Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: pikeys on August 24, 2017, 08:10:01 pm
-
My Epson R3000,is on its way out.,have had it 7 years
Anyone have any suggestions for a replacement-doesn't have to be a Epson
all I need is it be a 13" printer,and produces excellent photo prints.
I've been using Ilford silk,, Epson exhibition fiber,Epson Velvet fine Art,papers
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike
-
Canon Pixma Pro 10
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
Seconded.
(Re: PRO-10)
-
Thank You Guys,I will look closely at this model
Mike
-
If you don't need wifi connection, think about a pixma pro 1, it should give you higher quality and the cartridges should have much better price per mL. You will spend also more ink per cleaning cycle, but that probably is compensated by the cheaper price. Buying a whole set requires however more money because of the two extra cartridges and the much higher ink content.
However, if you like a lot these papers, consider an Epson printer (e.g 600 or 800), because you will have canned profiles for them, but not for canon's printers. Alternatively you can make your own profiles (€€$$££) or ask some one to do it (affordable for a couple of papers).
You may also consider a printer using dyes instead of pigments (e.g. Pixma pro 100). That's if you don't care much about
longevity of your prints. The epson exhibition paper is not that good either in this regard, so you may not care much about the inks (dye inks are not that bad nowadays!). This way you save some good money in the printer and the inks.
-
The Epson P600 is a fantastic pigment printer.
I've two pals, one with the Canon Pro 10, the other the Canon Pro 100. Both are happy with them.
Hard to make a wrong move.
-
The Epson P600 is a fantastic pigment printer.
I've two pals, one with the Canon Pro 10, the other the Canon Pro 100. Both are happy with them.
Hard to make a wrong move.
+1 on the SC P600
The most trouble free printer I've used in this size.
Beautiful output. I've never had to do a head cleaning on this printer since I bought it new when they first came out.
I also have an SC P5000, but often use the P600 when I have a small job, or need quick handling.
Rand
-
Check out the review on the P800 in the review section of this site.
I have the P800, barely cost more than the P600 and gives you the option of printing on 17" paper. And it barely takes more space than the 2400 that it replaced. The P800 is no-brainer decision as far as I am concerned. I also have a P6000 and if I had to choose only one, I would choose the P800.
Jean-Michel
-
Check out the review on the P800 in the review section of this site.
I have the P800, barely cost more than the P600 and gives you the option of printing on 17" paper. And it barely takes more space than the 2400 that it replaced. The P800 is no-brainer decision as far as I am concerned. I also have a P6000 and if I had to choose only one, I would choose the P800.
Jean-Michel
+1 on the P800, plus the ink is a whole lot cheaper than the P600 too.
-
No love for the Pro 1000?
-
Check out the review on the P800 in the review section of this site.
I have the P800, barely cost more than the P600 and gives you the option of printing on 17" paper. And it barely takes more space than the 2400 that it replaced. The P800 is no-brainer decision as far as I am concerned. I also have a P6000 and if I had to choose only one, I would choose the P800.
Jean-Michel
Got both, recommend the P800 for all the reasons you point out above.
-
I just bought a printer, but unlike you, this was my first. I bought an Epson P600.
The main criteria are: what will you print and how much will you print?
You say 13 inch width is enough, but 17 inch printers are not much bigger and give you more flexibility. I have found, in New Zealand at least, there are far fewer papers available in 13 inch rolls than 17 inch.
The amount you print affects printer head clogging and economies of scale. Apparently Canon printers are less liable to clog with infrequent use, but I will let others argue this point.
Many have stated that P800 ink, at 80ml per cart is cheaper than P600 ink at 26ml per cart. From memory, the excellent Red River study showed that ink costs for a P800 is about half of a P600. But in NZ, a P800 costs $2200 and a P600 costs $1300. $900 buys a lot of ink. In any case, ink is a small part of the total cost of printer capital, paper, ink, coating, mounting/framing, etc. I will have to print and mount or frame many thousands of dollars worth of prints before the P800 generates savings.
I haven't mentioned quality. My reading suggested limited difference, with a slight edge to Epson blacks.
I've been shooting mostly Canon gear since 1970. However, at the NZ Institute of Professional Photography conference the people at the Canon stand were ignorant about printers. Epson had an expert who engaged with me for 15 minutes (and still replies to emails). So I went for Epson.
I bought a P600, largely driven by the $900 saving (plus I got a free set of inks).
