Epson 890 with 780

I'm looking around for my first photo printer.

Could anybody explain me the real difference between Epson 780 – 890? Why they differ in price more then twice? I carefully read their specifications at the Epson site, and I found only minor differences like 890 is a little bit quite, quicker on 4x6 prints but slower on 8x10 prints (?!) and accepts rolls of paper. Is this the only difference between them??

Also, please, answer whether my impression that Canon printers’ ink are match more expensive per page then Epson correct? $12x6 = $72 for Canon color cartridges with $18 for Epson, its look unlikely that Canon cartridges are 4 times bigger than Epsons.

Thank you

KD51285 said:

I'm looking around for my first photo printer.
Could anybody explain me the real difference between Epson 780
– 890? Why they differ in price more then twice?

Click to expand...

You've basically got it right. The 890 is quieter and can accept roll paper. One might assume the 890 is built better / more robust, but that would only be speculation. And since Epson recently reduced the price of the 780 to $130, it appears to be the best deal for a photo printer around.

KD51285 said:

Also, please, answer whether my impression that Canon
printers’ ink are match more expensive per page then Epson
correct? $12x6 = $72 for Canon color cartridges with $18 for Epson,
its look unlikely that Canon cartridges are 4 times bigger than
Epsons.

Click to expand...

That's not really accurate. Those Canon cartridges will last longer than the Epson's - so you'll get more prints. And since you only change the colors that actually run out on the Canon, you waste less ink. I don't think it is clear, however, that there is a substantial amount of ink costs savings with the Canon printers though. Certainly, you are paying for the individual packaging costs with the Canon carts. And if you print photos that use a lot of different colors, each color will probably be used at nearly the same rate. On the other hand, the photo colors (light magenta and light cyan) tend to be used more than the darker colors, so some ink will still be wasted. Ultimately, I would have to give the advantage to Canon for having separate ink tanks... there's no reason all the printer companies couldn't use this method to stop wasting so much ink...

Travis

Is there any real proof the canon carts will last longer than the Epson's? when I was buying my 785epx at the store, I saw the S800's ink carts, and they didn't look very big at all.

most of my color photo printing has been consuming all 5 inks at a relatively close level. Even if the canon lasted twice as long, your still only paying for $18 x 2 =$36 for the Epson, whereas an entire refill for the canon is $72, twice as much.

I understand the separate ink tank situation, but unless your printing 2 color pie charts all day long, I would suspect that the S800 will consume all 5 inks at a close ration, just like the Epson.

In theory, it seems like a good idea, but I think the cost of consumables doesn't really favor the canon since the replacements are so expensive.

Travis said:

Member said:

I'm looking around for my first photo printer.
Could anybody explain me the real difference between Epson 780
– 890? Why they differ in price more then twice?

Click to expand...

You've basically got it right. The 890 is quieter and can accept
roll paper. One might assume the 890 is built better / more
robust, but that would only be speculation. And since Epson
recently reduced the price of the 780 to $130, it appears to be the
best deal for a photo printer around.

Member said:

Also, please, answer whether my impression that Canon
printers’ ink are match more expensive per page then Epson
correct? $12x6 = $72 for Canon color cartridges with $18 for Epson,
its look unlikely that Canon cartridges are 4 times bigger than
Epsons.

Click to expand...

That's not really accurate. Those Canon cartridges will last
longer than the Epson's - so you'll get more prints. And since you
only change the colors that actually run out on the Canon, you
waste less ink. I don't think it is clear, however, that there is
a substantial amount of ink costs savings with the Canon printers
though. Certainly, you are paying for the individual packaging
costs with the Canon carts. And if you print photos that use a lot
of different colors, each color will probably be used at nearly the
same rate. On the other hand, the photo colors (light magenta and
light cyan) tend to be used more than the darker colors, so some
ink will still be wasted. Ultimately, I would have to give the
advantage to Canon for having separate ink tanks... there's no
reason all the printer companies couldn't use this method to stop
wasting so much ink...

