Canon Pro 1000 vs Epson P800

[Czornyj]

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

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

Epson target was printed on Premium Luster Photo Paper, and Canon target on Canon Satin Photo Paper - that's why there's a difference in glossiness and flare range. It was only a quick snapshot made with a hand-held DXO ONE and iBlazer as a light/flare source, just to show the approx. level of gloss differential.

[Doug Gray]

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

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

The glare and flare of reflections from pearl/lustre papers as well as bronzing is not seen by spectrophotometers. They are only sensitive to light at 45 degrees to the paper from a view perpendicular to the paper. It is this reflected light, which doesn't include surface reflections that don't extend to 45 degrees. I have not seen any pearl type papers that go over about 25 degrees. If profiles were made from uniformly illuminated light sources glossy, pearl, luster, and similar type prints would have a much smaller gamut and a much large DMax that would approximate matte papers. This is why the glossy/pearl type papers should be displayed with light at an angle of, optimally, 45 degrees for viewers looking directly perpendicular to the displayed print.

The fact that matte papers (or matte surfaces on reference tiles) reflect light broadly means a portion of the light is from specular reflection. It also makes them largely insensitive to the angle they are illuminated.

[Mark D Segal]

Epson target was printed on Premium Luster Photo Paper, and Canon target on Canon Satin Photo Paper - that's why there's a difference in glossiness and flare range. It was only a quick snapshot made with a hand-held DXO ONE and iBlazer as a light/flare source, just to show the approx. level of gloss differential.

Thanks for clarifying what you did, because I must admit I found that image comparison rather puzzling. I'm sure you know that correct formal comparison of "n" samples for one variable requires that all other variables be the same or irrelevant between samples to avoid the risk of causal ambiguity resulting from multiple factors of unknown specific importance.

[Kumsa]

My two cents. I also have a Pro-100 and wanted to go bigger, and with a pigment ink. I agonized over the Pro-1000 vs. P800. I also selected the P800 (primarily for the pano capability), and have changed my workflow to 100% ProPhotoRGB from edit through printing. I think these printers are amazing. I'm using Red River Palo Duro SGR -- it's really impressive.

[Czornyj]

Thanks for clarifying what you did, because I must admit I found that image comparison rather puzzling. I'm sure you know that correct formal comparison of "n" samples for one variable requires that all other variables be the same or irrelevant between samples to avoid the risk of causal ambiguity resulting from multiple factors of unknown specific importance.

Yeah sorry, it wasn't my intention to make any kind of formal test, just printed the target to make a profile (for some mysterious reason Epson SC-P800 stock profile for Premium Luster is awful, it turns skin tones violet).

[NickXavi]

On paper, the Canon PRO-1000 has better features than the Epson P800, except for the paper size limitation.

More inks, then more gamut, vacuum system, then more print precision and ease of loading.

However on the conclusions of the test, especially in image quality, I not detect a great enthusiasm for the Canon.

Why?

It surprises me.

[Mark D Segal]

Yeah sorry, it wasn't my intention to make any kind of formal test, just printed the target to make a profile (for some mysterious reason Epson SC-P800 stock profile for Premium Luster is awful, it turns skin tones violet).

That's interesting Marcin - hope someone at Epson is reading and will test their profile. If you are custom profiling with good equipment it's unimportant to you, but out of general interest perhaps an idea to re-download the (latest) driver, extract that profile from it and try again. Maybe for some reason or other it got corrupted.

[Mark D Segal]

On paper, the Canon PRO-1000 has better features than the Epson P800, except for the paper size limitation.

More inks, then more gamut, vacuum system, then more print precision and ease of loading.

However on the conclusions of the test, especially in image quality, I not detect a great enthusiasm for the Canon.

Why?

It surprises me.

I don't know what script you are reading from, but right at the beginning of my review of this printer I said the following:

<<In a nutshell, we think it’s a fine printer with a lot going for it. It has every appearance of being a very solid machine, the print quality is superb, the in-built features are most interesting and the user-friendliness is very good.>> (emphasis added for your convenience).

In the "Wrap-Up" at the end of the article I said: <<The Canon image PROGRAF PRO-1000 delivers excellent print quality. >>

Is that not clear enough?

Now, referring to remarks further up in your post, please note that more inks does not necessarily mean anything. It depends on the image and what you are measuring for or looking for. "More gamut" also within a range could mean very little or something, again, depending on the image and the treatment. Not clear what you mean by "more print precision". Looking at the table below Figure 7 in my review, the average dE results for both the P800 and the Pro-1000 using custom profiles are competitive. A difference of a few 10ths of a percentage point on a test like this is insignificant. I agree with you that Canon scores higher on ease of loading, but I would add that one doesn't need a PhD in gymnastics to load a P800; Epson scores higher on paper sizes.