I'm very happy. Should I have bought a P800? Ask me in a year's time!
-
Honestly,I seemed to have fixed my R3000's clogging issue,but I am still undecided which printer get
A few questions?-does the P600 & 800 have a much better quality ink,as opposed to my R3000
For the past few months,I have not taken any shots with my Canon 5DII,nor, have a printed anything of interest,just a few images from my last trip to Thailand.
My wife & I have a condo in Bangkok,and we be returning in September /October for a few months.
So,maybe I will bang out maybe a few dozen prints,to friends & relatives,when we return.
I guess,you'd call me an advanced amateur,one that's very picky,about fine prints,and of course, clogs,make me go crazy-LOL.
Thanks for all the help/suggestions,you guys are fantastic,
so,I'm leaning to the P600/800
Thanks,
Mike
-
I have the SC P800 and I'm quite happy with it. I thought about the P600 for a bit but I do like the ability to print up to 17x22 sheets.
One thing that really caught my eye was that for the P800 there is a "maintenance tank/cartridge" that can be replaced when full of ink from cleanings. I don't know what you do with the P600 in the same situation. Anybody know? I hope its not buy a new P600.
-
One thing that really caught my eye was that for the P800 there is a "maintenance tank/cartridge" that can be replaced when full of ink from cleanings. I don't know what you do with the P600 in the same situation. Anybody know? I hope its not buy a new P600.
It doesn't have the same tank, but it will take a long time to reach the point where it's an issue, and then the printer is valuable enough (as opposed to $50- consumer models) that it's economical to have a technician change out the internal waste pads and reset the printer and keep you going. That said, I know a lot of users with the predecessor models that after years have not reach that point.
-
rdson-are you sure the P600 doesn't have the removable tank feature,,for changing
I thought I read that it did,?please correct me if I'm wrong,as I'm about to order this printer.
I know on my R3000,I took the printer in for servicing ,due to clogs, and it ran me $347.00,but they did some, other things ,as well.
-
Many have stated that P800 ink, at 80ml per cart is cheaper than P600 ink at 26ml per cart. From memory, the excellent Red River study showed that ink costs for a P800 is about half of a P600. But in NZ, a P800 costs $2200 and a P600 costs $1300. $900 buys a lot of ink.
It's true that $900 buys a lot of ink, but you're overlooking the fact that you are in fact buying more ink with that $900. Back in the day when people were comparing the 3880 with the R3000, once you deducted the price of a set of carts from each printer then there wasn't much price difference. The 3880 was a no-brainer, as you had lower per ml ink costs locked in, and got a 17" printer with a maintenance tank for not much more than the 13" (but lost the roll paper option and CD printing). Since the P800 only comes with 64ml starter carts rather than the 80ml regular carts, the implied price gap between it and the P600 is wider that the 3880-R3000 gap. But given that you're buying more ink with the printer, the effective price gap is still a lot less than $900, and you've locked in lower per ml ink costs than the P600. I still think it's a no-brainer.
-
rdson-are you sure the P600 doesn't have the removable tank feature,,for changing
I thought I read that it did,?please correct me if I'm wrong,as I'm about to order this printer.
I know on my R3000,I took the printer in for servicing ,due to clogs, and it ran me $347.00,but they did some, other things ,as well.
I checked the owners manual of the P600 and there is no mention of a maintenance tank nor is it shown on the ink cartridge status screen.
-
Hi Ferp
Economics will vary according to country, but in NZ at least, the P800 is not a "no-brainer". Using Red River inkjet costs, converted to current NZ cartridge costs (off the epson.co.nz website), an 8x10 inch print printed by a P800 uses $0.99 and a P600 costs $1.44. This means that the P800 breaks even after 2000 8x10 prints.
Mike, the OP, said "maybe I will bang out maybe a few dozen prints,to friends & relatives,when we return". At that rate, it will be some years before the P800 breaks even.
And as I noted, I got a free set of inks with the P600, further delaying the payback of the P800.
Of course there are other benefits of the P800 as you and others have noted. If I have buyer's remorse, it relates to the difficulty in getting good 13 inch roll paper.
