Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210  (Read 680 times)

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 415

I don't have enough volume to justify a real photo printer, such as Epson 3xxx, but I want a nearby printer to print 5x7 samples before sending my photo to the photo labs. Canon IP8720 seems a good choice.

However, although Canon claims the print has 300 years durability. I am very skeptical. The full pigmented inkjet printer in the same price range is Epson WF7210. The reviews said it has adequate, more than acceptable photo quality, but not as good as Canon IP8720.

Canon IP8720 uses 6 color inks, 1 pigmented black, 1 dye grey, and 4 dye colors, while Epson WF7210 uses 4 pigmented block 7 colors.

Any direct experiences with Epson WF7210? how do you say it's photo quality?

Thanks.
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2601
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2018, 02:31:42 PM »

Can't comment on the Canon. The Epson appears to still use carts.

The Epson "Eco Tank" printers use ink from a bottle.  WAY cheaper per print.
My Epson L-805 is a six ink printer that makes superb borderless letter-size prints for about $.20 each, including ink and media.
Logged

gchappel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2018, 06:13:22 AM »

I guess I would question why you are concerned that your 5x7 sample prints might fade in 300 years?
At least for my own work, I doubt if any will survive even a generation after I am no longer here.
Especially for sample prints- all I would need is something that would match the labs final output.
The canon images look pretty good.  I have not seen the epson 7210.
Gary
Logged

Dave Rosser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 145
    • My Website
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2018, 08:35:41 AM »

I don't have enough volume to justify a real photo printer, such as Epson 3xxx, but I want a nearby printer to print 5x7 samples before sending my photo to the photo labs. Canon IP8720 seems a good choice.

However, although Canon claims the print has 300 years durability. I am very skeptical. The full pigmented inkjet printer in the same price range is Epson WF7210. The reviews said it has adequate, more than acceptable photo quality, but not as good as Canon IP8720.

Canon IP8720 uses 6 color inks, 1 pigmented black, 1 dye grey, and 4 dye colors, while Epson WF7210 uses 4 pigmented block 7 colors.

Any direct experiences with Epson WF7210? how do you say it's photo quality?

Thanks.
IP8720 is discontinued IP8750 is replacement (at least in UK)
Logged

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 415
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2018, 09:28:03 PM »

I guess I would question why you are concerned that your 5x7 sample prints might fade in 300 years?
At least for my own work, I doubt if any will survive even a generation after I am no longer here.
Especially for sample prints- all I would need is something that would match the labs final output.
The canon images look pretty good.  I have not seen the epson 7210.
Gary

I dont believe the 300 years durability.  Epson claims something like 87years on their full pigmented prints.

But the point is, I am not doing business. Photography is my hobby and the family memory recorder.
Most my photo memory are in 5x7.  So I want them to last as long as possible.

Logged

gchappel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2018, 06:28:46 AM »

I dont believe the 300 years durability.  Epson claims something like 87years on their full pigmented prints.

But the point is, I am not doing business. Photography is my hobby and the family memory recorder.
Most my photo memory are in 5x7.  So I want them to last as long as possible.

You stated these were sample prints to be used before sending images off to a photo lab.  Sample prints get thrown away, with no need for archival qualities. 
Now if  these are final archival prints I would agree- I feel better with pigment inks.  I have no proof that the pigment inks last longer- I just personally feel they are more archival.
Gary
Logged

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 415
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2018, 09:06:09 PM »

You stated these were sample prints to be used before sending images off to a photo lab.  Sample prints get thrown away, with no need for archival qualities. 
Now if  these are final archival prints I would agree- I feel better with pigment inks.  I have no proof that the pigment inks last longer- I just personally feel they are more archival.
Gary

5x7 are to keep, only minor of them may be enlarged for display. The displayed pictures are not more important for durability.
Don't understand what your are arguing about. Guess you are coming coming from photo business, only care about the ones that make money?
Logged

NAwlins_Contrarian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2018, 12:19:59 AM »

I cannot tell from your post or your member page where you are, and at least from a cost standpoint, it makes a big difference. If I'm correctly interpreting your member page, then you're somewhere in what is Eastern Time in the U.S., so probably in the U.S. (just statistically, more likely than, say, Quebec, Canada or Santiago, Chile).

