Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: jemsurvey on February 05, 2017, 10:29:22 am
-
Hello All,
I'm driving myself batty trying to decide between the Epson P800 and Canon Pro 1000 printer. I have read all the reviews, combed the forums and I go back and forth numerous times daily, adding and removing each printer from my shopping carts. I'm coming from an Epson R3000 which head clogged so badly (after sitting for an extended period) I could not salvage it, though prior I was happy with the output. I have had Canon photo dye printers in the past and generally liked them well enough and switched to Epson for the inks. I am sure I'm not the only one here who has agonized over this.....
I expect to print 80% of my photographs in black and white so that is my prime consideration at this point: which one will perform this function better, quality wise and ease of operation. Space considerations and any cost differentials are less important. I should also note that I use luster to glossy Baryta papers if this makes a difference.
If anyone can offer anything that may help my decision it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for the help,
John Marrocco
-
You can produce excellent B&W output from either of those printers; in fact excellent anything; print quality is very matured from both companies. Neither of these printers exhibit the kind of clogging behaviour that need user intervention to clean-up, so clogging is no longer the differentiating issue it could have been. The first thing to decide is whether you ever intend to make panoramas that need roll paper. If you do, but an Epson P800 with the optional roll holder. You cannot do this with a Canon Pro-1000. Ink switching: if you intend to go back and forth between matte and luster/gloss papers, the Canon has a definite advantage insofar as there is no channel sharing no time and material wasted switching between MK and PK ink - both are "on-tap" to use the beer analogy. Another factor is ease of paper feeding. While both are OK, my experience using both printers is that Canon is better on this factor - the feeds are dead-easy to use and I haven't had a skew notice yet. For colour gamut, Canon tends to be a bit wider on the whole, but between this and the P800 such differences would be hard to notice except for a mild extent to a very limited band of the colour spectrum, so again, not a big distinguishing issue. If knowing your ink consumption is important to you, the Canon provides information on ink used for printing (but not for maintenance), whereas Epson gives you nothing. Print longevity: if this is important to you, more is known about the new Epson inkset by now, as Canon has not published any testing results it may have commissioned to date; hard to know what to make of this. Third-party media: Canon is more technically generous in providing for this than Epson, but you can successfully use third party media in both printers. Price: each manufacturer runs specials at different times, so it's hard to say that the one is any costlier than the other - it depends on time and place. Supplies and service: you need to check into this; the convenience of obtaining ink, maintenance tanks, and service should it be needed is important, but these days, with ordering on-line, local availability becomes less of an issue. I'm sure there's more - these are just the factors that immediately pop into my mind when I think of a printer purchase. I can't tell you what to buy - it all depends on what's more important to you and whether what's important to you differentiates a choice between the one or the other. I can only point toward a way of sorting out a decision and I hope that helps.
-
Having had both printers here to test and review, I can only repeat what Mark has said.
I get regular questions along these lines from my reviews and I'm afraid I can never offer a clear choice - unless you want to make longer prints (roll or cut sheets) which rules out the Canon.
The only thing I'd add is the colour optimiser coat on the Canon which can add an edge on some papers, but is a subtle difference, not as some wonder, the same as slapping varnish on to your prints ;-)
-
Had similar dilema 6 months ago changing 3880 to a new machine.
Also duel between P800 and Pro-1000, also more B&W than color (B&W in artistic part, color for friends, some artistic and casual).
Have seen test printouts of the same photos by both printers on papers well known for me. Some facts (objective) and conslusions (subjective) and practical info:
1. I like matt B&W printouts from P800 (Epson is excellent, Canon is very good). As for gloss, both are comparable for me.
2. I love how P800 works with Epson Hot Press papers in both colour and B&W - amazing, especialy if v.2 profiles form Epson US used.
3. I like colour prints from Canon, Chroma Optimizer gives them special look. On the other hand, I do not like that angles of proper viewing becomes narower due to CO use. Out of those angles, the sufrace starts to opalize in unnatural manner.