-
pikeys, the most natural move for you is to go from R3000 to P600. Virtually the same printer but somehow upgraded. You will have almost the same driver which you already know. Inks are different: i) both blacks, especially MK are much darker (now you can achieve level of black with most of fine art matt papers comparable to what was possible with K3 VM inks on expensive Epson's Hot/Cold Press papers), ii) yellow ink longevity is very improved - it was the major issue with R3000/3880 etc printers, it faded several times fester then the rest of the colors.
if yopu want to change something, you can consider Canon Pro printers. Pro-1 has excellent print quality and not so small tanks, but its maintenance ink-wasting algorithm is a nightmare if you do not print frequently or need to switch off the printer quite often. Pro-100 is worh considering, it is dye based but quality is excellent and it contains one gray ink. Tanks are quite small.
If you need 17" go for P800 or Pro-1000. Both are great printers, both have disadvantages. I had dye Epson 1400, when it died I was considering R3000, then P600, but finally purchased 17" great 3880. And now extended to the second printer, P800. I love them and hate at the same time, but the same would happen to Canon printers as well ;-).
-
Economics will vary according to country, but in NZ at least, the P800 is not a "no-brainer". Using Red River inkjet costs, converted to current NZ cartridge costs (off the epson.co.nz website), an 8x10 inch print printed by a P800 uses $0.99 and a P600 costs $1.44. This means that the P800 breaks even after 2000 8x10 prints.
The Red River numbers are puzzling. The P600 & P800 are using the same heads, inks etc, and you'd expect that they'd use the same amount of ink to print the same page on the same paper. On the face of it, the ink for the P800 should be roughly half that of the P600 (will no doubt vary by country) on a $/ml basis. So why smaller differential in the RR numbers? I wonder if this reflects how much ink is left in the carts when they register as empty? I.e. the ink is cheaper, but you waste a higher proportion still in the cart when the cart registers as empty. If so I'd like to know when RR were changing their carts. You have to work a little to get the P800 carts to run really dry, as they can refuse to do a nozzle check and want you to change them before they actually hit 0% on the cartridge chip.
Your 2000 pages to break even on the $900 price difference is still not taking account of the fact that a significant part of that $900 bought more ink to start with in the P800, because there was 64ml of ink in each channel and not 26m (or whatever the P600 comes with). You need to value that extra ink and subtract it from the $900 and that's the amount you have to make up.
-
Ferb,,is the level on the 800 ink 64,or 80ml?,maybe I miss read this
When the printer is new & shipped,it only has 64ml,but,after all the lines are primed,wouldn't that leave us with about 1/2 level?
After ,you use up that batch of ink,& re-order,do they come in 80ml cartridges??,or do I have everything assed backwards?
Mike
-
Indeed, if you are a very infrequent user (>2-4 weeks between prints) and print little , the Canon pixma pro-1 (presumably also the pro-10) will consume most of the ink in automatic cleaning cycles. Switch it off for 1 second or don't print in 40 days and you can prepare tea and drink it next time you send a job before it takes the paper in (crossing fingers for not having to replace a tank).
I try to print at least some small prints every week, or two (busy father). Otherwise the cleaning takes forever and it makes you think how many € are being wasted. Although I must say that I'm happy with the pro-1 (but have no experience with other)
I don't know which is the case for Epson. I don't think clogging is an issue with P600/800. It wasn't either for the 3800.
Quality will be great in any case.
pikeys, the most natural move for you is to go from R3000 to P600. Virtually the same printer but somehow upgraded. You will have almost the same driver which you already know. Inks are different: i) both blacks, especially MK are much darker (now you can achieve level of black with most of fine art matt papers comparable to what was possible with K3 VM inks on expensive Epson's Hot/Cold Press papers), ii) yellow ink longevity is very improved - it was the major issue with R3000/3880 etc printers, it faded several times fester then the rest of the colors.
if yopu want to change something, you can consider Canon Pro printers. Pro-1 has excellent print quality and not so small tanks, but its maintenance ink-wasting algorithm is a nightmare if you do not print frequently or need to switch off the printer quite often. Pro-100 is worh considering, it is dye based but quality is excellent and it contains one gray ink. Tanks are quite small.
If you need 17" go for P800 or Pro-1000. Both are great printers, both have disadvantages. I had dye Epson 1400, when it died I was considering R3000, then P600, but finally purchased 17" great 3880. And now extended to the second printer, P800. I love them and hate at the same time, but the same would happen to Canon printers as well ;-).
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
Ferb,,is the level on the 800 ink 64,or 80ml?,maybe I miss read this
The 3880 used to ship with full 80ml carts, whereas the P800 only ships with 64ml 'starter' carts. So the amount of ink that you're implicitly buying with the printer is less. Replacement carts are 80ml, just like the 3880, although the Red River numbers seem to imply that you actually get to use a smaller percentage of that 80ml than the percentage you get to use of a P600 cart.
