Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: steverap on October 30, 2018, 12:00:07 pm
-
I have an Epson P800 printer and some of the colors in many of my prints do not match what I see on my screen (27" late 2015 iMac). I calibrate my screen regularly with an X-Rite i1Studio, always use Photoshop to manage colors, etc.
I was at Photo Plus Expo last week and a rep at the X-Rite booth said the Canon Pro-1000 is much better than the Epson P800 at reproducing color. Thoughts about the pros and cons of the two printers?
Thanks, Steve
-
I cannot compare, but my prints from my P800 are what they should be. I have the same setup as you do: iMac Retina and P800, and P6000.
Do you soft-proof before printing? If you don't, then the colours will be off.
-
Many color management issues can cause a bad print to screen match.
What paper? What icc profile. Have you ever gotten good results with the paper and profile you are using? What exactly are your color issues? Is your nozzle check perfect?
The P800 gives superb results. Not sure what X-Rite is talking about.
-
I've reviewed both printers on this website, with a detailed focus on print quality and print accuracy from each, and for quite some time thereafter I've had both printers in my studio working side by side. They both produce excellent quality colour in terms of accuracy and visual perception when they are sent appropriately edited files. The most one can say is that the P-1000 has a slightly wider gamut which shows up mainly in a narrow band of yellow/green hues for the files containing such hues. I can assure you that whoever told you one produces "much better" colour than the other doesn't know what they are talking about. It's a silly generalization with little merit.
-
I have an Epson P800 printer and some of the colors in many of my prints do not match what I see on my screen (27" late 2015 iMac). I calibrate my screen regularly with an X-Rite i1Studio, always use Photoshop to manage colors, etc.
I was at Photo Plus Expo last week and a rep at the X-Rite booth said the Canon Pro-1000 is much better than the Epson P800 at reproducing color. Thoughts about the pros and cons of the two printers?
Thanks, Steve
The fellow at Photo Plus was full of it (or did he provide a deltaE metric of this accuracy?).
It's all about proper display calibration and good profiles for the printers. Profiles have two tables; one affects the soft proof, one the output and the two should be 'in sync'.
You don't need a new printer. You may need better profiles and tools for display to print matching (something this fellow at Photo Plus should have mentioned but sounds like he's not too up to speed on this topic):
Why are my prints too dark?
A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013
In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:
Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4 (http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4)
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4 (https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4)
-
The fellow at Photo Plus was full of it (or did he provide a deltaE metric of this accuracy?).
The X-Rite rep wasn't even talking about accuracy, which can have an objective definition. He was talking about "much better color" whatever that means. Yes, "full of it".
-
The X-Rite rep wasn't even talking about accuracy, which can have an objective definition. He was talking about "much better color" whatever that means. Yes, "full of it".
According to the OP, his 'exact words" were: much better than the Epson P800 at reproducing color.
Either way, it's nonsense.
-
I have an Epson P800 printer and some of the colors in many of my prints do not match what I see on my screen (27" late 2015 iMac). I calibrate my screen regularly with an X-Rite i1Studio, always use Photoshop to manage colors, etc.
I was at Photo Plus Expo last week and a rep at the X-Rite booth said the Canon Pro-1000 is much better than the Epson P800 at reproducing color. Thoughts about the pros and cons of the two printers?
Thanks, Steve
Can you describe the differences you experience between print and display?
-
I was at Photo Plus Expo last week and a rep at the X-Rite booth said the Canon Pro-1000 is much better than the Epson P800 at reproducing color. Thoughts about the pros and cons of the two printers?
Got a name for that rep? I would be happy to disabuse that person of the notion....
If the colors of your print don't match the display, it's likely user error or poorly applied profiles.
Either printer can produce excellent results...even if you use X-Rite hardware/software.
8)
(seriously, did you get a name?)
