Have you switched from Epson to Canon?

[mg73]

Used epsons for ab out 10 years, 2400, 4880, 7600.  Wanted to buy a 44" about 6 mos ago and researched between the epson 9900 and canon ipf8400.  Finally took the plunge with the canon 8400 mostly due to the ability to swap print heads.  Although I loved the epson print quality, the repeated issues with block print heads and cleaning cycles pushed me over to canon.  I've been very happy with the canon 8400.  No problems at all.  To my eye the print quality is no different than the Epsons.  The only issue for me has been that I always used epson papers before.  Of course there are no public ICC profiles for epson papers available for canon printers.  Most non epson paper manufactures provide profiles for the canon printers so I've just moved away from epson papers.  For the one espon paper I continue to use, I just had a custom profile made for it.

[Roscolo]

+1 for Canon.

I run Canon ipf8300 44" and HP z3100 44". One area where the z3100 outshines the Canon is gloss differential. With Canon there is very little. With the z3100, there is absolutely none thanks to gloss optimizer. Clogging and nozzle checks and wasted time, ink and paper are why I abandoned Epson. Best advantage my Canon and HP printers have over Epson: NO CLOGS.

[BrianWJH]

+1 for Canon.

Best advantage my Canon and HP printers have over Epson: NO CLOGS

As we know, clogs do in fact occur in the Canon printers it's just that the clogging is transparent to the user because of the nozzle remapping.

I'd be interested to know if the remapping has any effect on print quality as the print head becomes increasingly clogged and unused nozzles become harder to find.

Brian.

[Czornyj]

As we know, clogs do in fact occur in the Canon printers it's just that the clogging is transparent to the user because of the nozzle remapping.

I'd be interested to know if the remapping has any effect on print quality as the print head becomes increasingly clogged and unused nozzles become harder to find.

Brian.

It doesn't have any effect on print quality. I also had Epson SP7880 that I switched to Canon iPF6350, then to iPF8300 - never looked back.

[gbillett]

Awaiting supply of ipf6400 to replace my 5 years old 3800. 

I returned 1 month ago from a 6 week trip to India and was asked to print 10 x A2 prints for a friend promoting an amateur dramatics play he was performing in.  I found I had a magenta clog which eventually cleared using up a lot of ink in the process.  Went to print again last week for a small local exhibition and again it was clogged - magenta and black.  Tried 3 head cleans which failed to clear it.  Pondered for 4 days over whether to continue throwing ink at a 5 year old printer or upgrade.  Decided to upgrade to ipf6400.  Being delivered early next week :-)

Epson lost me due to its ( apparently increasing ) poor reputation for clogging ( especially in larger printers purchased by moderate users ) and non-interchangeability of its heads.  Larger ink carts ( 300ml ) also makes ink costs cheaper.  Makes sense to be able to change heads as and when required myself rather than be dependent on Epson. 

So I now have a still clogged 3800 printer for sale with 4 unused ink cartridges!! 

[alain]

As we know, clogs do in fact occur in the Canon printers it's just that the clogging is transparent to the user because of the nozzle remapping.
...
Brian.

The question is the nr of replacement heads one has to buy.  At about 400 euro's per head (there are two inside a ipf6400) this can be substantial, should they need a yearly replacement.

It's off course a lot better than a defect printer or lot's of clogs.

[Luca Ragogna]

I switched from an Epson 9890 to a Canon ipf8400. Colour is marginally better as can be expected going from an 8 colour to a 12 colour machine. I think it would be pretty much on par with the 9900 or 11880.

Paper handling is a bit better with the Epsons especially with sheets. Loading rolls is no big deal with the Canons but sheets can be a PITA until you get the hang of it. I've printed more this year with the Canon than I did last year with the Epson but my overall ink costs are MUCH lower even though my square inch ink costs average around $.65 with the Canon vs. $.50 with the Epson. Much fewer cleanings. I still have a few of the original ink carts that came with the machine.

I have replaced one head. I ran a nozzle check and had a very slightly deflected nozzle in the Blue channel, called Canon support and they couriered me a replacement. Swapped it out and sent back the old one with zero downtime. The replacement heads come with a 1 year warranty so if anything happens I'm covered. I'm pretty sure that I could replace both heads every 366 days and still be ahead with the money saved by not doing all the head cleans that the Epson does.

Also when the head clogged on the Epson, I was down for over a week while I tried to sort out service options. Mainly because none of the service guys up here wanted to call me back. Canon diagnosed the issue over the phone, asked me to email a photo of my receipt and then shipped me a new head. The entire process was less than an hour, including the 10 minutes I waited on hold for a tech.

Also, the Canon software is much better, I can set up custom papers in the printer and get very accurate reporting (on a PC) which I couldn't really do on the Epson.

Overall, I think Canon is making the better machines right now. With this printer there's a lot less messing around. I just load paper and print.

[jferrari]

my square inch ink costs average around $.65 with the Canon vs. $.50 with the Epson.

Per square inch???   Must be that Canadian math!