4. Colour gamut for reds and blues is visibly wider for Pro-1000. Especially reds are important for me, frequent case od various saturated, darke reds, especially for dresses of photographed models in studio.
5. I like, that Pro-1000 carts have 80 ml of ink which is used for printing. In case of Epson carts there is around of 65 ml of usable ink out of declared 80 ml. You should have the same in 3800 case.
6. As Mark has written, I am dissapointed that P800 has no information of ink use, step back compared to 3880 where you could get this info form printer menu or after nozzle check test. P800 is not supported by LFP Remote Panel application. Pro-1000 shines here.
7. P800s have quite often some problems with pizza wheel marks (the same construction as 38xx) and rubber paper advance wheel leaving some marks while takin SOME papers.
8. Canon B&W inks are much more neutral than Epson ones which are warm therefore need to be neutralized on paper with a tiny amount of colour inks. Probably the same stands for Canon, but colour particles are mixed in the ink itself. For me, it doesn't matter since most of my B&W prints are warmer than cooler.
9. For Epson you have famous Quad Tone Rip software for excellent B&W prints, where you can control very datailled aspects of printing (but quite challenging). For Canon there is TrueBW, more familiar use, but not sure if Pro-1000 is supported.
10. For P800 you can convert your printer (now or in the future) for B&W inks (MIS or Piezography) for ultimate printing with QTR. No such an option for Canon.
I have chosen P800, mostly beacuse I know Epson system (my 4th Epson printer), know its dissadvantages, can live with them and mostly because I will be able to convert the printer in the future for any other B&W setup.
Hope it helps.
-
I only have experience with the P800 (which replaced a great 8 yr old 3800) and I'm not very happy. First one I received had a terrible time loading fine art paper from the front feed tray or from the rear, it occasionally ripped paper when feeding and sometimes went through the motions of printing but applied no ink! Replaced easily by Epson under warranty.
Second one only has the same paper sheet feed problem. Whether feeding fine art paper from the front "fine art" feed tray, or from the back as a work-around method Mark has suggested, it hits some obstruction and takes a great amount of fiddling, shoving, lifting etc to get the paper correctly inserted into the printer so you can then press the "Load" button. Example - yesterday I printed a 17"x22" on Eps Legacy Platine. It took me 2 sheets because the first sheet got a slight buckle in it from all the shoving, jiggling, etc, and had to be discarded. All in all, it took about 20 minutes to load the paper. The print results are excellent. I couldn't want better final output. But the design for loading fine art paper, as noted by others also having this same problem, is, in my opinion, a major failing. When I want to use fine art paper, this failing has taken the fun out of printing for me.
I wish I'd have switched from Epson and ordered the more expensive Canon.
Brad
-
7. P800s have quite often some problems with pizza wheel marks (the same construction as 38xx) and rubber paper advance wheel leaving some marks while takin SOME papers.
8. Canon B&W inks are much more neutral than Epson ones which are warm therefore need to be neutralized on paper with a tiny amount of colour inks. Probably the same stands for Canon, but colour particles are mixed in the ink itself. For me, it doesn't matter since most of my B&W prints are warmer than cooler.
Hope it helps.
On your #7, I've seen no evidence of this in four P-800s I've used.
On your #8, this is objectively (i.e. by-the-numbers) not necessarily correct. Much depends on the paper and the profiling. The best assurance of B&W neutrality (and I share your perspective that it's not very important to me) is to use the B&W printing mode that both printers offer. The downside is losing some control over tonality.
-
Ref my first reply, I should also have added (because I'm working with it as I do this!): the Epson P800 can handle poster-board and other such thick media because it has a flat feed-through option using the Front Fine Art feed. This is not possible with the Canon printer. The FFA on the P800 can be somewhat of a nuisance to use, but once the media loads properly it works fine.
