Epson vs. Canon

I love the printing quality of Epson I hate them though in terms of mechanical quality but in particular the nozzles clogging.

It is basically impossible to use occasionally the Epsons that I got without having to do long heads cleaning ( a big waste of ink as well).

So I was thinking to move to Canon, I saw nice reviews about the S900, now the questions:

1) Is it as good as Epson? I bought always Epson although they were always disfunctional the printing quality was impossible to match. Did Canon catch up?

2) Is it always ready to print or I’ve to “wash” the heads every single time (like the Epson)?

3) Can I use the Epson glossy paper (I have quite a lot in different formats) ?

4) Is the cost/copy higher or lower than Epson ? (I’m talking exclusively about photo printing, I use a laser for text)

5) Is the material (ink, paper) easy to find just like the Epson?

Thanks to all of you. BTW is someone has the big Epson and doesn’t have the problems that I had, let me know please.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Gabriele Sartori said:

I love the printing quality of Epson I hate them though in terms of
mechanical quality but in particular the nozzles clogging.
It is basically impossible to use occasionally the Epsons that I
got without having to do long heads cleaning ( a big waste of ink
as well).

So I was thinking to move to Canon, I saw nice reviews about the
S900, now the questions:

1) Is it as good as Epson? I bought always Epson although they were
always disfunctional the printing quality was impossible to match.
Did Canon catch up?

2) Is it always ready to print or I’ve to “wash” the heads every
single time (like the Epson)?

3) Can I use the Epson glossy paper (I have quite a lot in
different formats) ?

4) Is the cost/copy higher or lower than Epson ? (I’m talking
exclusively about photo printing, I use a laser for text)

5) Is the material (ink, paper) easy to find just like the Epson?

Thanks to all of you. BTW is someone has the big Epson and doesn’t
have the problems that I had, let me know please.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Click to expand...

--

I Have the s9000 and use epson papers as I had a lot left aswell it's easily as good as the epsons and a lot lot faster.
J.H.

Yes, Canon has caught up...some say surpass Epson.

Plus the Canon is faster.....the reason this is important in work flow is:
Seeing results faster, lets you make corrections faster.
You just learn better/faster.

If the Epson said because it was slower, it was BUT better, that might be a compelling arguement.

But my experience shows Canon is as good image quality, maybe better,
AND it's faster.
The Canon S9000 does a 13X19 FULL color in 4 minutes !

Instead, Epson spends $ developing scemes trying to foil users from bulk re-inking. (and failed, of course).
Why not spend that $ on better/faster drivers ?

Buy the Canon.

Gabriele Sartori said:

I love the printing quality of Epson I hate them though in terms of
mechanical quality but in particular the nozzles clogging.
It is basically impossible to use occasionally the Epsons that I
got without having to do long heads cleaning ( a big waste of ink
as well).

Click to expand...

Consider the new HP printers, the quality of the results are hard to beat, altho they are a little slow.

--
Mike Tichon

I'll take a chance and run against the current sentiment. My friend at work just got a S9000. I was very interested since I have a 1200. He suggested I give him a file to print and compare the two, same size, to my 1200. I was originally interested because he posted a number of 8x10s in his work area and the pictures had a lot of snap. He ran off a 13 x 19 and it was an eye opener. Apparently the S9000 applies a hefty amount of processing because the colors were very saturated, detail was lost and there were lots of sharpening artifacts all over the picture. I am not sure a printer can apply sharpening so I have to assume it was something else, perhaps the saturation.

Certainly one shouldn't base an opinion on one single bit of evidence, but I've seen a lot of images from this printer with an Olympus and Nikon 5000. I bought the 1280.

Rich Gibson

Bimthecat said:

Yes, Canon has caught up...some say surpass Epson.

Plus the Canon is faster.....the reason this is important in work
flow is:
Seeing results faster, lets you make corrections faster.
You just learn better/faster.

If the Epson said because it was slower, it was BUT better, that
might be a compelling arguement.

But my experience shows Canon is as good image quality, maybe better,
AND it's faster.
The Canon S9000 does a 13X19 FULL color in 4 minutes !

Instead, Epson spends $ developing scemes trying to foil users from
bulk re-inking. (and failed, of course).
Why not spend that $ on better/faster drivers ?

Buy the Canon.

Click to expand...

I had the Canon S800, and it was a very nice printer. However, I recently picked up the Epson 2200, and I must say it blows the Canon away as far as quality. Yes, it's a little slower, but my prints are so much better. I would not go back to Canon. My personal opinion though. Nothing wrong with the Canons...Nothing at all. I just prefer the Epson.