There have been debates here on Lula before about how to account for the ink used in charging the ink lines and dampers in the initial fill. It's a one-off cost that you can never really get back. I don't think it's relevant to a comparison of the cost of operating a P800 vs a P600, since I assume that the P600 is going to consume a similar amount of ink in the initial fill. Perhaps slightly less than the P800 if its ink lines are shorter, but then the per ml cost of the ink to charge those lines is less on the P800.
-
3880 uses around 1/3 of its tanks (1/3 x 8 x 80ml) for the initial fill, the same amount in ml is used by P800
in both P800 and 3880, ~20% of those 80ml is not used and left in "empty cartridge", I don't know how it looks like with P600
-
3880 uses around 1/3 of its tanks (1/3 x 8 x 80ml) for the initial fill, the same amount in ml is used by P800
in both P800 and 3880, ~20% of those 80ml is not used and left in "empty cartridge", I don't know how it looks like with P600
I think from my experience that 3880 uses closer to half, say 40% and I would expect the P800 to be the same as they are essentially the same. So the say 32ml per cartridge. If you start off with 80mL then you still have 48, but if you start off with 64ml then you only have 32 left. I would therefore expect you only to get 2/3 of the prints from a new P800 as a 3880.
I really doubt there is 20mL left if you completely empty them, as opposed to changing when it tells you to change. I just keep on printing until it stops. Empty they weigh about 60g and full they weigh about 140g.
Frankly if you don't print often I would not worry about owning one at all and just pay for printing as required.
-
How about P400? I may have to replace my HP B9180, like right now. I was surprised to learn that it is the only one that has dedicated black channels (of much importance to me, being spoilt by B9180.) I understand that the ink-set is from an older generation and it lacks the grey that is in the P600 and the P800. I always "tone" my black and whites to warmer hues, so would it be correct to assume that not having the gray may not be a big deal for me. The price is real good, specially with $100 rebate till end of August and the size suits better my work-space.
-
If I could have afforded it, I'd probably have gone for the P800. But it was a tradeoff.
I'm very happy with the P600 and the knowledge that if I need to print larger... I can using a service. The majority of my prints are A4 or 5x7. The occasional 13x19 when needed.
The refills on the P600, close enough to €200 for a full set were, eh, not-too-problematic in budgetary terms. I could see a P800 sitting there awaiting funds before I could use it again. Didn't want to be in that situation. I had a Canon die on me before doing that.
-
I really doubt there is 20mL left if you completely empty them, as opposed to changing when it tells you to change. I just keep on printing until it stops. Empty they weigh about 60g and full they weigh about 140g.
I mentioned 20%, not 20ml. I have different results: empty weights 72-74g, the full one ~144g. Assuming commonly used density of 1.08 g/cm3 it is close to 15 ml. Checked on both 3880 and P800
-
How about P400? I may have to replace my HP B9180, like right now. I was surprised to learn that it is the only one that has dedicated black channels (of much importance to me, being spoilt by B9180.) I understand that the ink-set is from an older generation and it lacks the gray that is in the P600 and the P800. I always "tone" my black and whites to warmer hues, so would it be correct to assume that not having the gray may not be a big deal for me. The price is real good, specially with $100 rebate till end of August and the size suits better my work-space.
The P400 is the latest in a series of Epson hi-gloss printers. As you say, it lacks light magenta, light cyan, the two light grays, and in their place substitutes red, orange, a gloss optimizer, and the second black. I've not used one of these, but my assumption has always been that they are intended for printing with a emphasis on saturation and extended gamut. Without the light inks you'd expect them to do less well on on prints of subtlety. It doesn't have a good reputation for B&W - I imagine that Keith Cooper's review would comment on this. It uses smaller cartridges and so you'd expect its per ml ink cost to be higher, although that's not what the Red River numbers say for the R1900 (earlier version of the same thing), which really puzzles me, especially given their reputation for using the gloss optimizer rather quickly.
In short, it's a niche printer. Be certain that you understand what you're getting if you decide to buy one.