-
Thanks everyone for your time and thoughtful inputs. Certainly a lot to consider here.
A question on paper feed with the Pro 1000: Feeding needs to be done at the back of this printer as opposed to the front for the P800. How close to a wall would it be possible to sit the Canon and still be able to comfortably feed paper?
Again thanks....its looking like a coin toss so far...
-
No - with the Pro-1000 there is a top sheet feeder and a back manual feeder. Which you use depends on the thickness of the media. For media that isn't very think the top sheet tray is fine. For the heavier media, the back feeder needs an opening of about 2 and 3/4 inches from the back of the printer if you don't pull up the paper support backing, but 9 inches if you want to extend the backing support to its fullest extension.
-
Thanks everyone for your time and thoughtful inputs. Certainly a lot to consider here.
A question on paper feed with the Pro 1000: Feeding needs to be done at the back of this printer as opposed to the front for the P800. How close to a wall would it be possible to sit the Canon and still be able to comfortably feed paper?
Again thanks....its looking like a coin toss so far...
From my own pro-1000 review...
An A2 heavy baryta paper
(http://cdn.northlight-images.co.uk/content_images_2/pro-1000/space-for-A2.jpg)
and the extra space required with the rear feed
(http://cdn.northlight-images.co.uk/content_images_2/pro-1000/rear-paper-feed.jpg)
-
Thanks, the manual feed takes up less space than I would have thought. I'm leaning very slightly toward the Canon at this moment. My only hesitation right now concerns the CO. Its hard to see in on-line photos how prints with the CO will look under differing light conditions compared to prints without made with the Epson.
-
Thanks, the manual feed takes up less space than I would have thought. I'm leaning very slightly toward the Canon at this moment. My only hesitation right now concerns the CO. Its hard to see in on-line photos how prints with the CO will look under differing light conditions compared to prints without made with the Epson.
I've done "blind-tastings" for this with standard printer test photos as well as other photographs and very experienced viewers of prints have a hard time distinguishing which printer made which print when they are both properly colour managed. You can't single out CO in this regard. It is a component of the Canon inkset, and for both printers it is each one's total inkset that produces the final impression. That is partly why I mentioned right up front of this thread that print quality would not be a major distinguishing factor between the two. Neither manufacturer may love me for saying this because of course each strives to make what they think is the best print quality, which is great for us consumers, and I'm happy to say they both succeeded! Gamut varies more between papers than between printers of course and importantly, gamut shape also varies. You can review the evidence I've provided on gamut for different papers between these printers by carefully reviewing the data sets I provided in my P-800, Pro-1000 and several papers reviews, of which another one will be published in the coming weeks covering papers I haven't reviewed previously.
The one aspect of CO that may worry some people but not others is that CO does not spray on the margins of a print (i.e. the unprinted portion); therefore at sub-optimal angles for viewing prints, where there is white or very near white within the image that is CO-covered and adjacent to the margin, one would see gloss differential between that margin and the covered image when using CO in the "Overall" setting mode which covers the whole image but NOT the margins. As the Epson has no CO, this is not apparent for the Epson printer when viewing the prints at sub-optimal angles if you are viewing white within the image adjacent to white in the margin (there is no coating in either area); however for the Epson printer too, where there is ink coverage, it produces a different gloss effect than that from the margins (uncovered paper). This is inevitable because the reflectance of ink differs from the reflectance of the media. None of this matters in the case of either printer when one views the photographs at optimal lighting angles which bring out the photo to the exclusion of paper sheen. This is a bit of a multi-dimensional story - I hope it is clear enough.
-
Thanks, the manual feed takes up less space than I would have thought. I'm leaning very slightly toward the Canon at this moment. My only hesitation right now concerns the CO. Its hard to see in on-line photos how prints with the CO will look under differing light conditions compared to prints without made with the Epson.
Have a look at some of my recent paper reviews using the PRO-2000 - same inkset. I have included quite a few shots at angles to show the surface which might be of help?
