Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: michaelhankes on April 02, 2016, 09:51:30 am
-
I am writing to get anyone's thoughts on these two printers. I've been researching them extensively and recently joined the site to read the reviews on the two prints, which are excellent. I'm a casual printer and have a few questions about them. I see that the Pro 1000 has a gloss optimizer since the printer uses pigment inks. Does the Epson have this (I don't think so) and does it matter that it does not?
I go back and forth over which printer to get. One pro for the Epson is that Epson has so many papers for the P800. However, my understanding is that third party papers, such as Canson, Ilford, or Red River, offer great papers that can be used on the Canon printer. Another pro point is the ability to print 16 x 24 prints, and the Canon does not print up to 24 inches. Should paper sway my decision on any one printer? If not, I would prefer to use Canon.
Lastly, I've used the Pixma Pro 100 for a couple of years now and really like the printer. My main reasons for upgrading are improved print quality and to print larger. I know there are a few questions here, but looking for any other's thoughts on why they choose one model over the other. Thanks :)
-
I don't believe that Canon's gloss optimizer works much differently than Epson's resin encapsulation, to judge by careful inspection of prints from both printers. So I wouldn't differentiate the printers on that dimension.
Paper doesn't differentiate them either because you can just about use any one's paper in either printer. You just need the correct profile for the printer/paper combination and there are alternative ways of getting those. So paper wouldn't be a deciding factor between printers either.
The length issue is a real differentiating factor. If you wish to print longer than 23.4 inches, for the time being your choice is the Epson P800, because 23.4 inches for now is the limit for the Canon printer. The P800 also allows the attachment of an optional roll holder, so you can print panoramas if you expect to do that.
Print quality wise, both are fine printers that deliver fine results.
-
I have a question about the gloss optimizer of the Pro 1000:
In the overall setting - is this for the complete sheet including borders or only for the area of the image itself? Or is there a choice between these options?
Can anybody help with the question?
Best regards - Marc
-
Canon LUCIA pigment particles are also encapsulated - Chroma Optimizer uniforms surface particle layout to minimize light scattering, which results in gamut and contrast expansion. In GO full coat mode it leaves 3mm margin, but you can avoid it by enabling borderless mode. The difference in gloss differential is quite dicernable:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/iPFvsSC.jpg)
-
I have a question about the gloss optimizer of the Pro 1000:
In the overall setting - is this for the complete sheet including borders or only for the area of the image itself? Or is there a choice between these options?
Can anybody help with the question?
Best regards - Marc
Marc - there is an option to let it coat the whole surface of the paper or only the portions that are more inked. The former is recommended for the most pleasing results,, but you'll be changing this cartridge quite a bit more than the others.
-
Canon LUCIA pigment particles are also encapsulated - Chroma Optimizer uniforms surface particle layout to minimize light scattering, which results in gamut and contrast expansion. In GO full coat mode it leaves 3mm margin, but you can avoid it by enabling borderless mode. The difference in gloss differential is quite dicernable:
Marcin, yes, looking at this reference (http://media.canon-asia.com/v3.5media/products/inkjet_printer/pro1/luciatechnologyguide/p03.html) (for another printer model but most likely the same principle), the short story is that it reduces reflectivity. The important question though is how the whole package of inks, papers, profiles and firmware deliver the prints and that is best judged by comparative evaluation of real world photographs. We did that quite extensively and the results of it are reported in my review.
Personally I don't pay much attention to minor differences of gloss differential because it normally shows worst when looking at prints from angles that aren't normal or optimal for print viewing, but I recognize that different people may have different taste or concern about this. I wouldn't base a printer purchase decision on the CO alone, but rather on overall outcomes taking all contributing factors into consideration.
-
Marc - there is an option to let it coat the whole surface of the paper or only the portions that are more inked. The former is recommended for the most pleasing results,, but you'll be changing this cartridge quite a bit more than the others.