-
The P400 is the latest in a series of Epson hi-gloss printers. As you say, it lacks light magenta, light cyan, the two light grays, and in their place substitutes red, orange, a gloss optimizer, and the second black. I've not used one of these, but my assumption has always been that they are intended for printing with a emphasis on saturation and extended gamut. Without the light inks you'd expect them to do less well on on prints of subtlety. It doesn't have a good reputation for B&W - I imagine that Keith Cooper's review would comment on this. It uses smaller cartridges and so you'd expect its per ml ink cost to be higher, although that's not what the Red River numbers say for the R1900 (earlier version of the same thing), which really puzzles me, especially given their reputation for using the gloss optimizer rather quickly.
In short, it's a niche printer. Be certain that you understand what you're getting if you decide to buy one.
Thanks for that summary. I have read Keith Copper's well-written and in-depth review. If I understand the review correctly, B&W while not as good as others that have the greys, is not so bad and it can be improved a lot if you do your own profiles (which I intend to do.) I really envisioned that my next printer was going to be a 17'. But then I didn't expect my current perfectly happy printer (HP 9180) will die on me this soon. Right now I am focusing on making colorized digital negatives that I am figuring P400 will be fine for. For my regular work, I interchange between glossy and matte frequently so I can't bear the thought of having to change the blacks (auto or not.) Canon does not have this problem, but there I hate the fact that the print size is limited in length (really, why?) and on top of that the fiber paper requires large margin, so the 17" isn't that much bigger than the 13". Sorry, that does not fly with me. I want to do panos at some point as well. So I am thinking to buy the P400 as an interim printer while Epson and (or) Canon decide to remedy some of their deficiencies or HP gets back in the game with a new 17". Hopefully when I am ready for a 17", the choice will be easier.
As for the Red River numbers on R2000 being surprising low - I wonder the fact that it has the saturated colors allows sparser dot density for a given RGB level, resulting in lower ink usage.
-
I mentioned 20%, not 20ml. I have different results: empty weights 72-74g, the full one ~144g. Assuming commonly used density of 1.08 g/cm3 it is close to 15 ml. Checked on both 3880 and P800
20% yes, sorry, misread.
However my 3880 empty weight is 60g, full 143. So yes, your cartridges at 72g are not empty.
As I said, I ignore the printer warnings and just keep printing until it stops. I have never wrecked a print doing this.
-
20% yes, sorry, misread.
However my 3880 empty weight is 60g, full 143. So yes, your cartridges at 72g are not empty.
As I said, I ignore the printer warnings and just keep printing until it stops. I have never wrecked a print doing this.
Those warnings are not telling you to change your ink. They're telling you it's getting low. It's designed to print until the printer stops (at which time there is ink left so it can't run dry). So, yeah, you're exactly right on how you run it, Bob.
-
Phil,
But if you wait & the printer stops, aren't you possibly damaging the printer,or,that ink line?
Up until now, I've alwayed changed the cartridge ,when I got the warning message, brother I must have thrown out a few gallons of ink, in the last 11 years.
-
Phil,
But if you wait & the printer stops, aren't you possibly damaging the printer,or,that ink line?
Up until now, I've alwayed changed the cartridge ,when I got the warning message, brother I must have thrown out a few gallons of ink, in the last 11 years.
Nope - it doesn't run dry. It's designed to say stop at a point where there's still a small amount left to protect against that. Some people are concerned they may get a dry line if they have to change during printing, but it rarely actually stops during a print (because it has that safety margin built in) and if you're close by with a ready cart you are unlikely to have any issues anyway.
The warning is just to let you know it's getting low and to make sure you have some more ink ready.
Never change the cart until the printer says it's actually empty/no longer usable.
-
That's right. Keep printing until the printer eventually stops in mid-job. You just change the cartridge then and the printer will then simply continue the job at the very spot it stopped, with zero issue on the print. When the 'low' warning shows up, just make sure that you have a spare cartridge, or order it. I found that on both the P800 and the larger P6000 (and on my deceased 7890) I can print many more prints before the cartridge empties.
Jean-Michel
-
Jean,Farmer...good info ,much appreciated
Tech question:,I have a R3000 its 6 years old.
I'm seriously thinking about upgrading to the P600,is it a real upgrade with the new designed inks, or just a sideway step improvement
As I've stated before,I don't do a lot of printing,maybe 5-10 per month,then printer sits ,,and I'll restart printing and bang out 20-30 prints,in one weekend.
Mike
-
Although it appears that nirpat89 has settled on the P400, I wanted to better understand these Red River numbers.
