Reading mode: Light Dark

Epsom struggling

Go to last post
wilfredmrand said:
For print quality and color gamut, no other consideration, hands
down it's the Canon i9900. Even the people in our shipping
department can spot the brilliance of an i9900 print. Printed on
the right paper and handled with a little extra care, it will be a
100 year print - but without that care, longevity is admittedly the
Canon weak spot.
Click to expand...
Oh, BTW, what do you refer to as "little extra care" based upon your Canon experience?

Generally I have not been a Canon printer fan, they seemed a bit "behind the times" a few generations ago. As it seems they have caught back up now I would like to catch up, and asking for honest opinions from a current user is probably the best way ^ ^

Thanks in advance.
 
While I agree to a large extent, many canon printers are flimsy too. On my old i550 you had to pull out two sheets of plastic, one for the paper feed and one for the output. These were flimsy plastic, and one broke off in my hands, albeit after 3+ years of moderate use.

As for drivers, I could get the i550 running even on Linux using cups, and the drivers offered MORE control than the windoze drivers :) It did fine on windoze too.
Andrew Booth said:
Poor drivers, flimsy plastic printers (even the expensive ones),
lock-in on the cartridges, short lifetime, unreliable technology
(print heads not in ink carts)
Click to expand...
 
Because they put themselves into this situation. Their product is fine and their technology is still pretty good and likely to remain competetive. Its their way of marketing and distribution that hurts them.

Not to say the competetion is not to blame, especially after the way HP and Canon sell printer at undercut price and profit on inks. Overall consumer and mid raneg inkjet market is unhealthy by all account ..

--
Franka
 
I looked at prints from the Canon and the Epson R1800 and R2400 and the Epsons were the hands down winners -- both were better than the Canon. In addition, the prints will last MUCH MUCH longer and won't fade like the Canon prints are prone to. In addition there is a wider variety of paper and profiles available for the Epsons -- every paper manufacturer supports the Epson with profiles and many just ignore the Canon.

It was no competetion. The Epson is much better for producing photo-quality prints and give the use much more choice, flexibility and longevity. The Canon might be a litle faster, but that's it.
wilfredmrand said:
No question epson results are extremely good, and the untrained eye
would struggle to see the difference in most prints - from a color
gamut standpoint, however, the hands down winner is the i9900D,
which has been documented by numerous sources. Probably the only
reason why this printer model survived Canon's update to 'Pixma.'
The tradeoff is Epson's print longevity (Ultrachrome) and
flexibility (prints on just about anything).
--
Wilfred M Rand
http://www.pbase.com/wilfredmrand/
Click to expand...
 
--
'Art is a lie that tells the truth.'
Pablo Picasso
'Time flies like arrows, fruit flies like bananas.'
Groucho Marx
 
It's "EpsoN", not "EpsoM"......everytime I see this spellling error it gives me a fit of laughter, LOL....

(was drinking a good cup of Earl Grey Tea, still wiping the keyboard, LOL)

--
Photos speak louder than words.....let's all post more photos.
 
I must be weird, my 2200 has never clogged over the years. When the paper feed mechanism broke a week before the warranty ended, they shipped a new printer and inks and then paid to send the other back. Even when I asked them to hold on to the replacement printer until I got back from Europe, they did so. I always got through pretty decently on the phone, faster than any computer maker, Dell, Gateway or Apple by far. Their cartridges seem to be cheaper than HP, the drivers are fine (I mean the updated icc ones).

I would like Canon to succeed just to put more market pressure on Epson, but I have had a fine experience with them.
--
http://www.pixelmap.com
 
is beyond any doubt the Canon MP130

not only is it a simple all-in-one - but the cartridges are ridiculously cheap. They've stopped making them now - I just managed to get one. Just paid £9.- pounds for 6 cartridges - 3 colour and 3 black.
 
because of the stupidly-high prices they charge for their easily-dried out ink cartridges. If the cartridges do not dry out, then you have to waste loads of ink unblocking them! I assume that when (far cheaper) colour laser printer technology improves (currently good enough for graphics but not quite for photos) inkjet printers will die out. There must be many tens/hundreds of thousands of "impulse-bought" injet printers lying unused in households because their owners cannot afford to use them, or cannot be bothered to spend hour upon hour trying to print out an image that looks (colour-wise) the same as what they can see on their monitor!
 
