and Canon printers and I prefer Canon for mechanics, functionality, and BW printing.  But recent test prints that I had done lead me back to Epson for color.  I ganged up 9 color files on 13x19 and had them printed on the 9900, 9890, iPF 8300, and HP Z3100 printers (my files are 16-bit Adobe RGB 1998 color space).  All of the people who printed for me are making their own icc profiles.  Everyone printed on the same paper: Photo Rag Baryta.  The best overall color and best match for my calibrated monitor was the 9890!  The 9900 had better greens than the 9890, but overall its color was more anemic and a poorer match to my monitor.  The Canon color was really over the top- almost too much gamut and too much saturation bordering on distortion. A highly exaggerated red flush in face tones was the most worrying problem, since I am about to print an 85-print exhibition with faces in nearly every frame.  Other Canon color distortions in my test print include an overall yellowish warm cast that is not on my monitor, sky blues rendered as hot tropical blues, fluorescent greens, and a generally poor monitor match.  My previous Canon printer, the iPF 5100, had the same exaggerated red flush issue in face tones, even though most other colors were accurate thanks to my custom profiling.  In my recent tests, the 9890, with its smaller gamut, had the best overall skin tones and the best overall monitor match.  Its only minor deficiency is that some greens are not quite up to those seen on the monitor and in the 9900 print.  However, this only applied to man-made greens; foliage was identical in the 9890 and 9900 prints.  I don't shoot that many man-made green subjects.  I shoot far more faces.

Some of you who posted previously mentioned having both the iPF 8300 and 9900 printers.  I would like to read your responses to my test results above.  I would also like to read your comments about relative ink usage and any other issues you might care to weigh in on.

Thanks in advance.

[bill t.]

Get an 8300.  Many 9900 owners have been observed to have male pattern balding, pot bellies, excessive chest hair, and yellow teeth.  I'm sure it goes beyond mere coincidence.

And I think you are doing a better job of studying variability in profiling, post processing, and media characteristics than anything directly to do with the printers themselves.

Toss a coin, get the indicated printer, learn how to really use it.  You'll be ok either way.