Thanks Mark,
my question was a bit different, but I probably did not ask it clearly: I would prefer a setting that applies the chroma optimizer to the whole image (including white areas), but not the borders. So there would a gloss differential between the image area and the border area (like you have it in some well printed photobooks). I would like to use that for portfolios where I have a relatvely large border area around my image.
It sounds like there is no such setting for the Pro 1000, is there?
Regards - Marc
-
No Marc, unfortunately there's no such a setting - there are only two modes: it prints on the whole page, or only on printed parts.
-
Not that I am aware of. As far as I know, which may not be the whole story, the closest you can come is to select the option that applies it only to the more inked areas of the print.
-
Thanks for that info, Mark and Czornyj.
Not what I hoped for, but good to know.
Regards - Marc
-
Has anyone investigated the effect chroma optimizer has on custom profiles? Since it reduces light scattering and increases gamut I would expect profiles with and without the chroma optimizer to be significantly different and am curious what areas are most affected.
-
Has anyone investigated the effect chroma optimizer has on custom profiles? Since it reduces light scattering and increases gamut I would expect profiles with and without the chroma optimizer to be significantly different and am curious what areas are most affected.
That crossed my mind when preparing the comparison prints made with custom profiles, so I used the same setting for the CO in both the generation of the profiling targets and the prints made from those targets. Page 411 of the printer manual shows how to manage the role of CO in the Paper Detailed Settings of the printer driver, but nothing there or any where else in the manual about any impact of the choice between Overall and Auto on the selected printer profile. Whether it matters or not I suppose would depend on whether a spectrophotometer would read different patch values for those very light coloured patches that would not be coated if one selected the Auto coating option (which restricts coating to the areas with more pronounced ink laydown). I suspect it may not be an important issue even though I took some precaution in handling it for my testing and evaluation work.
-
That crossed my mind when preparing the comparison prints made with custom profiles, so I used the same setting for the CO in both the generation of the profiling targets and the prints made from those targets. Page 411 of the printer manual shows how to manage the role of CO in the Paper Detailed Settings of the printer driver, but nothing there or any where else in the manual about any impact of the choice between Overall and Auto on the selected printer profile. Whether it matters or not I suppose would depend on whether a spectrophotometer would read different patch values for those very light coloured patches that would not be coated if one selected the Auto coating option (which restricts coating to the areas with more pronounced ink laydown). I suspect it may not be an important issue even though I took some precaution in handling it for my testing and evaluation work.
Makes sense to profile using the same settings you print with including CO.
The CO is touted as increasing the gamut, particularly in the darker areas, as well as improving the Dmax. These are both reflected in a profile so there is apparently some difference. I don't think they include different profiles with and without CO so perhaps it isn't large enough to matter much.
-
I'd find it hard to recommend the Canon due to the length limit alone. Unless you always crop to a 4:5 aspect ratio, the inability to print at 16x24 cripples its utility as a 17" printer. If you like to shoot panoramas and other wide shots, it gets even worse - many of my shots would be limited to 7.5"x22.5", as opposed to 16x48" on a printer without the limit.
-
Makes sense to profile using the same settings you print with including CO.
The CO is touted as increasing the gamut, particularly in the darker areas, as well as improving the Dmax. These are both reflected in a profile so there is apparently some difference. I don't think they include different profiles with and without CO so perhaps it isn't large enough to matter much.
My take as well.
-
I'd find it hard to recommend the Canon due to the length limit alone.
If I'm honest with myself, this would have very little real impact on me due to the unavailability of 17x25" paper in Europe... and we get A2 which has a better aspect ratio than 17x22. That wouldn't apply if the the Canon had a roll-feed, but it doesn't. There is also the report that the engineers are going to look into the feasibility of enabling longer prints... I presume that means trying to get the ok from whoever calls the shots. I'm not holding my breath, but let's see.
Otherwise, it seems a bit of a wash. The MK/PK issue doesn't worry me, since I don't see myself using much MK; the difference in purchase price is pretty much balanced by initial ink supply. Running costs are would likely be a little higher for the Canon because of the CO, but it has nicer paper handling (and we don't know about ink use in cleaning cycles for infrequent users). The Canon LR plug-in is a nice interface, but the Epson leaves open the option of using QTR or even eventually converting it to a B&W only machine. The Epson has the roll-feed option...