I was wandering about the local supply store and went to the printer consumables section. My heart did a double take when I looked at the HP ink prices. Unbelievable. They're 4-5x the cost of canon inks. Epson is no different.

I simply send my JPEGs to the local Fuji lab, and the prints are back in half an hour. Excellent quality and long life... and did I mention long life? Yes, longer than you'd ever get from an inkjet with those exorbitant inks.
 
The HP Design Jets are very cheap to run. If you think color lasers will compete, just go out and price the toner replacements for one. It'll be way more than the printer cost.
 
koni12 said:
And Canon non-pigment inks fade quickly.
Click to expand...
i cant say that i have noticed that yet but you may be right.

truthfully, any inkjet print to me is only a short term solution anyway. if i want something to last a long time i will get a real photographic print. i dont find the cost of doing inkjet prints in quantitiy really makes any sense. they are nice and convienent when you need something nice and quick. my frequency of printing is very irregular. sometimes quite a few and mostly not too much. epson printers arent tolerant of sitting for a week or two without clogging. the company is a joke in my opinion. i dont care if their prints look good. fact of the matter is canon's look good too. canon does have a slightly different look but its just as qualified in my book. both do a fine job. the difference is canon doesnt give you the grief that the epson does.

inkjets to me are only for proofing.

epson could go belly up and for all i care. their performance of funtionality is a joke.

david
http://www.davidprobst.com
 
what "koni12" was talking about was "fading REALLY fast". The last time (about 3 years ago) I checked into the low-end HP consumer inks they faded badly in about 3 years (information direct from HP); Epson on the other hand, at that time, was talking about 14 to 17 years of life.

I have an Epson 1280 and it delivers beautiful prints but is very expensive to run and clogs easily (almost on a daily basis); previous to this I had a 1270 (which I broke) that never had clogs. For sure the next "general purpose" color printer I buy will be a Canon (but I won't be printing pictures on it).

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
 
megapixeldave said:
koni12 said:
And Canon non-pigment inks fade quickly.
Click to expand...
i cant say that i have noticed that yet but you may be right.
Click to expand...
I have. I've only owned Canon inkjets, but Canon will definitely be crossed off my list if I decide to buy another inkjet. I now buy dye-sublimination printers -- the paper used in dye-subs is so much more durable and it won't dry out your fingers if you run them accross the print (inkjet paper will suck the oil right off your fingers).

--
dgrogers

http://www.pbase.com/drog
 
I am admittedly an espon devotee, but I have to say that until the recent flurry of pigment printers from HP and Canon, Epson had the longevity crown tied up. We will have to wait and see how HP and Canon's pogment products hold up over time. Will they clog too?

As for the "archival" solutions that HP and Canon had in the past with their dye printers, I am not impressed. Both depended upon swellable polymer papers which are not waterproof and still lag behind the pigment printers for longevity. Furthermore, the dye/swellable polymer printers not only locked you into one vendor for inks, but also papers. Finally, these printers lacked a quality matte paper solution.

I cringe every time I go into a public place and see an inkjet with the telltale magenta shift--leaving a cyan looking abomination on the wall.

Canon and HP make great prints with their dye printers. We will see if they extend that record to pigment. Until then, I will stick with the 2400--warts and all.
 
epson 1280 + MIS Eboni Black using "black only" cartridge + Red River "Dourin or Aurora Art" paper = Archival to 100+ years.

but that's all i do...black and white. color goes to adoramapix or the like.

also, black & white prints go immediately into these for my viewing pleasure: http://itoya.com/Catalogs/Profolio/Profolio_html/Art_profolio.htm

epson 1280 does clog on and when it does it's not fun. however, it makes awesome "black only" prints.
 
I have a Epson Stylus Pro7600 UltraChrome Ink (pigment Ink) for over 3yrs and I think I've only had a problem twice. To clean the head on a epson1280 fold part of a damp kitchen paper towel and slide it under the print head and leave it there over night. That has opened the heads when no amount of flushing did. But that's the 1280.

HR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top