In the U.S., the Canon Pro-100 is an excellent printer at a bargain price. The Pro-100 outclasses with iP8720 in almost every way, except that the Pro-100 is slightly larger, and it lacks the iP8720's pigment black ink for printing office-type documents. (I don't know whether the iP8720 uses the pigment black ink on matte photo papers, but its other inks are dyes, so I doubt it would really improve things that much anyway.) No, the Pro-100's prints will not last as well as those from most pigment-ink photo printers, but the Pro-100's inks are absolutely tops among dye-based photo printers for resistance to fading due to light exposure, roughly at the level of some of the worse-performing pigment-ink photo printers (for my detailed but admittedly pieced-together analysis, see https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61374798). In any case, you don't sound like a good candidate for a pigment-ink photo printer (see below).

If the Pro-100 is too large, then the iP8720 is likely to also be too large. If the Pro-100 is too expensive (not plausible in the U.S. but a real issue elsewhere), then look at one of the few current photo-oriented all-in-ones: the Epson XP-8500, the Canon TS9120, or the Canon TS8120. Personally I think the current Canon photo all-in-ones are a significant downgrade from the prior models, and if you can find the recently-discontinued Canon TS9020 for a reasonable price, IMO that is the one to get, but supplies of them seem to be getting scarce.

For the sake of correct information being there for those who look:

Quote
a real photo printer, such as Epson 3xxx

If the Epson R3000 is what was meant, then Epson replaced it four years ago with the P600. Neither it nor its Canon counterpart (the Pro-10) would be good for an infrequent printer because, like pretty much any pigment-ink printer, left unused they're likely to clog and/or use a lot of expensive ink on self-cleanings.

Quote
Canon IP8720 seems a good choice. However, although Canon claims the print has 300 years durability. I am very skeptical.

I have never seen Canon make any such claim. I can't imagine they would. If I'm wrong, I'd love a link to the source.

Quote
Canon IP8720 uses 6 color inks, 1 pigmented black, 1 dye grey, and 4 dye colors, while Epson WF7210 uses 4 pigmented block 7 colors.

The Canon iP8720 uses 6 inks of 5 different colors: for photo papers, dye inks of cyan, magenta, yellow, black, and gray; and for office-type documents on plain (uncoated) papers, pigment black ink. I suspect that it will print the dye inks other than black on 'plain' / uncoated papers, probably including some matte photo papers, but I suspect the quality will be substantially reduced on some papers.

The Epson WF-7210 uses 4 pigment inks: cyan, magenta, yellow, and black. I don't know where that 7 comes from.

Quote
IP8720 is discontinued IP8750 is replacement (at least in UK)

I'm about 93% certain that this in incorrect. AFAIK, the iP8720, iP8750, and iP8760 are all basically the same printer, just the versions for different markets, respectively, U.S. (iP8720), U.K. / E.U. (iP8750), and Australia / New Zealand (iP8760).
Logged

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 415
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2018, 08:29:39 PM »

I am not interested in any dye printer. I only want to know how is Epson WF7210 om photo printing. Apparently no one responded to this thread has any clue about it.
But i did visited a local print store and tried a sample print from WF7210.  It is much better than I imagined, but not what I want to use.   

I did get an advise on a really good Epson printer, to address my concerns of my low print volume, maybe a frequent 5x7 prints with occasional large print can still justify?
Would the frequent small 5x7 prints actually works as a head cleaning process? 
Logged

NAwlins_Contrarian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2018, 12:54:09 AM »

I am not interested in any dye printer.

Then why did you write above that the "Canon IP8720 seems a good choice"? Because the iP8720 is a dye-ink printer. On any photo paper (glossy, semigloss, luster, baryta, metallic, etc.), it will use only dye inks--even for black. It may use the pigment black for printing photos on matte paper, but I'm skeptical of that, in part because the specifications (e.g., at https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/details/printers/inkjet-single-function/ip-series/ip8720?tab=technicalspecifications) appear to indicate that the pigment black is limited to 600x600 dpi resolution--not good for 300 ppi photos--while the dye inks (including black) print at up to 9600x2400 dpi. And anyway, the iP8720's other colors of ink will be dye ink, even on matte paper.

Either the iP8720 clearly would not be a good choice, or you are potentially interested in a dye-ink printer--you can't have it both ways.

I only want to know how is Epson WF7210 om photo printing. Apparently no one responded to this thread has any clue about it.