-
One thing canon printers can suck ink like a vampire sucks blood 'Epsons do it too but not as bad as a
canon
-
dseelig - if you're referring to the desktop Canon's, than they use about the same amount of ink as the Epson P800, but the Canon's agitation process can use a bit more unfortunately. Just curious; how do you get that Epson doesn't use as much ink as Canon? It's actually the opposite from our experience and from many of our customers experience. Canon uses less ink (especially on larger models) than Epson.
The quality difference between the P800 and Pro-1000 can be slightly different if you have a keen to color detail vs what the screen shows (properly calibrated). Otherwise, having them separate with all the proper settings and profile will almost be hard to tell apart. Since we also create custom profiles, we tested between both models with a few papers and it was a bit hard to see the differences (not that there wasn't any). So, as others state, a manufacturer/custom profile with best setting "should" provide the closest look of what the screen shows; and that's for either model.
-
dseelig - if you're referring to the desktop Canon's, than they use about the same amount of ink as the Epson P800, but the Canon's agitation process can use a bit more unfortunately. Just curious; how do you get that Epson doesn't use as much ink as Canon? It's actually the opposite from our experience and from many of our customers experience. Canon uses less ink (especially on larger models) than Epson.
The quality difference between the P800 and Pro-1000 can be slightly different if you have a keen to color detail vs what the screen shows (properly calibrated). Otherwise, having them separate with all the proper settings and profile will almost be hard to tell apart. Since we also create custom profiles, we tested between both models with a few papers and it was a bit hard to see the differences (not that there wasn't any). So, as others state, a manufacturer/custom profile with best setting "should" provide the closest look of what the screen shows; and that's for either model.
When you say Canon uses less ink than Epson between these two models, are you including in both cases for all the ink used in maintenance, or only ink laid on paper? Do you have comparable data for both including ink used for maintenance, and in the case of Canon especially including the CO?
-
Since the title of this topic is the P800 vs. the Pro-1000, I would like to take a little liberty here and move from print quality to maintenance, since it seems the Op's question about print quality has been well addressed. Has anyone used both of these enough to give an opinion about which is easier to maintain, including whether it is possible for users to replace parts themselves and how easy that might be?
-
Since the title of this topic is the P800 vs. the Pro-1000, I would like to take a little liberty here and move from print quality to maintenance, since it seems the Op's question about print quality has been well addressed. Has anyone used both of these enough to give an opinion about which is easier to maintain, including whether it is possible for users to replace parts themselves and how easy that might be?
The Pro-1000 provides for user-replaceable print heads, whereas the SC-P800 does not. Apart from that, ink cartridges and maintenance tanks neither of these printers are built for users to replace parts, unless they are trained and have the necessary tools.
-
The Canon design treats the head as a consumable item and is a very significant % of the cost of the printer to replace (in 3-4 years). On the other side, if the Epson head dies or clogs hopelessly, you may as well just deep-6 the entire printer (from an economic point of view). Lack of roll paper support (and I include a hardcoded limit in the Canon for paper length).
Also, I've seen no shortage of replacement parts available via CompassMicro or others for Epson parts (including finding pretty much all the service manuals) online. I haven't seen any of that for the Canons.
-
dseelig - if you're referring to the desktop Canon's, than they use about the same amount of ink as the Epson P800, but the Canon's agitation process can use a bit more unfortunately. Just curious; how do you get that Epson doesn't use as much ink as Canon? It's actually the opposite from our experience and from many of our customers experience. Canon uses less ink (especially on larger models) than Epson.
(Snip)
My 17" iPF5100 bears that out, with over 4000ml of ink consumed over the past several years, and the MT showing 40% capacity left. Now it's possible that I have replaced it once in the past, I suppose, but don't recall it.That said, I wonder about Canon's decision to omit the roll feed on the Pro-1000 - a severe handicap for a larger format printer. The 5100's cassette and top man. feed tray are 100% reliable - even with 17x22" paper, and I see nothing in the print IQ with Ilford GFS that would make me wish for more. And I've never had cause to run a nozzle check since installation...