Taking just the RR PK numbers, the P800 prints an 8x10 page for 68 ¢ and the P600 does it for $1.02, so that's 50% more expensive per page on the P600. But this is dependent on the relative price you're paying for the two different types of cartridges. I went to check the Red River cartridge costs and they no longer sell Epson cartridges, and so we can't check what prices are behind their cost per page numbers any more. But since they do provide the number of cartridges used, we can construct our own.
And I found that it varies a lot from country to country, and perhaps from retailer to retailer, varying from a few samples. All were more favorable than the RR numbers, varying from the P600 being 55% more expensive (Epson NZ) to 66% more expensive per page for that standard page that RR used for testing. At current B&H prices the P600 would be 58% more expensive. So the payback period for purchasing the P800 is going to vary, but seems to be shorter most places than if based on those RR numbers.
There are a couple of other factors that are relevant. If we stick with those B&H numbers for the moment, a single P600 cartridge is around $32 which implies $1.24 per ml for the 25.9ml of ink. The P800 cart is $55 or 69 ¢ per ml for the 80ml. So the P600 ink is 80% more expensive per ml. So why is the P600 only 58% more expensive to print on?
One possible explanation is that the P800 does more head cleans than the P600, or uses more ink in doing them, which I doubt. There's a question of how RR ran their tests, and whether ran the P800 in ways that generated more cleans. Hard to know.
The other distinct possibility is that you use a smaller proportion of the ink in the P800 carts before they register as empty compared to the P600. I think that's the more likely explanation.
I agree with Bob that with the P800 you have to work harder to get the maximum out of the cartridge. By which I mean that if you change it when the printer first insists you do, because it refuses to do a nozzle check or black ink swap until you replace it, then you're not getting the max out of the cart. Usually if you replace the apparently empty cart with a full one, do the nozzle check and then put the empty one back in, you can keep printing for a while longer. Given the nature of the testing that RR presumably did, I bet they didn't wring as much out of their P800 carts as they might have. Nor would they have tried to harvest or sell the considerable quantity ink that remains in a P800 when it's as empty as you can make it. This would widen the gap between the cost of printing with the two printers and shorten the payback period, as I don't believe that the P600 carts have as much residual ink when empty.
The other factor that is relevant is how much is the real price differential between the two printers that you'd looking to offset? Again using B&H prices as a reference point, the P600 costs $796 and a set of carts costs $273.50, so the implied cost for the bare printer is $372.50. The cost of a P800 is $1,195 and the inks are $494.55, but you only get 64ml starter carts, which I value at $395.64, making the cost of the bare printer $799.36. So the price difference for the bare printer, which is what you have to offset, is $276.86, not the $399 difference in the sticker price.
Moreover, for those in the US, there is a $300 mail-in rebate on the P800 and only $150 on the P600, so after rebate the implied difference in bare printer price is only $126.86. That's a lot less than 2,000 standard 8x10 pages required to offset the additional cost of the printer, like only 326 for those eligible for the rebate. Personally I regard that as a no-brainer, but YMMV. I think payback period would be lower still if you did as Bob and I suggest and really use each cart until you asolutely have to replace it, and harvested or sold the unused ink. (I'm still ignoring the ink used in the initial fill, as I assume that it's a similar quantity of ink in both printers, although it's cheaper ink per ml on the P800.)
There was an interesting article on the P600 vs P800 issue on TOP. In his featured comment MHMG makes the same point as Frodo - that you need to print enough to make up the difference. I wonder if he falls into the trap of not discounting for the value of the additional ink that you're buying with the printer. He doesn't mention it specifically, although his statement that "The lower ink costs of the P800 versus the P600 only begin to bear economic fruit after you've printed several hundred 8x10 equivalent size prints or more" is in line with the above figures. Of course if you're printing 13"x19" or 17"x25" then the number of such pages falls even further.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/09/p800-vs-p600-the-epson-value-equation.html
-
Nope - it doesn't run dry. It's designed to say stop at a point where there's still a small amount left to protect against that. Some people are concerned they may get a dry line if they have to change during printing, but it rarely actually stops during a print (because it has that safety margin built in) and if you're close by with a ready cart you are unlikely to have any issues anyway.
Absolutely! The built-in safety margin is huge on the P800, which as per the numbers in my last post, seems to reduce the $ benefit from printing with it somewhat. In the case of the P600 and R3000, I don't believe that the margin is as large, but my understanding is that it's more than adequate to prevent air getting in the lines if you run the cart to what the chip reports as completely empty. The only time you're at risk of air in the lines with OEM carts is if you have a failure of the MK/PK switch which leads to one of the K carts draining, but nothing is going to save you if that happens. You'll have air in the line before you know it.