Teski

Gabriele Sartori said:

I love the printing quality of Epson I hate them though in terms of
mechanical quality but in particular the nozzles clogging.
It is basically impossible to use occasionally the Epsons that I
got without having to do long heads cleaning ( a big waste of ink
as well).

So I was thinking to move to Canon, I saw nice reviews about the
S900, now the questions:

1) Is it as good as Epson? I bought always Epson although they were
always disfunctional the printing quality was impossible to match.
Did Canon catch up?

2) Is it always ready to print or I’ve to “wash” the heads every
single time (like the Epson)?

3) Can I use the Epson glossy paper (I have quite a lot in
different formats) ?

4) Is the cost/copy higher or lower than Epson ? (I’m talking
exclusively about photo printing, I use a laser for text)

5) Is the material (ink, paper) easy to find just like the Epson?

Thanks to all of you. BTW is someone has the big Epson and doesn’t
have the problems that I had, let me know please.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Click to expand...

Mike Tichon wrote:

Mike, can you give me a few numbers on the new HPs you are talking about? For example, the 7150 or what?

Thanks.

Troy

Mike Tichon said:

Gabriele Sartori said:

I love the printing quality of Epson I hate them though in terms of
mechanical quality but in particular the nozzles clogging.
It is basically impossible to use occasionally the Epsons that I
got without having to do long heads cleaning ( a big waste of ink
as well).

Click to expand...

Consider the new HP printers, the quality of the results are hard
to beat, altho they are a little slow.

--
Mike Tichon

Click to expand...

--
Love the ocean love the beach come visit Virginia Beach (VA USA)
My galleries: http://www.pbase.com/troysup

Troy Tripamer said:

Mike Tichon wrote:
Mike, can you give me a few numbers on the new HPs you are talking
about? For example, the 7150 or what?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Troy, it's the Photosmart 7350. There is a review of it on Steve's Digicams site. If you search my name, I posted the link in a message last night. The only con I see so far on this printer is that the paper handling is a little clunky, as some old paper I had jammed in printing. It may be the paper. So far, the prints are better than what I received from ofoto, which I will never use again.
--
Mike Tichon

teski said:

I had the Canon S800, and it was a very nice printer. However, I
recently picked up the Epson 2200, and I must say it blows the
Canon away as far as quality. Yes, it's a little slower, but my
prints are so much better. I would not go back to Canon. My
personal opinion though. Nothing wrong with the Canons...Nothing
at all. I just prefer the Epson.

Click to expand...

This is the dilemma indeed, I used epson for 15 years and they always had the best printing quality, my current little Photo780 does prints that are actually much better than a photo lab. With the D100 not a single artifact is visible, no droplets, nothing, just pure perfection.

THe Epson though is terrible to run, I basically changed 4 Epson during the last 4 years hoping to see some kind of improvment. It was sad to trash almost new printers that were eating paper all the time. Now they don't do this anymore but when they went to 2880 dpi 4 picoliters the clogging became endemic. Since I print only during the weekend, the printer is all clogged every single time. In order to unclog it I've to run the utility 4/5 times so the ink goes all down the toilette.

Single tank is a problem too; I understand yours has multiple tank, but it seems that Epson don't like that and I understand why. Using an Epson become like a mortgage with money in wasted ink every single month.

I've such a dilemma, I would like to see the printers just like any other high tech device, not like gilette. (razors cheap, blades expensive).

I would like to see a printer that cost what it has to cost but deliveries consistent good gopies and it is ready to work any time it. I used HP years ago and it was like that but the printing quality was inferior to Epson.

p.s. sorry if I started this thread here. I know there is a specific forum but my problem there is that it is too hard to separate the kids from the people with experience while here most of the people invest big bucks on a camera and they like to see good prints out of their printer...
--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Gabriele,

Last night I bought a Canon S900 for the following reasons.

1. It is for home use and will do multiple functions, i.e. text and photos.

2. It is real fast....real fast!

3. Prints are excellent and are in the same class as the top of the line Epsons or ?

4. Individual ink tanks and at least 6 colors.

5. Canon claims a 25 yr lightfast. Good enough for my home purposes and about the same as a dye-sub.

I am still tweaking and adjusting, but so far so good. I really like this printer.

I have said all this to say this. If this was my primary photo printer I would have bought the Epson 2200. With the matt black you will get superior shadow transistions. The Ultrachrome print will last 3 times longer and Epson has supposely address the head clogging. I have not heard of many of the newer Epson printer owners complaining (high end units only).

I am ordering a Epson 7600 next Tuesday for some large format work I am doing. I really do not favor any brand, I just what the best machine for my purposes.