Travis

Click to expand...

jason said:

Is there any real proof the canon carts will last longer than the
Epson's? when I was buying my 785epx at the store, I saw the S800's
ink carts, and they didn't look very big at all.

Click to expand...

When I had the Canon 8200, I printed approximately 60 8x10" photos before I had to change my first ink tank. To replace that tank cost me $12. To do that with my 870, I'd have to pay at least $40. These are retail prices. I thought about how many 8x10" prints I would get before I changed all the of the tanks once and I believe it'd be around 150. This would cost me approximately $72 with the Canon and $170 with my 870. So you can see there IS a savings and there's no wasted ink with the Canon at all.

jason51410 said:

most of my color photo printing has been consuming all 5 inks at a
relatively close level. Even if the canon lasted twice as long,
your still only paying for $18 x 2 =$36 for the Epson, whereas an
entire refill for the canon is $72, twice as much.
I understand the separate ink tank situation, but unless your
printing 2 color pie charts all day long, I would suspect that the
S800 will consume all 5 inks at a close ration, just like the Epson.

In theory, it seems like a good idea, but I think the cost of
consumables doesn't really favor the canon since the replacements
are so expensive.

Click to expand...

If you're referring to the ink level graphic in your 785's printer status panel, that's not the REAL levels. In the owner's manual it states that the ink level representation is only indicating the chamber with the LOWEST ink level. Besides that, those levels are merely estimated... not read directly. You really get to see how the inks are used when you have a Canon printer because you can take the tanks out and look at them. Your Light Cyan and Light Magenta will deplete MUCH faster than the other colors with the exception of Yellow when printing photos. When the first light color is depleted, the standard magenta and cyan are not quite half empty and the yellow is about a little bit more than half empty. That's what you're tossing away with that spent Epson ink cartridge. Actually, according to reports here, the "empty" chamber still has about 25% of the ink still in it.

Member said:

When I had the Canon 8200, I printed approximately 60 8x10" photos
before I had to change my first ink tank. To replace that tank cost
me $12. To do that with my 870, I'd have to pay at least $40. These
are retail prices. I thought about how many 8x10" prints I would
get before I changed all the of the tanks once and I believe it'd
be around 150. This would cost me approximately $72 with the Canon
and $170 with my 870. So you can see there IS a savings and there's
no wasted ink with the Canon at all.

Click to expand...

First of all, I would like to say right away that I think the individual ink tank innovation is good. And although I would not doubt that there is some savings, I have to seriously question your figures.

You say that your first ink tank needed to be replaced at appx 60 photos. And the last one needed to be replaced at appx 150. If your ink usage is consistent, then at 150 photos, you would have already replaced that first ink cartridge AGAIN plus used about 1/2 of ANOTHER one! Let me explain.

First of all, your figures seem to imply that you are using about 2.5 times as much of one color as another, which is in itself questionable. But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant that. Let's say that the Photo Cyan colo ran out at 60 photos, and so it was the first color you replaced. If your photo printing is consistent, then you'd need to replace THAT cartridge again when you reach 120 photos. And it would be about 1/2 empty again when you reach the 150 mark where you said all of them would have been replaced "once". Doesn't make sense.

At 150 photos, you would have replaced all carts at least once, which would total $72 (6 colors x $12/cart). But you would have replaced the first color already again ($12). And another 1/2 of that new cart would be gone too ($6). And it's safe to assume the other colors would be at differnent levels and may have needed to be replaced again by the time the last cart was replaced at 150 photos. It is no stretch, then, to assume that your ACTUAL cost at 150 photos on the 8200 was much closer to the $170 figure you quoted for your Epson. Could you also post the figures you used to come up with the $170 on the Epson?

I humbly apologize if I'm wrong and misunderstood your figures. And again, I'm not trying to disprove that there is no savings with the separate ink carts so don't EVEN think about jumping on me! (lighthearted emphasis added)

Travis said:

First of all, I would like to say right away that I think the
individual ink tank innovation is good. And although I would not
doubt that there is some savings, I have to seriously question your
figures.