-
Thank you everyone for your replies. I settled on the Epson P800. Ordered last night with some sample packs of their legacy paper and others. Thanks again :) Thursday can't come fast enough!
-
You are welcome. All the best with it.
-
The difference in gloss differential is quite discernible:
Actually what strikes me here is that there is a trade-off: the Epson has a more intense on-axis reflection, but the Canon print has a wider range of angles over which the reflection is unacceptable. Or that's my impression from looking at this one photo...
It is therefore at least conceivable that the CO could make it slightly harder to avoid unacceptable glare by positioning the lighting, even if it is better in the worst-case scenario...
-
Actually what strikes me here is that there is a trade-off: the Epson has a more intense on-axis reflection, but the Canon print has a wider range of angles over which the reflection is unacceptable. Or that's my impression from looking at this one photo...
It is therefore at least conceivable that the CO could make it slightly harder to avoid unacceptable glare by positioning the lighting, even if it is better in the worst-case scenario...
How does it look after you've sprayed it with Print Shield, Hahnemuhle Protective Spray or similar? Because you're likely to be doing that anyway...
-
Actually what strikes me here is that there is a trade-off: the Epson has a more intense on-axis reflection, but the Canon print has a wider range of angles over which the reflection is unacceptable. Or that's my impression from looking at this one photo...
It is therefore at least conceivable that the CO could make it slightly harder to avoid unacceptable glare by positioning the lighting, even if it is better in the worst-case scenario...
Epson target was printed on Premium Luster Photo Paper, and Canon target on Canon Satin Photo Paper - that's why there's a difference in glossiness and flare range. It was only a quick snapshot made with a hand-held DXO ONE and iBlazer as a light/flare source, just to show the approx. level of gloss differential.
-
Actually what strikes me here is that there is a trade-off: the Epson has a more intense on-axis reflection, but the Canon print has a wider range of angles over which the reflection is unacceptable. Or that's my impression from looking at this one photo...
It is therefore at least conceivable that the CO could make it slightly harder to avoid unacceptable glare by positioning the lighting, even if it is better in the worst-case scenario...
The glare and flare of reflections from pearl/lustre papers as well as bronzing is not seen by spectrophotometers. They are only sensitive to light at 45 degrees to the paper from a view perpendicular to the paper. It is this reflected light, which doesn't include surface reflections that don't extend to 45 degrees. I have not seen any pearl type papers that go over about 25 degrees. If profiles were made from uniformly illuminated light sources glossy, pearl, luster, and similar type prints would have a much smaller gamut and a much large DMax that would approximate matte papers. This is why the glossy/pearl type papers should be displayed with light at an angle of, optimally, 45 degrees for viewers looking directly perpendicular to the displayed print.
The fact that matte papers (or matte surfaces on reference tiles) reflect light broadly means a portion of the light is from specular reflection. It also makes them largely insensitive to the angle they are illuminated.
-
Epson target was printed on Premium Luster Photo Paper, and Canon target on Canon Satin Photo Paper - that's why there's a difference in glossiness and flare range. It was only a quick snapshot made with a hand-held DXO ONE and iBlazer as a light/flare source, just to show the approx. level of gloss differential.
Thanks for clarifying what you did, because I must admit I found that image comparison rather puzzling. I'm sure you know that correct formal comparison of "n" samples for one variable requires that all other variables be the same or irrelevant between samples to avoid the risk of causal ambiguity resulting from multiple factors of unknown specific importance.
-
My two cents. I also have a Pro-100 and wanted to go bigger, and with a pigment ink. I agonized over the Pro-1000 vs. P800. I also selected the P800 (primarily for the pano capability), and have changed my workflow to 100% ProPhotoRGB from edit through printing. I think these printers are amazing. I'm using Red River Palo Duro SGR -- it's really impressive.
