Just ordered a Canon pro-100

[Bullfrog]

There are many reasons why people spend more for the Epson 3880.  They are not comparable models.

The 3880 is a wide format printer that prints up to 17-inches wide.  It's a pigment ink printer vs. a dye ink printer.  Another big difference is ink costs.  The Pro-100 has only a 13ml tank capacity compared to the 80ml ink cart capacity of the 3880.  The 3880 comes loaded with the equivalent of 5 additional Pro-100 ink cart replacements that would cost $618 to match what comes included with the 3880 (currently US $929 at B&H).  

The Pro-100 would still be cheaper, as it should be for a smaller format printer.  But it wouldn't take long for it to be much more expensive to operate using those tiny 13ml carts.

I think the Pro-100 sounds like a great bargain.  It's just not supposed to be a "comparable" model with the 3880.

Sal

Thanks.  I should have read more clearly the size differences (13x19 on Canon vs 17x22 on Epson).  That is a major difference that I need to consider.  I already have a 24" wide format canon printer and until reading this thread, had felt an Epson 3880 would be an excellent choice for a dedicated b/w .  

I knew the dye vs pigment as it was cited in the review posted.  

Yes the carts are smaller in the Canon printer - but the cost per cart is less  (I checked Vistek and they are $19 each).  

I don't have anything factual to state the cost per ml of each ink in Canada and will have to check but based on what I understand of your post, the Epson has $618 more ink included in the 3880 - but its also $700 more (with rebates ).  So the two cancel each other out and we're left with 2 printers that come with the same amount of ink supply for about the same cost ($300).

Therefore the Epson would be a better option because (a) its a wide format and (b) the cost per ml of ink is less to replace and (c) its pigment.

I appreciate you clearing my head - I guess when things seem to good to be true, they usually are.

Add: Just checked hope my math is correct this early in the morning:

Epson Ink 80 ml cartridge $64.95 /80 ml = .811 cents per ml
 9 x 80 ml cartridges = 720 ml of ink included  on purchase x .811 cents = 583.00

Canon Ink 13 ml cartridge $19.95 /13 ml = 1.5 cents per ml
6 x 13 ml = $119.00 ink included on purchase

Net printer cost for Epson is about $400 with rebates (1000 - 583)  in Canada vs $180 for Canon (300 - 119)

So for $220 more, I get a wide format, pigment printer which over time will cost much less to use.  I need to save for the Epson.

[Sal Baker]

Thanks.  I should have read more clearly the size differences (13x19 on Canon vs 17x22 on Epson).  That is a major difference that I need to consider.  I already have a 24" wide format canon printer and until reading this thread, had felt an Epson 3880 would be an excellent choice for a dedicated b/w .  

I knew the dye vs pigment as it was cited in the review posted.  

Yes the carts are smaller in the Canon printer - but the cost per cart is less  (I checked Vistek and they are $19 each).  

I don't have anything factual to state the cost per ml of each ink in Canada and will have to check but based on what I understand of your post, the Epson has $618 more ink included in the 3880 - but its also $700 more (with rebates ).  So the two cancel each other out and we're left with 2 printers that come with the same amount of ink supply for about the same cost ($300).

Therefore the Epson would be a better option because (a) its a wide format and (b) the cost per ml of ink is less to replace and (c) its pigment.

I appreciate you clearing my head - I guess when things seem to good to be true, they usually are.

Add: Just checked:

Epson Ink 80 ml cartridge $64.95 /80 ml = .811 cents per ml

...and the Pro-100 ink is $1.46 per ml.  That's why Epson and Canon can practically give away printers with tiny carts--they more than make it up for it in ink costs.  . US costs would be different as 80ml 3880 OEM carts are only about $45.

Sal

[arlon]

I'm still planning on getting an IPF6400 24" plotter sometime this fall so the 1880 wasn't really conisdered. The 1880 and 6400 seemed to be too close to overlapping. The pro-100 is a little smaller and should fit my space nicely, serve as a learning tool and give me something to print small images and cards on. The pro-100 and IPF6400 seem to be totally different animals and more complimentary of each other. Add in the initial cost, refilling the cartridges and the pro-100 becomes a useful printer. I think it's going to be just fine for my modest needs. If my printing experience with the pro-100 turns into a total disaster I might scrap the idea of the ipf6400. This printer is going to be my "training wheels"..

[Bullfrog]

...and the Pro-100 ink is $1.46 per ml.  That's why Epson and Canon can practically give away printers with tiny carts--they more than make it up for it in ink costs.  . US costs would be different as 80ml 3880 OEM carts are only about $45.

Sal

Yeah, no kidding.  Although its not the size of the cart that bothers me, its the cost per ml.  The canon printer ink is double the cost of Epson on a per ml basis.  In Vistek, the price of Canon ink is $1.56 - and Epson .8 cents a ml.  