You say that your first ink tank needed to be replaced at appx 60
photos. And the last one needed to be replaced at appx 150. If
your ink usage is consistent, then at 150 photos, you would have
already replaced that first ink cartridge AGAIN plus used about 1/2
of ANOTHER one! Let me explain.

First of all, your figures seem to imply that you are using about
2.5 times as much of one color as another, which is in itself
questionable. But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant that.
Let's say that the Photo Cyan colo ran out at 60 photos, and so it
was the first color you replaced. If your photo printing is
consistent, then you'd need to replace THAT cartridge again when
you reach 120 photos. And it would be about 1/2 empty again when
you reach the 150 mark where you said all of them would have been
replaced "once". Doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

The Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta do deplete about twice as fast as the standard Cyan and standard Magenta. The Yellow depletes about 60-75% as fast as the Photo colors. This is from my memory of what happened 6 months ago.

Member said:

At 150 photos, you would have replaced all carts at least once,
which would total $72 (6 colors x $12/cart). But you would have
replaced the first color already again ($12). And another 1/2 of
that new cart would be gone too ($6). And it's safe to assume the
other colors would be at differnent levels and may have needed to
be replaced again by the time the last cart was replaced at 150
photos. It is no stretch, then, to assume that your ACTUAL cost at
150 photos on the 8200 was much closer to the $170 figure you
quoted for your Epson. Could you also post the figures you used to
come up with the $170 on the Epson?

I humbly apologize if I'm wrong and misunderstood your figures.
And again, I'm not trying to disprove that there is no savings with
the separate ink carts so don't EVEN think about jumping on me!
(lighthearted emphasis added)

Click to expand...

OK, you've got me. I messed up. It has been about 6 months since I had the 8200 and I see that I counted the first batch of Epson ink but not the Canon's. OK, let's use your 120 8x10" prints figure. I get about 25 8x10s per Epson color ink cartridge (T008) which costs about $20 and 75 from the black in cartridge (T007) which costs about $25. So I'd have to buy 5 T008 ink cartridges. That would cost about $100. I'd also have to buy the T007 so that's $25 more. With the Canon, I'd have to buy all the colors once to start out with so that's about $72. Then I'd have to replace the Photo Cyan, Photo Magenta, and Yellow once each which before one of the photo colors would deplete again. This would cost about $36 bringing the total for this batch of 120 prints to about $108 which is $17 less than what it cost to do the same amount on the Epson. Actually, you could do about 5 more prints on the Epson though because there'll still be enough color ink left for that many. It's really difficult to keep track of the ink tanks on the Canon if you don't print constantly.

Member said:

The Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta do deplete about twice as fast as
the standard Cyan and standard Magenta. The Yellow depletes about
60-75% as fast as the Photo colors. This is from my memory of what
happened 6 months ago.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt your experience and I find it quite possible. On my 1280, I found (over time) that the Photo colors do get used up faster with Yellow not too far behind. Regular Cyan and Magenta not so much. So in that respect, I would highly agree that using separate ink tanks wastes less ink... but it's unclear how much (if any) money it really saves.

Member said:

This would cost about $36 bringing the
total for this batch of 120 prints to about $108 which is $17 less
than what it cost to do the same amount on the Epson. Actually, you
could do about 5 more prints on the Epson though because there'll
still be enough color ink left for that many. It's really difficult
to keep track of the ink tanks on the Canon if you don't print
constantly.

Click to expand...

Although certainly not determinate, that's sound more in line to what I would expect. I'm sure it is difficult to compute the cost on the Canon since you aren't paying for everything at the same time. At any rate, I didn't challenge your figures in order to prove one is better than the other - something just didn't sound right and I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part (thanks for correcting it).

Also, thanks for not getting defensive with me when I replied. I hoped I didn't sound too disrespectful since I figured you just hadn't thought of the extra ink you would have been using in the mean time until the last cart ran out.

Take care,
Travis