-
I reported this indicator of relative ink use elsewhere, but it may be instructive here. My 3880 (which I've read is comparable to the P800 in ink use) is on its 3rd maintenance cartridge after 48 ink cartridges used, whereas my Pro-1000 is on its 5th maintenance cartridge after 30 ink cartridges used. This to me (somewhat unscientifically) indicates that the Canon uses substantially more ink for maintenance than the Epson.
-
I reported this indicator of relative ink use elsewhere, but it may be instructive here. My 3880 (which I've read is comparable to the P800 in ink use) is on its 3rd maintenance cartridge after 48 ink cartridges used, whereas my Pro-1000 is on its 5th maintenance cartridge after 30 ink cartridges used. This to me (somewhat unscientifically) indicates that the Canon uses substantially more ink for maintenance than the Epson.
I don't know what to make of this. Your data implies that for the P800, one gets 16 cartridges of ink per maintenance tank, whereas for the Pro-1000 it is 6 cartridges per tank. But this is only useful information to the extent both maintenance tanks hold roughly the same amount of ink. As we don't know that, "somewhat unscientifically" is a good descriptor of this comparison. The real problem is the lack of transparency from these manufacturers on ink use for maintenance. I am well aware of their explanations for not publishing such information, and I find all of them thoroughly unconvincing because in this day and age there must be ways of working around the issues they raise.
-
Agreed. Guilty as charged, but we revert to the "unscientific" when we can't get real data. Yesterday, Canon tech support again couldn't / wouldn't tell me the capacity of a maintenance cartridge.
-
Agreed. Guilty as charged, but we revert to the "unscientific" when we can't get real data. Yesterday, Canon tech support again couldn't / wouldn't tell me the capacity of a maintenance cartridge.
Sadly, yes. One could make it a bit more scientific by weighing the maintenance tanks for each printer before first use and after replacement, then assume a specific gravity for converting from weight to volume, but what a pain. And of course tech support won't tell you the capacity of the maintenance tank. They either don't know, or are prevented from saying.
-
I reported this indicator of relative ink use elsewhere, but it may be instructive here. My 3880 (which I've read is comparable to the P800 in ink use) is on its 3rd maintenance cartridge after 48 ink cartridges used, whereas my Pro-1000 is on its 5th maintenance cartridge after 30 ink cartridges used. This to me (somewhat unscientifically) indicates that the Canon uses substantially more ink for maintenance than the Epson.
To use my teenage grandkids very appropriate language here, "That Sucks!!! How large are your ink tanks?
Pete
-
3880, P800, and Pro-1000 all have 80ml ink tanks, I believe. As Mark points out, it's the maintenance cartridges we don't know the capacity of.
-
3880, P800, and Pro-1000 all have 80ml ink tanks, I believe. As Mark points out, it's the maintenance cartridges we don't know the capacity of.
Canon PRO-1000 maintenance tank (MC-20) when full contains approximately 220 ml of ink.
-
Wow. How do you know that?
-
Wow. How do you know that?
I weighted six of them empty and full and I averaged them. Empty is 285g full is 520g. The difference between an empty and full ink cartridge is 88g. So 80ml is 88g. I calculated from there.
-
To that I'll add that on my 3880, when the maint. cart had 9% 'capacity' remaining, it contained 155gm of ink.
That equates to around 2 full ink carts 'down the drain'.
-
So, based on Panagiotis' calculation of 220ml in a Pro-1000 maintenance tank, 34% of the ink I used in 14 months (including the initial charge) ended up in the maintenance tanks or currently remains in the ink tubes. I filled 4.5 220ml maintenance tanks and emptied 36.8 80ml ink cartridges.
-
The tubes hold a fair amount of ink, so that percentage isn't too insightful without knowing how much to adjust for ink in the tubes. But yes, without trying to put too fine a point on it, these printers (I'm speaking from experience of desktop models) all use quite a bit of ink for maintenance.
-
Agreed. Guilty as charged, but we revert to the "unscientific" when we can't get real data. Yesterday, Canon tech support again couldn't / wouldn't tell me the capacity of a maintenance cartridge.
Weigh them.