Canon Pro 1000 vs Epson P800

[michaelhankes]

I am writing to get anyone's thoughts on these two printers. I've been researching them extensively and recently joined the site to read the reviews on the two prints, which are excellent. I'm a casual printer and have a few questions about them. I see that the Pro 1000 has a gloss optimizer since the printer uses pigment inks. Does the Epson have this (I don't think so) and does it matter that it does not?

I go back and forth over which printer to get. One pro for the Epson is that Epson has so many papers for the P800. However, my understanding is that third party papers, such as Canson, Ilford, or Red River, offer great papers that can be used on the Canon printer. Another pro point is the ability to print 16 x 24 prints, and the Canon does not print up to 24 inches.  Should paper sway my decision on any one printer?  If not, I would prefer to use Canon.

Lastly, I've used the Pixma Pro 100 for a couple of years now and really like the printer. My main reasons for upgrading are improved print quality and to print larger.  I know there are a few questions here, but looking for any other's thoughts on why they choose one model over the other. Thanks

[Mark D Segal]

I don't believe that Canon's gloss optimizer works much differently than Epson's resin encapsulation, to judge by careful inspection of prints from both printers. So I wouldn't differentiate the printers on that dimension.

Paper doesn't differentiate them either because you can just about use any one's paper in either printer. You just need the correct profile for the printer/paper combination and there are alternative ways of getting those. So paper wouldn't be a deciding factor between printers either.

The length issue is a real differentiating factor. If you wish to print longer than 23.4 inches, for the time being your choice is the Epson P800, because 23.4 inches for now is the limit for the Canon printer. The P800 also allows the attachment of an optional roll holder, so you can print panoramas if you expect to do that.

Print quality wise, both are fine printers that deliver fine results.

[marc aurel]

I have a question about the gloss optimizer of the Pro 1000:
In the overall setting - is this for the complete sheet including borders or only for the area of the image itself? Or is there a choice between these options?
Can anybody help with the question?

Best regards - Marc

[Czornyj]

Canon LUCIA pigment particles are also encapsulated - Chroma Optimizer uniforms surface particle layout to minimize light scattering, which results in gamut and contrast expansion. In GO full coat mode it leaves 3mm margin, but you can avoid it by enabling borderless mode. The difference in gloss differential is quite dicernable:

[Mark D Segal]

I have a question about the gloss optimizer of the Pro 1000:
In the overall setting - is this for the complete sheet including borders or only for the area of the image itself? Or is there a choice between these options?
Can anybody help with the question?

Best regards - Marc

Marc - there is an option to let it coat the whole surface of the paper or only the portions that are more inked. The former is recommended for the most pleasing results,, but you'll be changing this cartridge quite a bit more than the others.

[Mark D Segal]

Canon LUCIA pigment particles are also encapsulated - Chroma Optimizer uniforms surface particle layout to minimize light scattering, which results in gamut and contrast expansion. In GO full coat mode it leaves 3mm margin, but you can avoid it by enabling borderless mode. The difference in gloss differential is quite dicernable:

Marcin, yes, looking at this reference (for another printer model but most likely the same principle), the short story is that it reduces reflectivity. The important question though is how the whole package of inks, papers, profiles and firmware deliver the prints and that is best judged by comparative evaluation of real world photographs. We did that quite extensively and the results of it are reported in my review.

Personally I don't pay much attention to minor differences of gloss differential because it normally shows worst when looking at prints from angles that aren't normal or optimal for print viewing, but I recognize that different people may have different taste or concern about this. I wouldn't base a printer purchase decision on the CO alone, but rather on overall outcomes taking all contributing factors into consideration.

[marc aurel]

Marc - there is an option to let it coat the whole surface of the paper or only the portions that are more inked. The former is recommended for the most pleasing results,, but you'll be changing this cartridge quite a bit more than the others.

Thanks Mark,

my question was a bit different, but I probably did not ask it clearly: I would prefer a setting that applies the chroma optimizer to the whole image (including white areas), but not the borders. So there would a gloss differential between the image area and the border area (like you have it in some well printed photobooks). I would like to use that for portfolios where I have a relatvely large border area around my image.
It sounds like there is no such setting for the Pro 1000, is there?

Regards - Marc

[Czornyj]

No Marc, unfortunately there's no such a setting - there are only two modes: it prints on the whole page, or only on printed parts.

[Mark D Segal]

Not that I am aware of. As far as I know, which may not be the whole story, the closest you can come is to select the option that applies it only to the more inked areas of the print.

[marc aurel]

Thanks for that info, Mark and Czornyj.
Not what I hoped for, but good to know.