-
Absolutely! The built-in safety margin is huge on the P800, which as per the numbers in my last post, seems to reduce the $ benefit from printing with it somewhat.
The amount left doesn't determine the amount you used :-)
-
The amount left doesn't determine the amount you used :-)
I realize that ;) There are two separate issues. My long post was about the amount used, which seems to be a fair bit less than 80m, if the comparison with the P600 is any guide. Assuming that the cart started with 80ml, that implies that there's a fair bit left. So the issues are related.
There are two methodologies for analyzing amount used and amount left. One is what Bob did and weigh empty and full carts. The other is to compare usage data across printers - the Red River approach. What we really need is a volunteer to open (sacrifice) a full cart and measure the ink and do the same for an empty one. That will resolve the matter once and for all. This is far from a new issue on Lula.
-
Canon does not have this problem [black ink switching], but there I hate the fact ... that the fiber paper requires large margin, so the 17" isn't that much bigger than the 13".
This seems to me to contain two misconceptions.
(1) Joe "Jtoolman" recently told me that the Canon large margin issue is not an issue on the Pro-1000 (i.e., the current 17" model) like it is on the 13" models (i.e., the pigment-ink Pro-10 or the dye-ink Pro-100). The Pro-1000 has a vacuum device to hold the paper down, so head strikes are not the concern that they are with the 13" models, so no extra-large margins are imposed on the Pro-1000.
(2) The large margins are on the top and bottom of the paper in portrait orientation, not the sides. For most paper sizes, when a Canon is not in borderless mode, I think the side margins are 3.4mm (i.e., a hair over 1/8 in) each. (For some odd reason about which I can only speculate, AFAIK only on letter- and legal-size paper, non-borderless mode imposes margins on each side of 6.35mm (i.e., 1/4 inch).
Net takeaway: AFAIK using 'art' papers a Pro-10 or Pro-100 can print 12.7 x 16.6 in on a 13 x 19 in sheet, but a Pro-1000 can print somewhere around 16.7 x 24.6 in on a 17 x 25 in sheet. Either printer can use custom paper sizes up to about 26.6 in long, so if you are willing to cut down rolls or 13 x 38 in sheets, on art paper a Pro-10 or Pro-100 could print up to about 12.7 x 24.2 in. So it's only with a 2:1 or more extreme panorama that the 13" models get you essentially the same print size as the Pro-1000.
-
Net takeaway: AFAIK using 'art' papers a Pro-10 or Pro-100 can print 12.7 x 16.6 in on a 13 x 19 in sheet, but a Pro-1000 can print somewhere around 16.7 x 24.6 in on a 17 x 25 in sheet. Either printer can use custom paper sizes up to about 26.6 in long, so if you are willing to cut down rolls or 13 x 38 in sheets, on art paper a Pro-10 or Pro-100 could print up to about 12.7 x 24.2 in. So it's only with a 2:1 or more extreme panorama that the 13" models get you essentially the same print size as the Pro-1000.
You are right. I stand corrected. I must have been thinking about the older models or the fact that Canon still advises to keep 25mm in the leading and trailing edges, just not mandating as in the older printers. Apparently if you select the canned media types it will default to margin requirements which you can override.
http://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/Manual/All/PRO-1000%20series/EN/BG/bg-078.html
-
Canon still advises to keep 25mm in the leading and trailing edges, just not mandating as in the older printers. Apparently if you select the canned media types it will default to margin requirements which you can override.
That's my understanding too. Keith's review (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-1000-printer-review/ (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-1000-printer-review/)) talks about this:
One of my biggest gripes with the previous PRO range printers was the enforcement of huge margins on some paper types.
My first print without large margins drew this error. Fortunately there is a box you can tick in the print driver settings. You’ll still get this warning, but ignore it. Here’s a borderless A2 print on a heavy matte paper fed via the manual feed slot – no problems at all.
* * *
The biggest and most welcome step forward is the removal of margin limitations and the availability of borderless printing for any paper. This was a constant source of annoyance for some users of smaller Canon printers, enough to push a sale elsewhere.
The vacuum paper feed system contributes to the improvement, and I never had a single issue with paper curl or smudging with any of the media I tried.