This is just my two cents,
David

Gabriele Sartori said:

teski said:

I had the Canon S800, and it was a very nice printer. However, I
recently picked up the Epson 2200, and I must say it blows the
Canon away as far as quality. Yes, it's a little slower, but my
prints are so much better. I would not go back to Canon. My
personal opinion though. Nothing wrong with the Canons...Nothing
at all. I just prefer the Epson.

Click to expand...

This is the dilemma indeed, I used epson for 15 years and they
always had the best printing quality, my current little Photo780
does prints that are actually much better than a photo lab. With
the D100 not a single artifact is visible, no droplets, nothing,
just pure perfection.

THe Epson though is terrible to run, I basically changed 4 Epson
during the last 4 years hoping to see some kind of improvment. It
was sad to trash almost new printers that were eating paper all the
time. Now they don't do this anymore but when they went to 2880 dpi
4 picoliters the clogging became endemic. Since I print only during
the weekend, the printer is all clogged every single time. In order
to unclog it I've to run the utility 4/5 times so the ink goes all
down the toilette.

Single tank is a problem too; I understand yours has multiple tank,
but it seems that Epson don't like that and I understand why. Using
an Epson become like a mortgage with money in wasted ink every
single month.

I've such a dilemma, I would like to see the printers just like any
other high tech device, not like gilette. (razors cheap, blades
expensive).

I would like to see a printer that cost what it has to cost but
deliveries consistent good gopies and it is ready to work any time
it. I used HP years ago and it was like that but the printing
quality was inferior to Epson.

p.s. sorry if I started this thread here. I know there is a
specific forum but my problem there is that it is too hard to
separate the kids from the people with experience while here most
of the people invest big bucks on a camera and they like to see
good prints out of their printer...
--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Click to expand...

--
David Richardson

I thought Epsons were the best even though a struggled to get prints to look like what I saw in Photoshop. I got a Canon S9000 about a month ago and it's fantastic. The prints are as good as my best Epson prints (when I got the colors to match the screen) and it's three times faster. And best of all, the prints matched my Photoshop image right of of the Canon S9000 box. I couldn't be happier.

--------------------------------------

David Richardson said:

Last night I bought a Canon S900 for the following reasons.

1. It is for home use and will do multiple functions, i.e. text and
photos.

2. It is real fast....real fast!

3. Prints are excellent and are in the same class as the top of the
line Epsons or ?

4. Individual ink tanks and at least 6 colors.

5. Canon claims a 25 yr lightfast. Good enough for my home purposes
and about the same as a dye-sub.

I am still tweaking and adjusting, but so far so good. I really
like this printer.

I have said all this to say this. If this was my primary photo
printer I would have bought the Epson 2200. With the matt black you
will get superior shadow transistions. The Ultrachrome print will
last 3 times longer and Epson has supposely address the head
clogging. I have not heard of many of the newer Epson printer
owners complaining (high end units only).

I am ordering a Epson 7600 next Tuesday for some large format work
I am doing. I really do not favor any brand, I just what the best
machine for my purposes.

This is just my two cents,
David

Gabriele Sartori said:

teski said:

I had the Canon S800, and it was a very nice printer. However, I
recently picked up the Epson 2200, and I must say it blows the
Canon away as far as quality. Yes, it's a little slower, but my
prints are so much better. I would not go back to Canon. My
personal opinion though. Nothing wrong with the Canons...Nothing
at all. I just prefer the Epson.

Click to expand...

This is the dilemma indeed, I used epson for 15 years and they
always had the best printing quality, my current little Photo780
does prints that are actually much better than a photo lab. With
the D100 not a single artifact is visible, no droplets, nothing,
just pure perfection.

THe Epson though is terrible to run, I basically changed 4 Epson
during the last 4 years hoping to see some kind of improvment. It
was sad to trash almost new printers that were eating paper all the
time. Now they don't do this anymore but when they went to 2880 dpi
4 picoliters the clogging became endemic. Since I print only during
the weekend, the printer is all clogged every single time. In order
to unclog it I've to run the utility 4/5 times so the ink goes all
down the toilette.

Single tank is a problem too; I understand yours has multiple tank,
but it seems that Epson don't like that and I understand why. Using
an Epson become like a mortgage with money in wasted ink every
single month.

I've such a dilemma, I would like to see the printers just like any
other high tech device, not like gilette. (razors cheap, blades
expensive).