Regards - Marc

[Doug Gray]

Has anyone investigated the effect chroma optimizer has on custom profiles?  Since it reduces light scattering and increases gamut I would expect profiles with and without the chroma optimizer to be significantly different and am curious what areas are most affected.

[Mark D Segal]

Has anyone investigated the effect chroma optimizer has on custom profiles?  Since it reduces light scattering and increases gamut I would expect profiles with and without the chroma optimizer to be significantly different and am curious what areas are most affected.

That crossed my mind when preparing the comparison prints made with custom profiles, so I used the same setting for the CO in both the generation of the profiling targets and the prints made from those targets. Page 411 of the printer manual shows how to manage the role of CO in the Paper Detailed Settings of the printer driver, but nothing there or any where else in the manual about any impact of the choice between Overall and Auto on the selected printer profile. Whether it matters or not I suppose would depend on whether a spectrophotometer would read different patch values for those very light coloured patches that would not be coated if one selected the Auto coating option (which restricts coating to the areas with more pronounced ink laydown). I suspect it may not be an important issue even though I took some precaution in handling it for my testing and evaluation work.

[Doug Gray]

That crossed my mind when preparing the comparison prints made with custom profiles, so I used the same setting for the CO in both the generation of the profiling targets and the prints made from those targets. Page 411 of the printer manual shows how to manage the role of CO in the Paper Detailed Settings of the printer driver, but nothing there or any where else in the manual about any impact of the choice between Overall and Auto on the selected printer profile. Whether it matters or not I suppose would depend on whether a spectrophotometer would read different patch values for those very light coloured patches that would not be coated if one selected the Auto coating option (which restricts coating to the areas with more pronounced ink laydown). I suspect it may not be an important issue even though I took some precaution in handling it for my testing and evaluation work.

Makes sense to profile using the same settings you print with including CO.

The CO is touted as increasing the gamut, particularly in the darker areas, as well as improving the Dmax. These are both reflected in a profile so there is apparently some difference. I don't think they include different profiles with and without CO so perhaps it isn't large enough to matter much.

[shadowblade]

I'd find it hard to recommend the Canon due to the length limit alone. Unless you always crop to a 4:5 aspect ratio, the inability to print at 16x24 cripples its utility as a 17" printer. If you like to shoot panoramas and other wide shots, it gets even worse - many of my shots would be limited to 7.5"x22.5", as opposed to 16x48" on a printer without the limit.

[Mark D Segal]

Makes sense to profile using the same settings you print with including CO.

The CO is touted as increasing the gamut, particularly in the darker areas, as well as improving the Dmax. These are both reflected in a profile so there is apparently some difference. I don't think they include different profiles with and without CO so perhaps it isn't large enough to matter much.

My take as well.

[GrahamBy]

I'd find it hard to recommend the Canon due to the length limit alone.

If I'm honest with myself, this would have very little real impact on me due to the unavailability of 17x25" paper in Europe... and we get A2 which has a better aspect ratio than 17x22. That wouldn't apply if the the Canon had a roll-feed, but it doesn't. There is also the report that the engineers are going to look into the feasibility of enabling longer prints... I presume that means trying to get the ok from whoever calls the shots. I'm not holding my breath, but let's see.

Otherwise, it seems a bit of a wash. The MK/PK issue doesn't worry me, since I don't see myself using much MK; the difference in purchase price is pretty much balanced by initial ink supply. Running costs are would likely be a little higher for the Canon because of the CO, but it has nicer paper handling (and we don't know about ink use in cleaning cycles for infrequent users). The Canon LR plug-in is a nice interface, but the Epson leaves open the option of using QTR or even eventually converting it to a B&W only machine. The Epson has the roll-feed option...

[michaelhankes]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I settled on the Epson P800.  Ordered last night with some sample packs of their legacy paper and others. Thanks again Thursday can't come fast enough!

[Mark D Segal]

You are welcome. All the best with it.

[GrahamBy]

The difference in gloss differential is quite discernible:

Actually what strikes me here is that there is a trade-off: the Epson has a more intense on-axis reflection, but the Canon print has a wider range of angles over which the reflection is unacceptable. Or that's my impression from looking at this one photo...

It is therefore at least conceivable that the CO could make it slightly harder to avoid unacceptable glare by positioning the lighting, even if it is better in the worst-case scenario...

[shadowblade]

Actually what strikes me here is that there is a trade-off: the Epson has a more intense on-axis reflection, but the Canon print has a wider range of angles over which the reflection is unacceptable. Or that's my impression from looking at this one photo...

It is therefore at least conceivable that the CO could make it slightly harder to avoid unacceptable glare by positioning the lighting, even if it is better in the worst-case scenario...

How does it look after you've sprayed it with Print Shield, Hahnemuhle Protective Spray or similar? Because you're likely to be doing that anyway...