Overall, I think these are very competitive printers from an objective perspective, and you need to read more carefully. There are some feature and operational differences between them, hence one should select a printer depending on which feature set and operational factors  are more relevant to one's own requirements.

[Czornyj]

That's interesting Marcin - hope someone at Epson is reading and will test their profile. If you are custom profiling with good equipment it's unimportant to you, but out of general interest perhaps an idea to re-download the (latest) driver, extract that profile from it and try again. Maybe for some reason or other it got corrupted.

Unfortunately I returned the test unit already. I linearised it with ColorBase2 and i1Pro2, but the result was the same. Here's the profile, you can compare it to the one that you have:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/SC-P800%20Series%20Ultra%20Premium%20Photo%20Paper%20Luster.icc

prints:


original image of Iga:

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Marcin, I'll have a look if I get a chance later on.

Nice photo of a pretty lady.

And yes, I see where the problems are: not only the skin tones, but the shadow treatment is more open in the custom profile - preferable.

[NickXavi]

I don't know what script you are reading from, but right at the beginning of my review of this printer I said the following:

<<In a nutshell, we think it’s a fine printer with a lot going for it. It has every appearance of being a very solid machine, the print quality is superb, the in-built features are most interesting and the user-friendliness is very good.>> (emphasis added for your convenience).

In the "Wrap-Up" at the end of the article I said: <<The Canon image PROGRAF PRO-1000 delivers excellent print quality. >>

Is that not clear enough?

Now, referring to remarks further up in your post, please note that more inks does not necessarily mean anything. It depends on the image and what you are measuring for or looking for. "More gamut" also within a range could mean very little or something, again, depending on the image and the treatment. Not clear what you mean by "more print precision". Looking at the table below Figure 7 in my review, the average dE results for both the P800 and the Pro-1000 using custom profiles are competitive. A difference of a few 10ths of a percentage point on a test like this is insignificant. I agree with you that Canon scores higher on ease of loading, but I would add that one doesn't need a PhD in gymnastics to load a P800; Epson scores higher on paper sizes.

Overall, I think these are very competitive printers from an objective perspective, and you need to read more carefully. There are some feature and operational differences between them, hence one should select a printer depending on which feature set and operational factors  are more relevant to one's own requirements.

Hi Mark,

First of all, I have not commented only about your review, I've commented about several reviews and comparisons I've read on the net.

I'll say it in other words, given the superior technical features of the Canon PRO-1000, in the comparison, especially in image quality, expected a little better note for the PRO-1000 than for the P800.

And I find that comparative results in image quality are very similar if not equal.

This is my surprise.

Thank you!

[Mark D Segal]

OK, but two things are being commingled, which should not be: (1) the reviews - it's good to be quite specific about who says what and who you want to believe more. Don't worry, reviewers have thick skins otherwise we shouldn't be doing this. (2) technical features and image quality: some technical features do relate to image quality, others clearly do not - they relate to convenience, operational ease, etc. For example, it would not be correct to think that differences in the ease of paper feeding necessarily have any impact on image quality. Image quality and many of the operational features are distinct categories that need to be appraised in respect of their bespoke evaluation criteria. So I don't think there is anything to be surprised about, once you disentangle things that aren't necessarily associated with each other.

And before buying one of these printers, for those in any doubt, I would suggest assessing comparative image quality first-hand by viewing and handling comparable real-world output from both printers. There comes a point where opinions from reviewers on the internet, while they may provide useful guidance, are not necessarily decisive - personal judgment based on valid first-hand evidence could matter.

[Jesús Roncero]

Apologies for reopening this old thread, I didn't want to open a new topic for just exactly the same thing.

Would it then be more or less ok to assume that both printers produce very similar output in quality and that the main differences would be page length (25.5" on the Canon now) and price of inks if you wanted to use 3rd party inks on the Epson?

Thank you.

PS:  (I'm as well in the process of making a decision between both two, thus I was going through the whole archive of posts.)

[NigelC]

Apologies for reopening this old thread, I didn't want to open a new topic for just exactly the same thing.

Would it then be more or less ok to assume that both printers produce very similar output in quality and that the main differences would be page length (25.5" on the Canon now) and price of inks if you wanted to use 3rd party inks on the Epson?

Thank you.

PS:  (I'm as well in the process of making a decision between both two, thus I was going through the whole archive of posts.)