-
Thanks for clarifying what you did, because I must admit I found that image comparison rather puzzling. I'm sure you know that correct formal comparison of "n" samples for one variable requires that all other variables be the same or irrelevant between samples to avoid the risk of causal ambiguity resulting from multiple factors of unknown specific importance.
Yeah sorry, it wasn't my intention to make any kind of formal test, just printed the target to make a profile (for some mysterious reason Epson SC-P800 stock profile for Premium Luster is awful, it turns skin tones violet).
-
On paper, the Canon PRO-1000 has better features than the Epson P800, except for the paper size limitation.
More inks, then more gamut, vacuum system, then more print precision and ease of loading.
However on the conclusions of the test, especially in image quality, I not detect a great enthusiasm for the Canon.
Why?
It surprises me.
-
Yeah sorry, it wasn't my intention to make any kind of formal test, just printed the target to make a profile (for some mysterious reason Epson SC-P800 stock profile for Premium Luster is awful, it turns skin tones violet).
That's interesting Marcin - hope someone at Epson is reading and will test their profile. If you are custom profiling with good equipment it's unimportant to you, but out of general interest perhaps an idea to re-download the (latest) driver, extract that profile from it and try again. Maybe for some reason or other it got corrupted.
-
On paper, the Canon PRO-1000 has better features than the Epson P800, except for the paper size limitation.
More inks, then more gamut, vacuum system, then more print precision and ease of loading.
However on the conclusions of the test, especially in image quality, I not detect a great enthusiasm for the Canon.
Why?
It surprises me.
I don't know what script you are reading from, but right at the beginning of my review of this printer I said the following:
<<In a nutshell, we think it’s a fine printer with a lot going for it. It has every appearance of being a very solid machine, the print quality is superb, the in-built features are most interesting and the user-friendliness is very good.>> (emphasis added for your convenience).
In the "Wrap-Up" at the end of the article I said: <<The Canon image PROGRAF PRO-1000 delivers excellent print quality. >>
Is that not clear enough?
Now, referring to remarks further up in your post, please note that more inks does not necessarily mean anything. It depends on the image and what you are measuring for or looking for. "More gamut" also within a range could mean very little or something, again, depending on the image and the treatment. Not clear what you mean by "more print precision". Looking at the table below Figure 7 in my review, the average dE results for both the P800 and the Pro-1000 using custom profiles are competitive. A difference of a few 10ths of a percentage point on a test like this is insignificant. I agree with you that Canon scores higher on ease of loading, but I would add that one doesn't need a PhD in gymnastics to load a P800; Epson scores higher on paper sizes.
Overall, I think these are very competitive printers from an objective perspective, and you need to read more carefully. There are some feature and operational differences between them, hence one should select a printer depending on which feature set and operational factors are more relevant to one's own requirements.
-
That's interesting Marcin - hope someone at Epson is reading and will test their profile. If you are custom profiling with good equipment it's unimportant to you, but out of general interest perhaps an idea to re-download the (latest) driver, extract that profile from it and try again. Maybe for some reason or other it got corrupted.
Unfortunately I returned the test unit already. I linearised it with ColorBase2 and i1Pro2, but the result was the same. Here's the profile, you can compare it to the one that you have:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/SC-P800%20Series%20Ultra%20Premium%20Photo%20Paper%20Luster.icc
prints:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/P800stockVsi1P.jpg)
original image of Iga:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/Iga2.jpg)
-
Thanks Marcin, I'll have a look if I get a chance later on.
Nice photo of a pretty lady.
And yes, I see where the problems are: not only the skin tones, but the shadow treatment is more open in the custom profile - preferable.
-
I don't know what script you are reading from, but right at the beginning of my review of this printer I said the following:
<<In a nutshell, we think it’s a fine printer with a lot going for it. It has every appearance of being a very solid machine, the print quality is superb, the in-built features are most interesting and the user-friendliness is very good.>> (emphasis added for your convenience).