Then there's the actual ink usage which is another whole topic.  My Canon Image Prograf 6100 uses ink very sparingly and doesn't throw a ton down the sink in cleaning routines.   I think actual ink costs for a 24x36 is probably not more than the Canon 100 for a 13x19.  

On the other hand, the Epson printers seem to have a reputation for being ink cannibals.

If the OP is saying Canon 100 is $3.00 a print - at Canadian costs that 2 ml of ink a print.  At US costs, maybe its close to 3 ml a print.

How many ml of ink would the Epson 3880 consume on a similar size (13x19 or thereabouts)?

I liked the reviews on the Canon 100 - the dye doesn't bother me because I"m convinced my images won't be in the Smithsonian at this point, and 50 years seems pretty good.  And I anticipate lower volumes.  But the size limitation is something I think I cannot rationalize - I was in a fog reading the specs and assumed they were the same as the Epson.

Anyway, if people are buying this printer at $35 or even $100 - I still think its a good deal and will be happy to take it off your hands if you don't like it.

 

PS:  Saw one advertised on Ebay for $200 Canadian (after USD conversion) and with shipping and import charges from New York it comes in close to $300 - which doesn't make it worth the bother.  Sucks to be Canadian eh.

[Bullfrog]

I'm still planning on getting an IPF6400 24" plotter sometime this fall so the 1880 wasn't really conisdered. The 1880 and 6400 seemed to be too close to overlapping. The pro-100 is a little smaller and should fit my space nicely, serve as a learning tool and give me something to print small images and cards on. The pro-100 and IPF6400 seem to be totally different animals and more complimentary of each other. Add in the initial cost, refilling the cartridges and the pro-100 becomes a useful printer. I think it's going to be just fine for my modest needs. If my printing experience with the pro-100 turns into a total disaster I might scrap the idea of the ipf6400. This printer is going to be my "training wheels"..

Nothing wrong with that.  I dont know the 1880 - and I have the 6100 not the 6400 - the only decision I've landed on it that my 6100 doesn't do b/w well and the Epson 3880 appears to be exceptional. Plus I can use the Piezo (spelling) inks and convert if I choose.

You got a great deal - and i'm jealous.  So don't be discouraged by the ink costs, you can still make a lot of prints for the few hundred you saved in purchase cost.

[Sal Baker]

Yeah, no kidding.  Although its not the size of the cart that bothers me, its the cost per ml.  The canon printer ink is double the cost of Epson on a per ml basis.  In Vistek, the price of Canon ink is $1.56 - and Epson .8 cents a ml.  

Then there's the actual ink usage which is another whole topic.  My Canon Image Prograf 6100 uses ink very sparingly and doesn't throw a ton down the sink in cleaning routines.   I think actual ink costs for a 24x36 is probably not more than the Canon 100 for a 13x19.  

On the other hand, the Epson printers seem to have a reputation for being ink cannibals.

If the OP is saying Canon 100 is $3.00 a print - at Canadian costs that 2 ml of ink a print.  At US costs, maybe its close to 3 ml a print.

How many ml of ink would the Epson 3880 consume on a similar size (13x19 or thereabouts)?

I only print for my own needs and have never bothered to calculate cost per print.  I'm sure someone here has that calculation.

When comparing printers it's helpful to look at individual models within each brand.  I don't know about the other pro Epson printers, but the 3880 seems to print sparingly.  And more importantly, there's little to no ink waste from head cleanings.  I haven't had a head clog in 4-years, and I'm still using a few of the original 80ml carts that came with the printer.  The other carts lasted more than 3-years.  The other big ink savings for me is I only print on luster papers so I'm not dumping ink for the black switch. 

The 3880 is an excellent choice for those who want to print larger than 13-inches wide, but only print occasionally and don't print enough volume to keep one of the bigger beasts from clogging.

Sal

[Bullfrog]

Well Sal, you and many others have sold me on the 3880 - I too have low volumes and don't want the thing to clog or die due to under-use.  It really seems to be an exceptional printer (the 3880) and I have yet to read a bad review. 

I have this 6100 and am happy with the canvas colour prints and its been very good so far in reliability (I"m approaching year 5 and still have not had to service it or replace parts)  but the 3880 is definitely on the list for b/w.  The size is big enough for what I think my market will yield.  Hopefully by Christmas.

Thanks for posting.

[hugowolf]

How many ml of ink would the Epson 3880 consume on a similar size (13x19 or thereabouts)?

Red River Paper has some analysis of this: http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing.html

Brian A

[arlon]

Printer sheduled for delivery tomorrow. I ordered the Precisiopn Color inks and a second set of originals. I think a second set of tanks to rotate with refilled ink is going to be my way to play for awhile. Since this is basically a training exercise, I figure to use a lot of ink printing frivilous things. I ordered the 4oz refills, that should be enough ink to last me a year assuming I can master the refill process.