However the CO really isn't that obvious - it just just makes the print a bit smoother. I can't see any negative in it? Remember it's not like a varnish coat...
You can also see the effect in prints where the coating is set to full rather than auto, and it is applied to the whole paper (apart from a small border).
It would be nice if there was the option for the CO to only be applied to the printed area in 'full' mode, but not with the current driver...
-
It would be nice if there was the option for the CO to only be applied to the printed area in 'full' mode, but not with the current driver...
Keith, my understanding is that when we set the CO option in the Canon driver to "Auto", it is pretty much doing what I think you are saying. It coats the printed areas and doesn't coat the non-printed or very lightly printed areas. Is this what you are getting at? This can be blessing and curse.
-
Thanks Mark and Keith, perfectly clear explanations. Just did a reread of both of your reviews including the Pro-2000. Closeups examples of the CO coating show it pretty well and I can see where it will be difficult to pick out in normal viewing. Thanks.
-
Keith, my understanding is that when we set the CO option in the Canon driver to "Auto", it is pretty much doing what I think you are saying. It coats the printed areas and doesn't coat the non-printed or very lightly printed areas. Is this what you are getting at? This can be blessing and curse.
Indeed - it's the lack of coating in the parts of image at paper white (or close) that shows up on some papers, and what I'd like to see fixed as an option.
So I'd like
CO off - use a CO-off media setting, or turn quality setting down (I can't remember the setting off hand)
Auto - just add to the darker colours as it does now
Full - Apply to just the whole printed area -including- parts with no ink - no CO to the surrounding paper area of the print
Full+ - The current 'full' option coating the whole sheet
This changes just the 'full' option from the current functionality ... I have asked about it FWIW ;-)
-
Indeed - it's the lack of coating in the parts of image at paper white (or close) that shows up on some papers, and what I'd like to see fixed as an option.
So I'd like
CO off - use a CO-off media setting, or turn quality setting down (I can't remember the setting off hand)
Auto - just add to the darker colours as it does now
Full - Apply to just the whole printed area -including- parts with no ink - no CO to the surrounding paper area of the print
Full+ - The current 'full' option coating the whole sheet
This changes just the 'full' option from the current functionality ... I have asked about it FWIW ;-)
Of the four you listed, CO OFF is not an option at least on the Pro-1000 (I forget whether the Pro-2000 driver allows it). I highly doubt Canon will provide this as an option because CO isn't an option - only yhr way it is applied is an option, because it is part of the inkset. In the same way they wouldn't allow us disable Black or Red, they won't allow us to disable CO - or let me better say I would be mightily surprised if they did.
AUTO applies CO for both darker and lighter colours, but not for very light colours - my understanding.
FULL - this is the same as what we have now by selecting overall OVERALL, and it does coat the whole image area (but not the margins) regardless of other ink density.
FULL+ is the one we don't have and a case could be made for developing it as an option, so that the margins get treated like white areas in FULL. This could be useful.
-
Keith, my understanding is that when we set the CO option in the Canon driver to "Auto", it is pretty much doing what I think you are saying. It coats the printed areas and doesn't coat the non-printed or very lightly printed areas. Is this what you are getting at? This can be blessing and curse.
Except that, despite being called a chroma optimizer not a gloss optimizer, full coat coverage does help create more uniformity in the highlights and pure image white values. Better than auto mode in that respect, so it would indeed be nice to have an option to use the full coverage mode but constrain to image area only, not apply to the print margins which will suck up a lot of clearcoat ink on non image areas.
-
FULL - this is the same as what we have now by selecting overall OVERALL, and it does coat the whole image area (but not the margins) regardless of other ink density.
FULL+ is the one we don't have and a case could be made for developing it as an option, so that the margins get treated like white areas in FULL. This could be useful.