In the "Wrap-Up" at the end of the article I said: <<The Canon image PROGRAF PRO-1000 delivers excellent print quality. >>
Is that not clear enough?
Now, referring to remarks further up in your post, please note that more inks does not necessarily mean anything. It depends on the image and what you are measuring for or looking for. "More gamut" also within a range could mean very little or something, again, depending on the image and the treatment. Not clear what you mean by "more print precision". Looking at the table below Figure 7 in my review, the average dE results for both the P800 and the Pro-1000 using custom profiles are competitive. A difference of a few 10ths of a percentage point on a test like this is insignificant. I agree with you that Canon scores higher on ease of loading, but I would add that one doesn't need a PhD in gymnastics to load a P800; Epson scores higher on paper sizes.
Overall, I think these are very competitive printers from an objective perspective, and you need to read more carefully. There are some feature and operational differences between them, hence one should select a printer depending on which feature set and operational factors are more relevant to one's own requirements.
Hi Mark,
First of all, I have not commented only about your review, I've commented about several reviews and comparisons I've read on the net.
I'll say it in other words, given the superior technical features of the Canon PRO-1000, in the comparison, especially in image quality, expected a little better note for the PRO-1000 than for the P800.
And I find that comparative results in image quality are very similar if not equal.
This is my surprise.
Thank you!
-
OK, but two things are being commingled, which should not be: (1) the reviews - it's good to be quite specific about who says what and who you want to believe more. Don't worry, reviewers have thick skins otherwise we shouldn't be doing this. (2) technical features and image quality: some technical features do relate to image quality, others clearly do not - they relate to convenience, operational ease, etc. For example, it would not be correct to think that differences in the ease of paper feeding necessarily have any impact on image quality. Image quality and many of the operational features are distinct categories that need to be appraised in respect of their bespoke evaluation criteria. So I don't think there is anything to be surprised about, once you disentangle things that aren't necessarily associated with each other.
And before buying one of these printers, for those in any doubt, I would suggest assessing comparative image quality first-hand by viewing and handling comparable real-world output from both printers. There comes a point where opinions from reviewers on the internet, while they may provide useful guidance, are not necessarily decisive - personal judgment based on valid first-hand evidence could matter.
-
Apologies for reopening this old thread, I didn't want to open a new topic for just exactly the same thing.
Would it then be more or less ok to assume that both printers produce very similar output in quality and that the main differences would be page length (25.5" on the Canon now) and price of inks if you wanted to use 3rd party inks on the Epson?
Thank you.
PS: (I'm as well in the process of making a decision between both two, thus I was going through the whole archive of posts.)
-
Apologies for reopening this old thread, I didn't want to open a new topic for just exactly the same thing.
Would it then be more or less ok to assume that both printers produce very similar output in quality and that the main differences would be page length (25.5" on the Canon now) and price of inks if you wanted to use 3rd party inks on the Epson?
Thank you.
PS: (I'm as well in the process of making a decision between both two, thus I was going through the whole archive of posts.)
I think the pros and cons have been well rehearsed. I went for the Epson because of the print size limitation in the Canon and on a feeling that Epson running costs would be lower (and in the UK gap in purchase price is smaller than US); of course it's partly speculation on my part that while theoretically they both lay down exactly the same amount of ink per square cm/inch whatever, I can't help thinking the greater number of cartridges would cost more and the Canon cartridges are more expensive anyway. I took into account the fact that the printer would need to be relocated at least once in its lifetime and that means draining and throwing away all the ink in the Canon - also it's possible the Canon would need a replacement print head at some stage. In my case that was enough to outweigh the black ink switching penalty on the Epson.
-
I think the pros and cons have been well rehearsed. I went for the Epson because of the print size limitation in the Canon and on a feeling that Epson running costs would be lower (and in the UK gap in purchase price is smaller than US); of course it's partly speculation on my part that while theoretically they both lay down exactly the same amount of ink per square cm/inch whatever, I can't help thinking the greater number of cartridges would cost more and the Canon cartridges are more expensive anyway. I took into account the fact that the printer would need to be relocated at least once in its lifetime and that means draining and throwing away all the ink in the Canon - also it's possible the Canon would need a replacement print head at some stage. In my case that was enough to outweigh the black ink switching penalty on the Epson.