[Bullfrog]

Red River Paper has some analysis of this: http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing.html

Brian A

This is really great info.  A Canon 100 13x19 is $2.70 based on ink cost of $16.99 per cartridge. 
Canada  pricing is $19.99 - so without pro-rating, I estimate 20% and round to $3.20

The Epson is $2.00  based on ink cost of $54.99
Canada pricing is $65 - so rough prorating, that's 20% increase or $2.40 - less for non-matte.

Ink costs about 40% more from Canon. 

That Epson is looking better every day.
 

[hugowolf]

This is really great info.  A Canon 100 13x19 is $2.70 based on ink cost of $16.99 per cartridge. 
Canada  pricing is $19.99 - so without pro-rating, I estimate 20% and round to $3.20

The Epson is $2.00  based on ink cost of $54.99
Canada pricing is $65 - so rough prorating, that's 20% increase or $2.40 - less for non-matte.

Ink costs about 40% more from Canon.

And look at the ink costs of the Canon Pro 10 (pigment), they are even higher than the Pro 100.

Brian A

[Bullfrog]

Actually, I never considered these small printers until this thread and was surprised at the quality and the reviews.  It really is a great little printer for a low volume person who wants something nice but doesn't have a need for wide format roll printing.  

But yeah, the ink fix is like heroin to photo junkies - and I have no doubt this is where they make their profit.

Some years ago I recall a big write up about HP and their ink jet printers (I'm talking office printers now) and how the cartridges were designed to empty at a per-ordained time regardless of usage (some kind of chip technology).  Take it with the appropriate grain of salt as it was years ago and my brain could be dead - but I do know it was HP.  Anyway, it stuck and I've developed a cynicism about the whole genre because of it.

Is it Stockholm syndrome or just peer pressure - I don't know.  But I have to admit that in spite of the obvious "gaming", I still bought a giclee printer and worse, I am here, looking for my next fix.
 

[MHMG]

Some years ago I recall a big write up about HP and their ink jet printers (I'm talking office printers now) and how the cartridges were designed to empty at a per-ordained time regardless of usage (some kind of chip technology).  Take it with the appropriate grain of salt as it was years ago and my brain could be dead - but I do know it was HP.  Anyway, it stuck and I've developed a cynicism about the whole genre because of it.

Any major company pulling that stunt would have faced a big time class action law suit here in the U.S.  Chalk that one up to urban myth.

[Bullfrog]

Any major company pulling that stunt would have faced a big time class action law suit here in the U.S.  Chalk that one up to urban myth.

Now you have me googling to see.   I don't think I'm making this up but it was years ago, so I am sketchy on details.  Maybe it was a myth.

Here in Canada - we don't have class actions suits, we still believe that Santa knows who is naughty or nice.

ETA:  What are the odds, there WAS A class action lawsuit in the US against HP and it was settled recently.  Seems Santa got it right.
 

Here`s a quote from the article:

With a $1 billion investment, HP developed the smart chip, which it said improved printer performance by reporting to the consumer when ink levels were low.

In reality, according to the plaintiffs, the chips send premature and false messages that ink-jet printers are out of ink when the printer cartridge is far from empty and capable of printing hundreds of extra pages, spurring consumers to buy more ink cartridges.

The chip also steers printer owners to an HP-sponsored website to purchase replacement ink far before the cartridges run out, according to the complaint.

http://www.law360.com/articles/174716/hp-to-settle-smart-chip-printer-class-action


Next article states the suit was brought about in 2007.

http://www.law360.com/articles/16736/customers-bring-suit-over-hp-printer-cartridges?article_related_content=1

[MHMG]

Now you have me googling to see.   I don't think I'm making this up but it was years ago, so I am sketchy on details.  Maybe it was a myth.

Here in Canada - we don't have class actions suits, we still believe that Santa knows who is naughty or nice.

ETA:  What are the odds, there WAS A class action lawsuit in the US against HP and it was settled recently.  Seems Santa got it right.
 

Here`s a quote from the article:

With a $1 billion investment, HP developed the smart chip, which it said improved printer performance by reporting to the consumer when ink levels were low.

In reality, according to the plaintiffs, the chips send premature and false messages that ink-jet printers are out of ink when the printer cartridge is far from empty and capable of printing hundreds of extra pages, spurring consumers to buy more ink cartridges.

