Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Printer Decision  (Read 8600 times)

jemsurvey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Printer Decision
« 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
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 10:47:21 am by jemsurvey »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2017, 10:53:14 am »

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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
    • Northlight Images
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2017, 11:49:07 am »

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 ;-)
Logged

unesco

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2017, 12:05:52 pm »

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.
Logged

BradSmith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 773
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2017, 12:08:32 pm »

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
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 12:12:23 pm by BradSmith »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2017, 12:57:17 pm »


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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2017, 01:00:44 pm »

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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

jemsurvey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2017, 01:14:05 pm »

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...
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2017, 01:18:45 pm »

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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
    • Northlight Images
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2017, 01:46:57 pm »

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



and the extra space required with the rear feed


« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 04:38:11 pm by keithcooper »
Logged

jemsurvey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2017, 04:16:15 pm »

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.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2017, 04:46:58 pm »

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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
    • Northlight Images
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2017, 05:22:03 pm »

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...
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2017, 05:25:31 pm »


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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

jemsurvey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2017, 05:51:16 pm »

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.
Logged

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
    • Northlight Images
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2017, 06:38:16 pm »

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 ;-)



Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2017, 07:25:06 pm »

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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1290
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2017, 07:29:15 pm »

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.

Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1290
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2017, 07:36:21 pm »


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.

« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 07:54:30 pm by MHMG »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2017, 08:57:57 pm »

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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up