Get the Canon, and don't look back. . . I think the quality difference is so slight, that if I did not have them both and could compare prints side by side, I would never spot it. I dread the day, and I know it's coming, that I need a service call to clear a clog with the Epson. The Canon, OTOH, is exceptionally reliable.
Congrats on the new beast!!! I totally get the logic and would have done the same if I had not seen the difference(its subtle and probably can compensate for it with lots of fine tuning). Interesting how this becomes a fight about which is better? Just like the Nikon vs Canon rivalry. I shot both and each has strengths and weaknesses.
I have not had the opportunity to directly compare prints from Epson and Canon when all the variables are the same. Meaning identical prints from the same file and same PC or Mac. I am an advanced amateur. Therefore, I agree with Paris1968 that any differences would be not even noticed, without a side by side comparison. Even, then, for my purposes, I doubt that any very subtle difference that could be seen in a side by side comparison would influence my decision on which printer to buy. Professionals who print for a living would likely base a decision on those very subtle differences, but that is not the case with me. Finally, since I largely print from rolls, the issues involving sheet feeding on the Canon are less important, at least for me.
I have owned the HP Z3100 and the Epson 7900. As explained below, I had serious problems with both. I agree with comment from Jglaser that for some of those who post, this is a battle to defend their own purchases, not very different from the battles over Canon versus Nikon. IMHO those battles are just plain infantile and silly. When I am asked for camera recommendations, I tell friends that either Nikon or Canon are fine, and which camera is "up" or "down" in reviews varies from year to year depending on the latest release of the model.
With that being said, three points. (1) My number one piece of advice would be to NEVER buy a printer in the first six months of the release of a new model. I made that mistake with both HP and Epson, and wow, was it a huge mistake. Just look at the threads, in this forum, in the early days of the release of those printers. Both the HP Z3100 and Epson 7900 suffered from crippling problems in the first six to eight months. Before buying the Canon, the first thing I did was look to see when the Canon 8400 was first released, and to see if any early problems have been worked out, and that appears to be the case. These manufacturers are utterly irresponsible because they release defective products -- and it takes months to fix the problems. During those months, their customers are the guinea pigs who test the defective products for those manufacturers. The only reason that the manufacturers get away with it, as compared with auto manufacturers, is that printers don't kill you when they fail. They simply frustrate the owners who must cope with defective products. And before anyone defends Epson or HP, read the threads during the first six months of the release of those printers. The problems were so glaring, immediate and serious -- there is no way that the companies could not have known. If they didn't know about the problems prior to releasing the products, it would then mean that they did almost no testing to verify the operation of the printers.
(2) The other point would be the really dumb engineering decisions. Based on what is reported in this thread, the Canon engineers should copy the Epson design for sheet and roll feeding. Canon knows that they are criticized in that regard, and have been for years. But have done nothing to fix it. The Epson engineers should have solved the clogging problem years ago, since it has plagued Epson printers for years and years. Why didn't they solve that with the 7900? It says something that 7900 owners could only solve the problem of wasted ink in nozzle cleanings by accessing a service menu that was never intended to accessed by consumers. Epson has known that we all are doing that -- indeed, it was an Epson technician who told participants in the forum how to access the service menu -- yet they have never provided the equivalent of the level 1 or 2 service cleanings in the main firmware. Why not? Could it be because nozzle cleanings in the main menu waste huge amounts of ink, especially if viewed over the entire time you own the printer, and Epson makes huge profits off all the extra ink that is sold? What other explanation could there be for not fixing the clogging problem, once and for all, or at least providing the same flexibility in the main menu as in the service menu?
Both Canon and Epson suffer from head failures if the printers are used infrequently. As discussed here, in the case of Canon:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=96473.0HP addressed that problem and the issue of nozzle clogs. The downside of their system is the goop and ink that is left behind, but for amateurs, they were the first and only manufacturer to address how to keep printers working reliably when those printers are used infrequently by amateurs as compared with daily use in printing shops.
(3) The other issue is variability in manufacturing, and IMHO this is more of an issue for Epson than for others. The reports from Epson owners simply are all over the map in terms of whether they have clogging problems in addition to other issues. Some Epson owners have no problems, and others are really screwed. My conclusion is that there must be an issue of variability in manufacturing, since there is no other explanation.
In conclusion, I lived through the enormous frustration of owning defective products from both HP and Epson. I was a fool who bought those printers in the first six months though. In any case, having lived through that, my number one criteria now is simple reliability. That is based on the assumption that all three manufacturers have printers that turn out very good prints, and I would never see the difference unless they were placed on a table side by side, and even then the differences would be pretty subtle.
As an advanced amateur, who lacks the time to invest in addressing defective products, I simply want equipment to work reliably and consistently. That is not too much to ask. Canon and Nikon largely deliver on that expectation with cameras. Why the manufacturers of printers can't accomplish that is the question. Maybe they all need to be sued by class action attorneys, since sales and legal judgements appear to be all they care about.
If they actually cared about the frustrations of their customers, all three manufacturers would produce better and more reliable printers.
The conclusion that they all suffer from their own set of problems is the only conclusion that is true IMHO. Since I am tired of the clogging of Epson, I am now moving on to Canon, having tried the other two manufacturers. I am hoping, based on reports here, that Canon may be more reliable. But apparently their heads fail every 3 or 4 years based on the thread I cited above? Even then, at least I know that it is the price of ownership with Canon, and I can replace the heads on my own without a service call. That may be expensive reliability, but at least it is predictable, consistent and something I can address myself in a matter of minutes. And my own guess is that the cost of replacing a head will be no greater, and probably less, than the value of all the wasted ink on an Epson due to frequent cleanings.