The chip also steers printer owners to an HP-sponsored website to purchase replacement ink far before the cartridges run out, according to the complaint.

http://www.law360.com/articles/174716/hp-to-settle-smart-chip-printer-class-action


Next article states the suit was brought about in 2007.

http://www.law360.com/articles/16736/customers-bring-suit-over-hp-printer-cartridges?article_related_content=1

Yes, I have heard numerous complaints about erroneous low ink levels being registered on printers made by all of the big three printer platforms, i.e, Canon, Hp, and Epson. That's not quite the same as a printer's software/hardware diagnostics evaluating a cartridge's install date and if old enough then declaring it "empty" rather than "beyond recommended shelf life".  Anyway, please keep us all informed if your google searching turns up evidence HP had to pay out real dollars on this specific complaint. I will then stand corrected. BTW, I've run printers from HP, Epson, and Canon well beyond "recommended" shelf life of the ink cartridges. Never had a printer message saying it was time to replace the inks unless they really were low. But there's the rub. The "low" indication usually allows the customer to keep printing for several sheets or more before the cartridge is truly empty. So, if you are spooked and anxious not to let the cartridge fully run out due to the printer's "low" warning, then indeed the manufacturers are tricking you into replacing a cartridge before you really need to. I suspect that issue of "low" versus "empty" is at the heart of these class action law suits.

best,
Mark

[Bullfrog]

Yes, I have heard numerous complaints about erroneous low ink levels being registered on printers made by all of the big three printer platforms, i.e, Canon, Hp, and Epson. That's not quite the same as a printer's software/hardware diagnostics evaluating a cartridge's install date and if old enough then declaring it "empty" rather than "beyond recommended shelf life".  Anyway, please keep us all informed if your google searching turns up evidence HP had to pay out real dollars on this specific complaint. I will then stand corrected. BTW, I've run printers from HP, Epson, and Canon well beyond "recommended" shelf life of the ink cartridges. Never had a printer message saying it was time to replace the inks unless they really were low. But there's the rub. The "low" indication usually allows the customer to keep printing for several sheets or more before the cartridge is truly empty. So, if you are spooked and anxious not to let the cartridge fully run out due to the printer's "low" warning, then indeed the manufacturers are tricking you into replacing a cartridge before you really need to. I suspect that issue of "low" versus "empty" is at the heart of these class action law suits.

best,
Mark

Read the first law article relating to chip which I extrapolated.  (The second was posted in error and is on a different issue relating to shelf-life ).

It says: 
Law360, New York (June 14, 2010, 6:13 PM ET) -- Hewlett-Packard Co. has agreed to settle a class action claiming that not only do “smart chips” embedded in HP printers not live up to their performance-boosting promises but actually end up costing consumers extra money to operate.

Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a joint stipulation Friday indicating that the parties would file official settlement papers in less than a month.

The parties explained in a June 3 court filing that a preliminary settlement had been reached,..

*********************
Anyway, as I said, I own a printer, I buy ink, I`m not `spooked`or ànxious` - I simply made an off the cuff remark about HP , you called me on it, so I posted the class action suit to demonstrate it wasn`t my imagination.  

I bought a canon 6100 printer and it warns me of low ink use but I can still print and actually, Canon allows you to change cartridges on the fly which is really the most cost efficient ink replacement service out there.   I avoid doing it because while they claim it will work flawlessly, I don`t want to risk the print `banding`for the 30 or 50 seconds it sits idle waiting for new ink.   I do let it run down very low and as far as canon wide format printers go, I have no complaints about ink useage - it was one of the selling points of the machine.

Canon also has a matt and black ink which further avoids unnecessary ink loss switching between media.  This was heavily marketed as an advantage over the Epson printers (HP wasn`t really mentioned as I recall)

cheers

[arlon]

What's HP legal issues have to do with my pro-100??

It's out for delivery... (-:}
Red River paper samples arrived, downloaded the color profiles, Spydered the monitor, extra ink arrived... All I need is for the BBT to show at the door and then to find a picture worthy of printing (probably the hardest part).


BBT arrived. Took an hr to get it set up and running. Made the first print through PS Elements 11 on the prepackaged luster paper with a Canon luster color profile. Picture came out way better than I was expecting. I think this will add a new dimension to the whole photography game for me. Something new to learn is always fun.

[Bullfrog]

What's HP legal issues have to do with my pro-100??

Sorry.  You are right.  It was an off the cuff comment not intended to turn into a diatribe and my apologies for the hi-jack. 

[arlon]

Sorry.  You are right.  It was an off the cuff comment not intended to turn into a diatribe and my apologies for the hi-jack. 

I was kind of entertaining though! (-:}

[Bullfrog]

I was kind of entertaining though! (-:}

I am your humble servant, here to entertain.



And did you notice, I was right and he was wrong.  Ha.  

Back on topic:

I'm reading your comments about paper and compatibility with ink and will be following your updates to find out what works.  If I could get a printer for $35 with free paper I would still think its worth the effort to find out but (my opinion only) i think you will find a new learning curve all over again if you opt for a 6400 -