epson p800 vs canon pro-1000

[bwana]

Certainly much has been written about these two printers which can produce excellent prints. Coming from an epson 3800 I am sure I'll see some improvement in deeper blacks but I am concerned about two issues that seem worse with this newer generation. I see quite a few posts about starwheels or pizza wheels - the little perforations that the transport mechanism in the epson uses. I have not experienced it my self but a few users here write about sending their printer back 3 or 4 times with no improvement. Some have claimed that the issue is fixable by cleaning the transport wheel. The other concern I have is the ink usage. Although the epson wastes ink when switching from photo to matte black, it seems the canon uses both all the time. And of course some people just are so happy with their HP printer which is so frugal with ink. Has any one person here had experience with these two printers? Thanks

[Mark D Segal]

I reviewed both of them on this website. Keith Cooper also reviewed both on Northlight Images. I have used both since then. What specifically do you want to know that is not in the reviews and all the subsequent discussion?

[mearussi]

You've summed up the problems correctly. The only way to avoid the pizza wheel problem is by buying a 17" printer with a vacuum transport like the Epson P5000. And from what I've read the P5000 doesn't use as much ink in cleaning either which means it would soon pay for its price difference in lower ink consumption costs as well as less cost per ml because of its larger ink cartridges. The only problem remaining is that it takes up a lot more desk space and is much heavier due to its much better build. But if you have the space it seems like a much better choice in the long run.

[Mark D Segal]

.................. And from what I've read the P5000 doesn't use as much ink in cleaning either which means it would soon pay for its price difference in lower ink consumption costs ..............

I'm curious to know where you found this information because Epson is totally secretive about ink use for maintenance for both printers. What you are saying presumes someone has done careful measurements for both machines using some kind of procedure either with the waste tank or taking an inventory approach. Grateful if you could provide links to this info.

[mearussi]

I'm curious to know where you found this information because Epson is totally secretive about ink use for maintenance for both printers. What you are saying presumes someone has done careful measurements for both machines using some kind of procedure either with the waste tank or taking an inventory approach. Grateful if you could provide links to this info.

No definitive studies, just from what I've read from people who own them. I've yet to read any complaints about high ink consumption due to nozzle cleaning. Did you notice any when you had your loaner? 

[Mark D Segal]

Yes I noticed that both printers need periodic cleaning, and they normally clean with little difficulty or repetition the same day. I also surmise from my experience with both printers that the P800 uses less ink for cleaning than the P5000 does because it clogged less often; as well, the P5000 calls for a general power cleaning of all channels roughly every six months using 70ml of ink (an "undocumented feature"), something I never experienced from the P800 which I had for well over a year. Statements you read based on casual observation should be treated with extreme caution. The main saving of ink for a P5000 is the lower price due to the larger cartridges. Don't listen to any tales about the P5000 being sufficiently more economic in its use of ink to recover the initial investment cost difference between the two any time soon - like in the lifetime of either printer.

[bwana]

thank you Mark. The north light images website has encyclopedic reviews.

[mearussi]

Yes I noticed that both printers need periodic cleaning, and they normally clean with little difficulty or repetition the same day. I also surmise from my experience with both printers that the P800 uses less ink for cleaning than the P5000 does because it clogged less often; as well, the P5000 calls for a general power cleaning of all channels roughly every six months using 70ml of ink (an "undocumented feature"), something I never experienced from the P800 which I had for well over a year. Statements you read based on casual observation should be treated with extreme caution. The main saving of ink for a P5000 is the lower price due to the larger cartridges. Don't listen to any tales about the P5000 being sufficiently more economic in its use of ink to recover the initial investment cost difference between the two any time soon - like in the lifetime of either printer.

Good to know. The undocumented "feature" does consume quite a lot of ink.

[Mark D Segal]

Indeed it does, and the less one uses the printer, the more likely it is to appear sooner, which means the ratio of maintenance ink to print ink will increase relative to the better performance heavier users would experience. Like its predecessor, this printer is built like a tank because it's designed to be used - a lot.

[bwana]

My research turned this up:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4208996

For the p1000, it is Interesting that there was as much ink in the waste basket as there was in the prints. That means the p5000 wastes even more

[mearussi]

My research turned this up:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4208996

For the p1000, it is Interesting that there was as much ink in the waste basket as there was in the prints. That means the p5000 wastes even more

Not necessarily as they are totally different manufacturers and technology. Nonetheless, I would like to see someone with a P5000 post similar ink-on-print to ink-in-waste cartridge usage figures. That way we'd know for sure.

[Mark D Segal]

My research turned this up:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4208996

For the p1000, it is Interesting that there was as much ink in the waste basket as there was in the prints. That means the p5000 wastes even more

On what basis do you think the P5000 wastes more? Whats' the thinking and evidence behind this unsupported statement?

[Mark D Segal]

................I would like to see someone with a P5000 post similar ink-on-print to ink-in-waste cartridge usage figures. That way we'd know for sure.