And from Canon's website (https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART163218 (https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART163218)):
Photo Paper Pro Premium Matte PM-101 and Matte Photo Paper MP-101 are printed to paper sizes with 0.98 inch (25 mm) margins depending on print settings. To print to other page sizes, remove restrictions on margins.
From personal experience I can tell you that the Pro-100 insists on 30mm (1.18 in) top and bottom margins with when set for Photo Paper Pro Premium Matte PM-101--but maybe oddly, or maybe because it's thinner, not with Matte Photo Paper MP-101.
So I think the Pro-1000, instead of having forced-minimum 30mm top and bottom margins with 'art' papers, now merely warns you that margins less than 25mm (0.98 in) may cause issues, but it lets you override the warning and print, even borderless; and doing so can be accomplished without actual problems. That does not mean that there will never be a problem, but you can probably say the same about any printer.
-
Although it appears that nirpat89 has settled on the P400, I wanted to better understand these Red River numbers.
Yes, ordered the P400. I was swayed further by reading opinions of Mark (of aardenberg-imaging fame) on many of the threads here. Looked like an underappreciated printer. Hopefully I will not be disappointed too badly. 17' will wait for another day or year.
Regarding the methodology of Red River, they are gathering their data by continuously printing 200 8x10 sheets of Bill Atkinson’s test image, changing an empty cartridge only when the printer stopped. Obviously it does not take into account any of the maintenance cycles or switching losses that one would incur in real-life usage. At the end of printing, tally up the total cartridges used and come up with what they call Cartridge Equivalent Unit, CEU, number. This is a better number for comparison as it does away with the local price of the cartridge. For example for P800 PK, it is 0.00015125 per sq inch. The same for P600 PK is 0.0004119. If you take a ratio of the two, it comes out to be about 2.7, which is less than the theoretical number based on the volumes (80/25.9=3.1.)
The same for R2000 PK is 0.00042 - nearly identical to the P600K number, even with half the size of the cartridge capacity. That is the surprising aspect as you have pointed out. I mentioned earlier that the fact that there are more saturated colors in the HG2 inkset could be one source for need for less volume of ink for a given coverage. I wonder the other reason could be the way the 3 printers are designed. What caught my eye was that in R2000/P400, the little cartridges of the ink sit right on top of the heads and travel together with them as they print. The ink is gravity fed, it would seem, perhaps allowing much more efficient emptying of the cartridges than the other two where the cartridges are sitting sideways (as far as I can tell from the pictures.)
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing.html
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/epson-surecolor-p600-cost-per-print.html
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/epson-surecolor-p800-cost-per-print.html
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing.html
:Niranjan.
-
At the end of printing, tally up the total cartridges used and come up with what they call Cartridge Equivalent Unit, CEU, number. This is a better number for comparison as it does away with the local price of the cartridge.
Yes, I understand the RR methodology. I read it carefully in order to understand the numbers. Your summary is more concise than mine. I agree that in terms of ink usage, the CEU numbers are more enlightening. They demonstrate more clearly that you get a higher percentage of the ink out of the P600 carts.
However ultimately it's the cost of printing which is the important question. My concern with the RR cost per page numbers was that they understated the difference between the two printers, because they seemed to overstate the difference in cartridge costs compared to what you pay now. (Plus there are some questions about precisely when they replaced cartridges as they rattled out their 200 pages.)
What caught my eye was that in R2000/P400, the little cartridges of the ink sit right on top of the head and travel together with them as they print. The ink is gravity fed, it would seem, perhaps allowing much more efficient emptying of the cartridges than the other two where the cartridges are sitting sideways (as far as I can tell from the pictures.)
I'm not a printer technician, but my understanding is that the printers that don't have the cartridges on the print head, such as the P800, have a pressurized ink system to deliver the ink to the head. The P400 seems to rely on a combination of gravity and the print head pulling the ink from the cart. If I'm right that both the P600 and P800 are pressurized, then the ink delivery system doesn't explain why you get to use a much lower percentage of the P800 cart. Either it's a design limitation of the larger cartridge, or Epson is trying to finesse the relative economics of their range of printers.
-
No love for the Pro 1000?
I upgraded my dead 3000 to the Canon Pro 1000 6 months Ago and never looked back.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I know the 1000 has 3 more inks,but,how does it compare to the R3000?Is there a big difference in print quality
The Canon looks like a beautiful printer-use it in good health
Mike