Are we talking about the same printer? When selecting the OVERALL mode on my Pro-1000, I find both total image area and print margins are coated with CO, whereas with Auto mode, the image area only is coated, but CO is also throttled way back in highlight and pure image white areas as well. So for best coating of all image highlights I have to switch to the OVERALL mode, but that dumps CO on margin white areas as well. I'm actually fine with that, and using a borderless page setting the CO extends right out to the cut sheet edges which is what I want, but I could see for people trying to economize on CO usage yet still have the optimal results in the image area, having an option to confine the superior "OVERALL" coating effectiveness strictly to the image areas only and not extend into paper margins would be a useful option that currently does not exist in the Canon driver, AFAIK.
-
Except that, despite being called a chroma optimizer not a gloss optimizer, full coat coverage does help create more uniformity in the highlights and pure image white values. Better than auto mode in that respect, so it would indeed be nice to have an option to use the full coverage mode but constrain to image area only, not apply to the print margins which will suck up a lot of clearcoat ink on non image areas.
The idea of being able to apply it to the margins is that then the whole sheet should have better gloss uniformity for those to whom it matters.
-
Are we talking about the same printer? When selecting the OVERALL mode on my Pro-1000, I find both total image area and print margins are coated with CO, whereas with Auto mode, the image area only is coated, but CO is also throttled way back in highlight and pure image white areas as well. So for best coating of all image highlights I have to switch to the OVERALL mode, but that dumps CO on margin white areas as well. I'm actually fine with that, and using a borderless page setting the CO extends right out to the cut sheet edges which is what I want, but I could see for people trying to economize on CO usage yet still have the optimal results in the image area, having an option to confine the superior "OVERALL" coating effectiveness strictly to the image areas only and not extend into paper margins would be a useful option that currently does not exist in the Canon driver, AFAIK.
Actually I was doing a test on this just last night, and indeed, when the setting is in OVERALL, it coats the image area - all tones - but not the margins, so viewed at unnatural angles one does see a gloss difference between the margins and any adjacent white or nearly white areas that do get coated as part of the print area in OVERALL mode. Maybe it depends on the paper how much difference one sees. This was using a sheet of Hahn Photo Pearl I happened to have available for doing this test. The Canon Pro-1000 manual does specify that Overall coats the print area. I read that to exclude the margins, as appeared to be the case in my test.
-
Actually I was doing a test on this just last night, and indeed, when the setting is in OVERALL, it coats the image area - all tones - but not the margins, so viewed at unnatural angles one does see a gloss difference between the margins and any adjacent white or nearly white areas that do get coated as part of the print area in OVERALL mode. Maybe it depends on the paper how much difference one sees. This was using a sheet of Hahn Photo Pearl I happened to have available for doing this test. The Canon Pro-1000 manual does specify that Overall coats the print area. I read that to exclude the margins, as appeared to be the case in my test.
Part of the visual appearance issues with CO is that it really isn't a very good "gloss optimizer", especially on non RC media like Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl. You need to look at the paper margin areas with "borderless" printing NOT selected and where the normally printable margins of the printer quit and the true page edges actually end. Observing the non printable parts of the margins, I can see that CO has indeed extended past the image area when choosing "OVERALL". However, because it doesn't do a great job totally covering pure white areas and fully eliminating differential gloss, it may seem like it's not really going beyond the image area. But it is, at least on my Pro-1000 printer with my current firmware/software (which I believe is totally up to date, but I should doublecheck). So, perhaps Canon has changed something in the various printer driver versions available. I will recheck tomorrow to find out which driver version I"m on currently. Maybe that can also explain the discrepancies you and I are observing. Canon did just that with the Canon Pro-1. Canon actually removed a nice advanced CO coverage feature in a later driver version on the 13 inch Canon Pro-1 model which used to give the enduser more options on how the CO got laid down. Lame move on Canon's part, IMHO!
-
I’ve worked with an Epson 2200, 3800 and 7900, and I’ve had a P800 for about a week. I can’t comment on the Canon Pro 1000 as I’ve never been in the same room with one.