I would like to see a printer that cost what it has to cost but
deliveries consistent good gopies and it is ready to work any time
it. I used HP years ago and it was like that but the printing
quality was inferior to Epson.

p.s. sorry if I started this thread here. I know there is a
specific forum but my problem there is that it is too hard to
separate the kids from the people with experience while here most
of the people invest big bucks on a camera and they like to see
good prints out of their printer...
--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Click to expand...

--
David Richardson

Click to expand...

--
TerrenceT

I have been looking at the 7150 and I think after what I have seen I am extremely happy. I don't need the reader for the cards but I do like the printing capabilities. The multi head almost heat sealing of the 7150/7350 I think is great.

Troy

Mike Tichon said:

Troy Tripamer said:

Mike Tichon wrote:
Mike, can you give me a few numbers on the new HPs you are talking
about? For example, the 7150 or what?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Troy, it's the Photosmart 7350. There is a review of it on Steve's
Digicams site. If you search my name, I posted the link in a
message last night. The only con I see so far on this printer is
that the paper handling is a little clunky, as some old paper I had
jammed in printing. It may be the paper. So far, the prints are
better than what I received from ofoto, which I will never use
again.
--
Mike Tichon

Click to expand...

--
Love the ocean love the beach come visit Virginia Beach (VA USA)
My galleries: http://www.pbase.com/troysup

You've got a number of responses, and I'd agree with most of them. But some of them were comparing apples with oranges, so I have to stick my two cents in. Besides, not all your questions were responded to.

I have a Canon 9000, which is a $500 printer. Presumably the Epson 2200 is better, but at over $900, it should be. But I like my Epson better than the Epson 1280, which is the same price. And I'd prefer the Canon 900 (at $350) against whatever the equivalent Epson printer is (890, perhaps).

The Canon 9000 has separate ink tanks, and they definitely run out at different times. The inks tend to cost less, partly for that reason. I've seldom had to run any special cleaning cycle (maybe twice in several hundred 8 by 10's), so clogging is no problem here.

Speed - I've only printed one 13x19, and I don't know if it was three minutes or four. But for 8.5 x 11's, it's under a minute. That's tons faster than any other printer I know of.

I use the Epson paper all the time, specifically the premium glossy. Canon's PPP (Photo Paper Pro) is a bit better, but it costs more, and for awhile it was hard to find. My only complaint about the Canon paper is that it's so glossy on the back that I've printed the wrong side twice! Reviews I've seen indicate that the higher paper cost mostly cancels the lower ink costs, but I don't know.

The Canon paper and inks were hard to find for a few months, but I've had no trouble lately. Even when they were hard, I never had to wait more than ten days.

If I were doing it again, I'd get the 900, and skip the wide paper. It's cool to be able to print wide, but I've only used one sheet from the package. Incidentally, the Canon paper was cheaper than the Epson for the largest sheets.

Gabriele Sartori said:

I love the printing quality of Epson I hate them though in terms of
mechanical quality but in particular the nozzles clogging.
It is basically impossible to use occasionally the Epsons that I
got without having to do long heads cleaning ( a big waste of ink
as well).

So I was thinking to move to Canon, I saw nice reviews about the
S900, now the questions:

1) Is it as good as Epson? I bought always Epson although they were
always disfunctional the printing quality was impossible to match.
Did Canon catch up?

2) Is it always ready to print or I’ve to “wash” the heads every
single time (like the Epson)?

3) Can I use the Epson glossy paper (I have quite a lot in
different formats) ?

4) Is the cost/copy higher or lower than Epson ? (I’m talking
exclusively about photo printing, I use a laser for text)

5) Is the material (ink, paper) easy to find just like the Epson?

Thanks to all of you. BTW is someone has the big Epson and doesn’t
have the problems that I had, let me know please.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Click to expand...

--
DaveA

I have no idea where you priced the Epson 2200 at, but the full retail price is $699, and I paid $650 for mine.

As for the separate ink tanks, so does the Epson and, in fact, it uses 7 tanks....A light black to give you better range in the dark areas.

I do agree that the Canon is a faster printer, but I much prefer the quality of the Epson prints, but this is a personal thing. I'm not printing a ton of pics at once, so time isn't a factor for me.

I think both are great printers, but I just wanted to clear up a few things that you missed.

Teski

Dave Angel said:

I have a Canon 9000, which is a $500 printer. Presumably the Epson
2200 is better, but at over $900, it should be. But I like my
Epson better than the Epson 1280, which is the same price. And I'd
prefer the Canon 900 (at $350) against whatever the equivalent
Epson printer is (890, perhaps).

The Canon 9000 has separate ink tanks, and they definitely run out
at different times. The inks tend to cost less, partly for that
reason. I've seldom had to run any special cleaning cycle (maybe
twice in several hundred 8 by 10's), so clogging is no problem here.