Well, to start with, we don't know what "similar" means because we don't know how that data for the Pro-1000 was put together. You'd be surprised how small variances of methodology can produce very different looking outcomes. Because of these variances and because we are forced into a number of inferences due to the non-transparent behaviour of both Canon and Epson in respect of ink used for maintenance, there is no way "we'd know for sure". I have been tracking the maintenance behaviour of the SC-P5000 for quite some time now, but I have been reluctant to post data for this very reason. Numbers become engraved in peoples' minds, they may not be sufficiently reliable to enjoy that status and the manufacturers will not help in evaluating the merits of such data. I shall not accept at face value any information about ink used on maintenance unless it is accompanied by a very clear and sensible statement about how the data was put together.

[faberryman]

Nonetheless, I would like to see someone with a P5000 post similar ink-on-print to ink-in-waste cartridge usage figures. That way we'd know for sure.

It is the quality/cost per print, not the percentage it wastes or doesn't waste that matters. Are you going to buy an Epson if it wastes 10% less, but has a higher cost per print and you prefer the quality of the Canon, or vice versa?

[Mark D Segal]

It is the quality/cost per print, not the percentage it wastes or doesn't waste that matters. Are you going to buy an Epson if it wastes 10% less, but has a higher cost per print and you prefer the quality of the Canon, or vice versa?

These parameters aren't optional. Waste is part of the cost per print. If cost per print were of interest, the cost of waste needs to be included as part of the cost per print. So the only question in the final analysis is whether cost per print, seen comprehensively (and including by the way for machine depreciation) is an important factor in deciding what printer model to buy. And it isn't even cost per print really - it is DIFFEENTIAL cost per print between the machines being compared. When we're talking this class of printer and the people who use them, most of us are probably using good inkjet papers in them, and from all the years I have been playing with such numbers, paper is the largest single element of cost, followed by ink, followed by machine depreciation. So as we get into the DIFFERENTIAL cost of SECOND ORDER cost considerations, the ranking of such considerations in one's choice of machines should be pretty low, because other factors could well be more important, for example the kinds of paper feeds one needs, the speed of printing, the gamut the printers can reproduce, overall ease of use, build quality of the printer (throughput design criteria affecting longevity and reliability), and perhaps others.

[Kenneth Sky]

Mark,
Could you give a "rough" percentage of costs you have experienced for paper, ink and depreciation?

[Mark D Segal]

Which printer?

[Kenneth Sky]

Epson P800 but on second thought does it vary much in 17" pigment printers ?

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Kenneth, yes it does vary.

For the P800, I figured about CAD 7.60 per Super A3 print, of which 31% amortization, 46% paper based on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, and 23% ink for printing (with the amount of ink per print borrowed from the 4900 because Epson provided no transparency on this variable for the P800). As well, there is no transparency on ink for maintenance, so it simply isn't included in this estimate. If it were known, it would push the share of overall ink use up and the shares of the other two cost centers down. Note that amortization on a per photo basis is sensitive to throughput, so it will vary from user to user.

[Panagiotis]

Well, to start with, we don't know what "similar" means because we don't know how that data for the Pro-1000 was put together. You'd be surprised how small variances of methodology can produce very different looking outcomes. Because of these variances and because we are forced into a number of inferences due to the non-transparent behaviour of both Canon and Epson in respect of ink used for maintenance, there is no way "we'd know for sure". I have been tracking the maintenance behaviour of the SC-P5000 for quite some time now, but I have been reluctant to post data for this very reason. Numbers become engraved in peoples' minds, they may not be sufficiently reliable to enjoy that status and the manufacturers will not help in evaluating the merits of such data. I shall not accept at face value any information about ink used on maintenance unless it is accompanied by a very clear and sensible statement about how the data was put together.

Mark the dpreview post mentioned above about the PRO-1000 is mine. I compare the ink in the maintenance tanks I replace against the ink on paper at the time of replacement. I calculated first the relationship between ml and g by weighting an empty and a full ink cartridge. There are some uncontrolled variables such as ink evaporation from the maintenance tank and that I updated the printer firmware several times in this period. Now the printer is running the latest firmware 2.070. I cross checked these calculation using an inventory based calculation (I keep track of everything) and they seem correct.

Yesterday was two years since I started using the printer. I am very satisfied in general. The print quality is excellent. It is very easy to use and very reliable.

Two times it lost a channel during printing because a cartridge emptied and the printer failed to report it in time (that is at least my explanation). I also broke the spring mechanism of the CO ink cartridge and I now remove it with a strong adhesive tape. It doesn't affect the operation of the printer. No other problems.

The ink consumption as of today is 60/40 ink on paper/ink in the maintenance tank for a total of 216 m² of printed paper (2325 ft²). The figure improved from the 52/48  reported in the dpreview post because the last three months were the heaviest in usage - ink consumption in the last three months in isolation was 80/20 for 75 m² (807 ft²) of paper. That is roughly 3.5 A2 sheets (17"X22") per day for that period.