As with yours, my 3800 is working well after what must be 8 years. I made 6 prints this morning, all on Hot Press Natural, and they look great. I love the ease of loading thick paper in the back, and the sheet feed has always worked well. The front door latch broke early on and so I’ve been taping it shut all these years, but that only adds to its charm.
The 7900 yielded prints for two exhibitions. It always felt solid and professional. But the first head went after about 6 months (replaced under warranty at no cost to me) and the second head is going now, 4 years later (at least I think it’s the head, but maybe it’s just the dampers). Epson will fix it for an estimated $2000.00. Rather than accepting that offer, I’m giving it to the first person who shows up with $300.00 for the carts (but they have to take the printer too. Manhattan, ground floor, printer will fit out the window. PM me).
The P800 makes great prints, but I find it clanky and plasticy and, as with unesco above, I’m having a difficult time adjusting to the front sheet feeder. Why did they change from the rear-feed system on the 3800? I purchased the P800 over the Canon Pro 1000 only because it’s much lighter and I have to carry my 17" printer with me to summer venues. Also, I was thinking of adding the roll adapter and sticking with 17" prints for a while but, given that the P800 feels at bit flimsy to me, I think that I’ll instead purchase the Canon Pro 2000 ($300 rebate until the end of March) and use that as a 24", roll-paper, non-peripatetic workhorse.
-
You have received some excellent advice in the above posts from some very knowledgeable experts to help decide between the Epson P 800 and Canon pro 1000 printers. If the price and features wind up being equal, one part of history to remember is the very poor support the owners of the Epson 4900, 7900, 9900 printers received when their printheads clogged excessively. The Internet and this forum was full of complaints from unhappy owners. One YouTube video promised a guaranteed repair method for the Epson 7900 printer. It was a video of the owner demolishing his expensive printer with a sledgehammer in his Driveway.
Epson's answer to everyone's problem was for the owner to purchase a new very expensive printhead, pay a huge fee for installation, and then hope it would work, but no guarantees. Rather than pay for the repair of my 7900 I decided to purchase a new on sale Canon IPF 8400 printer. I've had no problems with excessive cleaning, printhead clogs, or any other mechanical problems. The output has been excellent.
My point is that Epson had a major design fault, and poorly supported their machines and customers. I don't know how everyone else feels, but I feel I was let down, and expected more from Epson.
-
On the other hand, the P800 is more closely related to the 3800 and 3880, both of which have much better track records than the bigger Epsons.
-
John:
This is a tough choice... as it should be since both companies have produced fine printers. I ended up with the P-800 and am very pleased. No roller or pizza-wheel marks, great color, no clogs despite periods of up to 2 months without printing. One factor to consider is maximum print length. Canon maxes out at about 23" whereas Epson can print panoramas on roll paper. I use 17"x25" paper regularly.
Good luck.
-
The Canon 1000 can do up to 25.5" w/ latest firmware.
-
........ If the price and features wind up being equal, one part of history to remember is the very poor support the owners of the Epson 4900, 7900, 9900 printers received when their printheads clogged excessively. ...........
Speak for yourself, but I have always received orrect support from Epson within the terms and conditions of their warranties on any Epson printer I've owned over the past 17 years, including very useful, free, out of warranty telephone support.
-
On the other hand, the P800 is more closely related to the 3800 and 3880, both of which have much better track records than the bigger Epsons.
Hi Eric,
Yes you are correct, and the reason is that these printer series are designed for different kinds of usage. The x900 series is designed for fairly continuous operation, whereas the x800s you mention are rather more directed at the prosumer market ,even though they make professional quality prints when the files are properly edited and colour management is correctly set-up.
-
The Canon 1000 can do up to 25.5" w/ latest firmware.
Thanks Howard... that's good to know. I might add the Canon in the future.