Historically Canon layed down much, much less ink and used way much lay ink for print head maintenance, not to mention PK<>MK switch. New iPF PRO uses may use even less ink than former iPF x400 series, and the new PF-10 print head should be much more robust. Relocating doesn't need any draining, there's a switch on bottom of the printer that shuts ink valves and prevents ink from leaking (BTW be careful not to put the printer on soft surface, or it will cut off the ink lines ;) ).
-
Historically Canon layed down much, much less ink and used way much lay ink for print head maintenance, not to mention PK<>MK switch. New iPF PRO uses may use even less ink than former iPF x400 series, and the new PF-10 print head should be much more robust. Relocating doesn't need any draining, there's a switch on bottom of the printer that shuts ink valves and prevents ink from leaking (BTW be careful not to put the printer on soft surface, or it will cut off the ink lines ;) ).
With the exception of the stats one can generate from the Pro-1000 accounting tool, given the lack of data about almost all of this for these new models, I would not recommend basing a choice of printer on any of it. Buy the printer that has the feature set most relevant to your needs. They both make great prints.
As for moving the printer, when I returned the Pro-1000 that Canon loaned me for the review, they required that I do a "preparation for transport" which means draining all the ink, and they provided me with three spare maintenance tanks to do the job. It broke me heart even though it was their printer and their ink! :-) But I suppose they were being careful to follow their own instructions in the manual as the printer was going with a transport company. From this I would infer your suggestion makes sense if one can monitor and manage the transportation conditions carefully enough.
-
Is ink cost really a big concern for (assuming) low volume printing at home? I thought the ink for my P800 will be my biggest expense until I saw the prices of good photo papers.
-
Is ink cost really a big concern for (assuming) low volume printing at home? I thought the ink for my P800 will be my biggest expense until I saw the prices of good photo papers.
For sure!
-
I would suggest, in my opinion, ymmv, etc, there is a lot of hype or even fetishism about what is a "good" paper. You will get the greatest gamut and dynamic range AND ease of use on an RC paper, where you are looking at about 2€/sheet of 13x19. The cost of ink is then of about (roughly) the same order as the paper. If you like something that looks a little yellower and wish to believe future generations will care about your prints, barytas cost about 40-50% more. At this stage you have access to equal or better output than any of the great masters of photography ever had.
The cost of ink is not ignorable then, but the total cost is still pretty damn reasonable... one would like to think something worth hanging on your wall should be worth at least as much as the frame :)
If you want to spend more on "fine art" paper, you should keep in mind that you are choosing to give up many of the qualities that one typically strives to achieve: gamut, dynamic range, resolution. That may be in line with what you want to achieve, which is entirely your choice: but you shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied by peer pressure into thinking you need expensive paper to do good work.
-
FWIW: As an ordinary user, mostly doing B&W, the Canon is working very well for me.
The professional reviews are quite accurate, and from what I can tell these two are essentially the same image quality.
I for one don't see much reason to ultra-geek out over the decision. I went with the Canon almost entirely because I'm fine with the 17" x 22" limit; saving ink when switching between glossy and matte is a nice bonus. If you need to print roll paper that is only 17" wide, then your choice should be obvious. ;)
-
So after some time, any conclusions on the propensity to clogs on any of the two machines ? My really old Epson R-1800 was really bad at this, and I do not want another printer that requires constant declogging cycles.
I do not print very often, and so this was a big issue for me. Otherwise, the P800 looks really nice (I do a lot of panos, so the Canon is less attractive, although it seems it doesn't clog - or it "internally" clogs, and you then change the print head after a while).