[Luca Ragogna]

You know, that's the second time I've done that on this forum.

[Mike Sellers]

Hi,
Have you considered one of the Roland printers with metallic inks? It seems like the possibilities for printing on various substrates for wall décor are numerous plus the special effects of the metallic inks are a plus. Here is the latest version  http://rolanddga.com/products/printers/xf/

[Farmer]

The solvent printers (Roland, Epson, Mutoh, Mimaki, etc etc) are becoming more popular but only where sufficient volume exists.  The entry costs (price of printer) is higher compared to an aqueous based ink printer, but the ink-costs are lower, but the maintenance costs (and requirements) are higher.

The results from many of them are excellent.

[hdomke]

The solvent printers (Roland, Epson, Mutoh, Mimaki, etc etc) are becoming more popular but only where sufficient volume exists.

I did extensive testing of Epson's newest solvent printer, the S70. I was unable to get prints that came close to the quality of the 11880.

I suspect solvent prints will one day be the answer, but the quality is not there yet. I suppose it boils down to color gamut.

The chronic problems with the Epson 11880 is just not going away. I've made the decision to move to the Canon printers.

[Czornyj]

IMO SureColor S70670 is not a simple replacement for water based pigment inkjet printer. It provides quality similar to SP11880, but on specific media, and it's not that easy to get it out of the box. The major reason to get one is the lower running cost, when you'll finally manage to get expected results.

iPF9400 is a whole different animal - it's as easy and user friendly as it gets, you just plug&print.

[Farmer]

If you're looking for the same quality as aqueous on specialised media, then solvent won't do it.  If you're looking for commercially acceptable prints, with the additional of metallic, white and outdoor longevity on a wider variety of substrates with higher entry cost, lower running costs, higher maintenance requirements, then solvent is there.

[Pete Berry]

No real expertise or conscious bias here. I use a new 3880 recently purchased to replace a 3800 that died after almost seven years of moderate amateur use, mostly with matte papers. I have always used Epson printers, have speculated about Canons but I know almost no one who uses a Canon wide format printer. I just wonder if there is a significantly smaller installed user base of Canons and that that accounts for the fewer apparent problems reported on user fora such as this, just wondering? Data anyone?

My personal data point is 7 years of iPF 5000-5100 usage. The generational heads are identical through the printer size range. Aside from two PF-01 heads replaced under warranty in the first year of the 5000 (with the newer PF-03's, each overnighted after a single tech support call!), the heads lasted over four years of moderate usage of about 500 sq ft/year. When they finally failed, with ample warning, I replaced the printer with the 5100 two and a half years ago without any failure signs to date. I've never printed a nozzle check aside from installation, never a forced cleaning cycle, and only maintenance is a self-calibration routine I run yearly.

Pete

[Noah Waldeck]

I did extensive testing of Epson's newest solvent printer, the S70. I was unable to get prints that came close to the quality of the 11880.

I suspect solvent prints will one day be the answer, but the quality is not there yet. I suppose it boils down to color gamut.

The chronic problems with the Epson 11880 is just not going away. I've made the decision to move to the Canon printers.

I know this is an older thread, but since I'm in the exact same boat of thinking of getting a Canon IPF9400 to replace my Epson, I was wondering if you had any feedback on how it was working out for you since you made the switch? Do you find the print quality comparable? Any thoughts you have would be greatly appreciated.

[hdomke]

Over 6-months ago I replaced my Epson 11880 with a Canon iPF9400.
My only regret is that I did not do it sooner.
So many fewer headaches!
Many fewer wasted prints.
No nozzle checkes.

I thought others might like to know.

[Wayne Fox]

Right now though, I wouldn’t do anything until I see where each is going.  The new Epson p600 and with the improved inkset will certainly be pushed up the line, and the print quality difference from what i’ve heard are not insignificant, especially in blacks and deeps shadows. Also the new Epson inks and heads may see improvements in nozzle management.

edit:  (I see this is an old thread ... deleted most of my response.  but this part above is still something to consider for those thinking of a new printer now)

[Phil Indeblanc]

When I switched from Epson some time back, I went to HP.
There was nothing in the Epson to make me think twice or want to switch back.
No company was giving me free printers or supplies, so I had to change out of such a system.

I'm very happy I made the change out of Epson.
I havn't used Canon, but I think it would be just as rewarding.

[Jglaser757]

Im Newbie, but??

I compared both printers and their output recently..A head to head competition.. I originally bought the 8400 based upon ease of use and ink set. However, there is a significant difference in the output. That is based upon the technology. The Epson will give better tones than the canon..ITs especially obvious in portrait work. The canon is a great printer, but even on landscapes there also significant difference. The best way to describe it is that the images are compressed. I can see the difference. The reason is based upon the technology and how they print and place ink on paper. Yes there are issues with clogging etc( i even have had a few issues recently on my new printer), but the output is amazing.  I even showed the prints to other experts in the field and they could tell difference right away.

Needless to say a week later I ordered the Epson 9900 and couldnt be happier with the output.

 just my .02c.