Glenn
-
I was also wondering if there is any practical difference between the manufacturer's specifications for maximum print resolution where the P800 is listed at 2880 x 1440 and the Pro 1000 at 2400 x 1200. Would I likely be able to see this in prints 8.5" x 11" and smaller? Would it manifest as an apparent sharper print for the higher resolution?
Thanks again
-
No.
-
I agree, for the first year when the warrantee is in place you get great support and service. One year is a relativelyq short period of time. So after one year their support is gone. I believe when they have a design flaw they should step up to the plate and help make it right. Judging by the numerous posts in this forum and on the Internet I believe the Epson 7990 and 9900 printers have a design which leads to an inordinate percentage of their printheads becoming clogged and no longer being serviceable. The cost of a new print head and the professional installation fees and the lack of a guarantee that the replacement will even fix the printer problem results in most people abandoning their printer. It becomes much more economical to purchase a new printer filled with ink and enjoying a new warranty. From a business relationship and ecologic standpoint I believe the Epson printer head failure is intolerable. I'm fairly sure that I'm not the only owner of an Epson 7900 or 9900 printer who is unhappy with the lack of support once our one-year warranty expired. Had Epson sold us a new print head at cost and installed it at a discount then I think there would have been many more satisfied Epson customers using Epson printers and buying Epson inks and not having to write posts like the one I've just written.
-
First of all, your reply is included in my quote. Please delete your post and repost it separating the two so it is clear to readers that I did not say what you said. To do this you need to begin your response outside the parentheses that include the quote of exactly what I said.
Secondly, you're talking as if you have authoritative data describing Epson's world-wide printer market and the percentage of these machines that experience premature failure when used in the manner for which they were designed. You don't, because if you did you wouldn't be allowed to talk about it; and the fact that you don't means that none of the opinions in your post have an identifiable evidentiary basis supporting or justifying your sweeping generalizations - and let me add that complaints on the internet are a woefully inadequate and technically unsatisfactory sample for representing the population of owners.
For what it's worth (being a sample of one) I'm not saying there isn't an issue. I have owned a 4900 for over five years, I know what kind of clogging behaviour it exhibits under what specific usage conditions, and that these issues would most likely be replicated under similar usage conditions in the hands of other owners; I also know how to avoid most of this difficulty and to clean it up when it occurs, because Epson tech support are the first people to provide this advice and they do so - free. While I would prefer less wastage of time and ink maintaining this printer, as far as I'm concerned the issue is of a very different character and more benign solution path than what you are talking about. On top of which the build quality is extremely robust and it makes gorgeous prints reliably and relatively quickly.
-
The Canon 1000 can do up to 25.5" w/ latest firmware.
I wonder if someone could clarify for me what "do" means, can the Canon only print a 25.5" image (as in lay down ink for 25.5" on the paper) or it can only accept a sheet of paper that is a maximum length of 25.5" long (or both)? What happens if you print, say a 25.5" long print on a 28" sheet of paper?
What if you were using ImagePrint, is anyone here using it for the Canon 1000? ImagePrint seems to be able to override Epson's paper length restriction, maybe they can do it with the Canon 1000 too? ImagePrint recently added support for the Canon 1000 printer.
-
It won't print more than 25.5 inches including the margins regardless of the sheet size. I don't know if there would be difficulty getting the paper out if you insert longer than 25.5 inches, so unless someone knows otherwise, I wouldn't try it. Not useful anyhow. As for ImagePrint, best ask them.
-
Thanks again everyone for your help. I have ordered the Canon. Now to choose a new camera.....
-
On your #7, I've seen no evidence of this in four P-800s I've used.
On your #8, this is objectively (i.e. by-the-numbers) not necessarily correct. Much depends on the paper and the profiling. The best assurance of B&W neutrality (and I share your perspective that it's not very important to me) is to use the B&W printing mode that both printers offer. The downside is losing some control over tonality.