I think the pros and cons have been well rehearsed. I went for the Epson because of the print size limitation in the Canon and on a feeling that Epson running costs would be lower (and in the UK gap in purchase price is smaller than US); of course it's partly speculation on my part that while theoretically they both lay down exactly the same amount of ink per square cm/inch whatever, I can't help thinking the greater number of cartridges would cost more and the Canon cartridges are more expensive anyway. I took into account the fact that the printer would need to be relocated at least once in its lifetime and that means draining and throwing away all the ink in the Canon - also it's possible the Canon would need a replacement print head at some stage. In my case that was enough to outweigh the black ink switching penalty on the Epson.

[Czornyj]

I think the pros and cons have been well rehearsed. I went for the Epson because of the print size limitation in the Canon and on a feeling that Epson running costs would be lower (and in the UK gap in purchase price is smaller than US); of course it's partly speculation on my part that while theoretically they both lay down exactly the same amount of ink per square cm/inch whatever, I can't help thinking the greater number of cartridges would cost more and the Canon cartridges are more expensive anyway. I took into account the fact that the printer would need to be relocated at least once in its lifetime and that means draining and throwing away all the ink in the Canon - also it's possible the Canon would need a replacement print head at some stage. In my case that was enough to outweigh the black ink switching penalty on the Epson.

Historically Canon layed down much, much less ink and used way much lay ink for print head maintenance, not to mention PK<>MK switch. New iPF PRO uses may use even less ink than former iPF x400 series, and the new PF-10 print head should be much more robust. Relocating doesn't need any draining, there's a switch on bottom of the printer that shuts ink valves and prevents ink from leaking (BTW be careful not to put the printer on soft surface, or it will cut off the ink lines ).

[Mark D Segal]

Historically Canon layed down much, much less ink and used way much lay ink for print head maintenance, not to mention PK<>MK switch. New iPF PRO uses may use even less ink than former iPF x400 series, and the new PF-10 print head should be much more robust. Relocating doesn't need any draining, there's a switch on bottom of the printer that shuts ink valves and prevents ink from leaking (BTW be careful not to put the printer on soft surface, or it will cut off the ink lines ).

With the exception of the stats one can generate from the Pro-1000 accounting tool, given the lack of data about almost all of this for these new models, I would not recommend basing a choice of printer on any of it. Buy the printer that has the feature set most relevant to your needs. They both make great prints.

As for moving the printer, when I returned the Pro-1000 that Canon loaned me for the review, they required that I do a "preparation for transport" which means draining all the ink, and they provided me with three spare maintenance tanks to do the job. It broke me heart even though it was their printer and their ink! :-) But I suppose they were being careful to follow their own instructions in the manual as the printer was going with a transport company. From this I would infer your suggestion makes sense if one can monitor and manage the transportation conditions carefully enough.

[Rado]

Is ink cost really a big concern for (assuming) low volume printing at home? I thought the ink for my P800 will be my biggest expense until I saw the prices of good photo papers.

[Mark D Segal]

Is ink cost really a big concern for (assuming) low volume printing at home? I thought the ink for my P800 will be my biggest expense until I saw the prices of good photo papers.

For sure!

[GrahamBy]

I would suggest, in my opinion, ymmv, etc, there is a lot of hype or even fetishism about what is a "good" paper. You will get the greatest gamut and dynamic range AND ease of use on an RC paper, where you are looking at about 2€/sheet of 13x19. The cost of ink is then of about (roughly) the same order as the paper. If you like something that looks a little yellower and wish to believe future generations will care about your prints, barytas cost about 40-50% more. At this stage you have access to equal or better output than any of the great masters of photography ever had.

The cost of ink is not ignorable then, but the total cost is still pretty damn reasonable... one would like to think something worth hanging on your wall should be worth at least as much as the frame

If you want to spend more on "fine art" paper, you should keep in mind that you are choosing to give up many of the qualities that one typically strives to achieve: gamut, dynamic range, resolution. That may be in line with what you want to achieve, which is entirely your choice: but you shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied by peer pressure into thinking you need expensive paper to do good work.

[Mousecop]

FWIW: As an ordinary user, mostly doing B&W, the Canon is working very well for me.

The professional reviews are quite accurate, and from what I can tell these two are essentially the same image quality.

I for one don't see much reason to ultra-geek out over the decision. I went with the Canon almost entirely because I'm fine with the 17" x 22" limit; saving ink when switching between glossy and matte is a nice bonus. If you need to print roll paper that is only 17" wide, then your choice should be obvious.