First of all, that comes across as snapping at people who are just trying to help you, as does your post, "Don't understand what your are arguing about. Guess you are coming coming from photo business, only care about the ones that make money?" You'll often get more and better advice if you receive it less confrontationally.

Second, if nobody on LuLa can tell you about the photo quality of the Epson WF-7210, that is a decent indicator that its photo quality is probably at least somewhat lacking, by the standards of those who know and care about photo print quality. If there were any pigment-ink printer that only cost $150 new and produced good-quality 13x19 inch photo prints, don't you suppose it would generate some buzz on LuLa, DPReview, GetDPI, PrinterKnowledge, etc.? Certainly it would tend to crush the market for the Epson P400 and P600 and the Canon Pro-10, all in the $430 to $495 range.

Third, even if the Epson WF-7210 is capable of good photo print quality, you are very unlikely to find ICC profiles for it for more than a few of the most popular Epson papers (can you even find those?). If you want to use any other papers, then you'll need custom ICC profiles to get good results, potentially negating any cost savings.

Fourth, you say that you "visited a local print store and tried a sample print from WF7210. It is much better than I imagined, but not what I want to use." Do you mean that the WF-7210 is not the device you want to use, in which case why are you still pushing questions about it? Or do you mean that the WF-7210's print quality is not as good as you want to obtain, in which case why do you suppose that we can make it much better?
Logged

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 415
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2018, 01:36:59 PM »

I got your points, thank.




Then why did you write above that the "Canon IP8720 seems a good choice"? Because the iP8720 is a dye-ink printer. On any photo paper (glossy, semigloss, luster, baryta, metallic, etc.), it will use only dye inks--even for black. It may use the pigment black for printing photos on matte paper, but I'm skeptical of that, in part because the specifications (e.g., at https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/details/printers/inkjet-single-function/ip-series/ip8720?tab=technicalspecifications) appear to indicate that the pigment black is limited to 600x600 dpi resolution--not good for 300 ppi photos--while the dye inks (including black) print at up to 9600x2400 dpi. And anyway, the iP8720's other colors of ink will be dye ink, even on matte paper.

Either the iP8720 clearly would not be a good choice, or you are potentially interested in a dye-ink printer--you can't have it both ways.

First of all, that comes across as snapping at people who are just trying to help you, as does your post, "Don't understand what your are arguing about. Guess you are coming coming from photo business, only care about the ones that make money?" You'll often get more and better advice if you receive it less confrontationally.

Second, if nobody on LuLa can tell you about the photo quality of the Epson WF-7210, that is a decent indicator that its photo quality is probably at least somewhat lacking, by the standards of those who know and care about photo print quality. If there were any pigment-ink printer that only cost $150 new and produced good-quality 13x19 inch photo prints, don't you suppose it would generate some buzz on LuLa, DPReview, GetDPI, PrinterKnowledge, etc.? Certainly it would tend to crush the market for the Epson P400 and P600 and the Canon Pro-10, all in the $430 to $495 range.

Third, even if the Epson WF-7210 is capable of good photo print quality, you are very unlikely to find ICC profiles for it for more than a few of the most popular Epson papers (can you even find those?). If you want to use any other papers, then you'll need custom ICC profiles to get good results, potentially negating any cost savings.

Fourth, you say that you "visited a local print store and tried a sample print from WF7210. It is much better than I imagined, but not what I want to use." Do you mean that the WF-7210 is not the device you want to use, in which case why are you still pushing questions about it? Or do you mean that the WF-7210's print quality is not as good as you want to obtain, in which case why do you suppose that we can make it much better?
Logged

vrkaya

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: low cost photo inkjet printer: Canon IP8720 vs. Epson WF7210
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2018, 01:19:04 PM »

For years I sold prints made with the Canon Pro9500 Mark II. It uses pigments and did a great job for me and it prints up to 13x19. It doesn't print on thick media (e.g. canvas, board, etc...) but I normally used Canon Pro Platinum glossy paper or Breathing Color Metallic and loved the results. I think the Pro9500 is no longer produced and I believe the current model is the Pro-10, which also uses pigments.

I have an Epson now to print on larger and thicker media but still use the Pro9500 quite a bit. It may be worth some consideration, given your needs?

Regards,
Ron
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up