-
If you want to keep doing panoramas that exceed the length limitation of the Canon Pro-1000, your decision is made - it's an Epson P800. The clogging business, however, is a bit more complicated than you portray it. My experience using the Epson P800 since the beginning of February is that unless you make at least one multi-colour print every five days or so it will need at least one cleaning cycle - this is in my working conditions and those vary from user to user; my humidity range is between 22~40% normally. The Canon Pro-1000 has pre-programmed maintenance which the user does not control. If the printer hasn't been used for a while, when you switch it on it will shake the ink cartridges and do a head cleaning, which latter uses ink. We do not know how much. After a certain amount of printing, the printer will trigger head cleaning. We do not know the periodicity or the amount of ink used. If the cleaning cycles fail to declog nozzles, there is an algorithm to work around those nozzles which is fine until the number of redundant nozzles is consumed and the print head needs replacement. There is no data indicating the conditions in which this would become necessary. Bottom line: both printers clog, but the way of handling it differs considerably between them. It is arguably the case that the Canon procedure needs considerably less user intervention than the Epson procedure, but the latter is pretty easy to manage; both consume time and ink.
-
Canon iPF PRO-1000 doesn't ever clog, period.
First of all, a thermal nozzle is dozens of times smaller than than a nozzle with piezoelectric membrane, so there's way less space for air bubbles to gather, that are the main cause of clogging.
A thermal nozzle produces much more pressure than piezo membrane, so it's also easier to eject air bubbles, or at worst to clean clogged nozzle.
Due to the fact, that the nozzles are so small, there's 1200 nozzles per inch, so each nozzle has spare nozzle. If a nozzle becomes clogged while printing it is electronically detected and compensated in the next pass of the carriage by the spare nozzle. The clogged nozzle is then cleaned after the print is finished. At the end of each printing the print head is also covered with silicone by the wiper to prevent drying on capping station.
The printer is also automatically maintaining the print head while it's not printing - it routinely checks if the nozzles are in working condition, puts the fresh silicone on its surface. The ink carts are also agitated.
From my experience with iPFx300 and x400 series (with exactly the same maintenance system), and after 3500sqm printed on my private iPF8300 I can assure that - contrary to Epson - the amount of ink that is used for head maintenance is negligible - the thermal print head is much less prone to clogging, and way easier to unclog.
Furthermore, the fact that you don't need to control print quality, do nozzle checks, waste paper when head starts clogging in the middle of large print on expensive fine art paper, nor waste time and ink for cleanings is invaluable. I never made a nozzle check since I bought iPF6350, and then iPF8300. I also stopped staring at printer while printing and praying so it won't ruin my prints on rags and barytas - I just press print, do other things or go to sleep and collect perfect prints from the basket when they are finished.
-
Canon iPF PRO-1000 doesn't ever clog, period.
I think it would be more accurate to observe that the Canon printer may infrequently produce clogs that require user intervention because its built-in maintenance procedures mitigate the conditions that would produce them, "under the hood". However, Canon itself does not make the claim in the first line of your post. In particular, see pages 218, 231, 238, 414, 463, 562, 635, 660 and 661 of the Pro-1000 manual, all dealing with the potential for clogs and what either the printer or the users does about them.
All the Epson professional pigment-based inkjet printers I've used over the past 16 years except for the P2000 and the 3800/3880 did/do require head cleaning *before* a print session if left idle for more than a few days or operated in a less humid environment than Epson recommends; however, only twice in the context of many thousands of prints did I ever need to toss a print because of ink flow being interrupted during printing; hence, my experience indicates this is a rare occurrence. FWIW - not to say everyone's experience is the same.
-
My experience using the Epson P800 since the beginning of February is that unless you make at least one multi-colour print every five days or so it will need at least one cleaning cycle - this is in my working conditions and those vary from user to user; my humidity range is between 22~40% normally.
While I generally try to make at least one print a week on my P800 to reduce the risk of clogging, I've left it idle for as long as three weeks during the year I've owned it without experiencing any problem. However, my unit is installed in a basement where the humidity typically is in the 50-65 percent range. (I have a humidifier inserted in the ventilating airflow, so the humidity never falls below 50 percent, even during the coldest days of winter.)