Ad 7) Me and my friends have opposite experience as for pizza wheel marks (but mostly seen with EEF paper). You were lucky or we were unlucky...
Ad 8) I think this is missunderstanding - I meant the ink itself, printed separately from each channel, not through ICC profile. Using QTR, one has to use some not so small amount of cyan and magenta to neutralise carbon-like K, LK and LLK. I have numbers if you wish :-).
-
Ad 7) Me and my friends have opposite experience as for pizza wheel marks (but mostly seen with EEF paper). You were lucky or we were unlucky...
Ad 8) I think this is missunderstanding - I meant the ink itself, printed separately from each channel, not through ICC profile. Using QTR, one has to use some not so small amount of cyan and magenta to neutralise carbon-like K, LK and LLK. I have numbers if you wish :-).
OK, re 8, I don't do QTR so I wouldn't know; thanks for the offer of the data - it may be useful for other readers who do use QTR.
-
I will try to put some figures during coming weekend. I just fight with QTR since 3880 curves are useless for P800 and I would like to achieve that beautifull little warm - little neutral tint so well looking at warmtone Baryta papers.
-
As promised, please have a look at attached figure which contains Lab projection of Epson SC-P800 K, LK and LLK inks separatelly printed using callibration mode in QTR.
Paper used was Ilford Gold Mono Silk. All three curves converge to the white point which is at (-0.5, 1.5). Please have in mind that it was measured with ColorMunki so the WP might be a bit different than declared by Ilford due to UV filter in this spectro (blind for OBA effects).
Edit: the picture clearly shows warm tint of each separated ink, carbon like, up to nearly b*=+11.
-
Thanks again everyone for your help. I have ordered the Canon. Now to choose a new camera.....
Don't overlook the Sony mirrorless line.
A long time Nikon man I still have my D800E but rarely use it.
For crop sensor you cannot beat an A6000 and it's 11 fps.
I also use the Nex 7 with a metabones speed booster plus an A7s for indoor low light and astrophotography work.
The prices on some of these older models are less then 50% of new, some great bargains out there.
Maybe when I sell the D800e I will get the A7rII.
The line is pretty impressive. I can tell you these cameras paired with Zeiss lenses are as good as it gets.
-
I have a question about the Canon 1000 my Pixma Pro 1 is the biggest ink sucker when not in use I have ever seen is the 1000 just like it in that regard?
-
I have a question about the Canon 1000 my Pixma Pro 1 is the biggest ink sucker when not in use I have ever seen is the 1000 just like it in that regard?
I don't understand how a printer would suck ink when it is not in use, so your question is unclear to me. Do you mean that if the printer is not used for quite a long time and you start it up how much ink does it use to ensure the nozzles are clear? If that is the question we don't know the answer, because Canon has not developed the accounting tool in a manner that accounts for ink consumed for maintenance; it is a nice framework for accounting ink laid on paper for prints. Some have tried to estimate maintenance usage by weighing the maintenance tank after and just before a printing session, but how reliable this is I don't know.
-
I'm also interested to know how to minimize maintenance ink waste on the pro 1000. Mark, do you have any recommendations? Can one leave the printer always on, disabling the auto power off and will this have positive effect on ink waste?
I read somewhere (sorry I do not remember where) that id the pro 1000 was left off over 45 days it will perform deep cleaning and waste 50ml of ink!
-
I'm also interested to know how to minimize maintenance ink waste on the pro 1000. Mark, do you have any recommendations? Can one leave the printer always on, disabling the auto power off and will this have positive effect on ink waste?
I read somewhere (sorry I do not remember where) that id the pro 1000 was left off over 45 days it will perform deep cleaning and waste 50ml of ink!
As I just mentioned in another thread, as a general safety and protection measure I shut-down any machinery I'm not using even though the risk may be low. I have no idea what kind of on-off intervals would minimize use of ink for printer maintenance. Only Canon would have that knowledge.