Speed - I've only printed one 13x19, and I don't know if it was
three minutes or four. But for 8.5 x 11's, it's under a minute.
That's tons faster than any other printer I know of.

I use the Epson paper all the time, specifically the premium
glossy. Canon's PPP (Photo Paper Pro) is a bit better, but it
costs more, and for awhile it was hard to find. My only complaint
about the Canon paper is that it's so glossy on the back that I've
printed the wrong side twice! Reviews I've seen indicate that the
higher paper cost mostly cancels the lower ink costs, but I don't
know.

The Canon paper and inks were hard to find for a few months, but
I've had no trouble lately. Even when they were hard, I never had
to wait more than ten days.

If I were doing it again, I'd get the 900, and skip the wide paper.
It's cool to be able to print wide, but I've only used one sheet
from the package. Incidentally, the Canon paper was cheaper than
the Epson for the largest sheets.

Gabriele Sartori said:

I love the printing quality of Epson I hate them though in terms of
mechanical quality but in particular the nozzles clogging.
It is basically impossible to use occasionally the Epsons that I
got without having to do long heads cleaning ( a big waste of ink
as well).

So I was thinking to move to Canon, I saw nice reviews about the
S900, now the questions:

1) Is it as good as Epson? I bought always Epson although they were
always disfunctional the printing quality was impossible to match.
Did Canon catch up?

2) Is it always ready to print or I’ve to “wash” the heads every
single time (like the Epson)?

3) Can I use the Epson glossy paper (I have quite a lot in
different formats) ?

4) Is the cost/copy higher or lower than Epson ? (I’m talking
exclusively about photo printing, I use a laser for text)

5) Is the material (ink, paper) easy to find just like the Epson?

Thanks to all of you. BTW is someone has the big Epson and doesn’t
have the problems that I had, let me know please.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Click to expand...

--
DaveA

Click to expand...

Hi Gabriele,

Definitely a "printing forum" thread

We all speak from our own experience and mine has been almost
exclusively with Epson for years. I have NEVER had a problem with
any of my Epson printers. Colour has been perfect every time, never
once have any of the jets clogged. The print quality has always been
stunning and seems to improve with each model.

Have been using the 1280 since early 2001 and it has been the best of
the bunch the wide format enables me to churn out incredible 13 x 19
print images, from even slightly rough original 3MP originals.

The S9000 is fast, ( I still must wait a tad over 15 minutes for a 13 x 19
1280 print but hey, you just organise your printing times to cope with
that .... Epson has also now moved towards the separate cartridge
idea.

Here is a great site for nicely-priced Epson ink/paper :
http://www.atlex.com/Epson/inkjet_printer/photo_1280.htm

It is a great time to be consumer, with these excellent choices

I realise that I did not rise to your S9000 questions but felt that Epson
needed some support here Check out the printing forum for
comments on the new 2200.

Good Luck,
Keith

--
http://www.pbase.com/keith2

'If your ship does'nt come in, swim out to it'

Gabriele,

I'll throw in my 5 cents worth. Both the Canon and Epsons produce amazing results if a person takes the time to profile their papers and calibrate their monitor. I've seen the output from the S9000 and it is very nice.

With that said, I use Epson printers exclusively now and am very satisfied. I have a 9500, 7500, 3000, and a 1270 for proofs. While I won't argue that the clogging problem exists for some people, I must tell you that I've probably only had one or two clogs on any of the machines in the past 5 years. Why ?? I'm not sure although I do turn my printers off when not using them and this does seat the cartridge which I think helps eliminate clogs. The other reason my be climatic. I run a humidifier in my studio and I'm certain this prevents clogging. I feel that too dry of a room promotes clogged heads. The only time I've suffered a lot from clogs was when I used 3rd party inks in the 3000. I'm speculating here but I think there is basis to what I say.

With regard to separate ink tanks, Canon got this right on their lower end models. Epson has been using them on the 3000 for quite a while and all of their pro machines are separate tanks. After Canon, I think they saw the light and decided to put it on the 2200 which was a smart move.

So which printer should a person buy ?? I think this is a personal choice and should be determined by one's use of the prints. This is only my opinion but I think we have about seen the last of dye based inks on Epson's Pro and pro-sumer models. I believe they will fade (sorry for the pun) these inks out over the next year or two on many models. Why ?? Because they will fade. I don't want to get into a "proper display" argument here because no matter how you look at it...dye inks fade faster than pigments. This is not arguable...it's just a fact. With the new pigments in the 2200, 7600, and 9600, Epson has reduced (not eliminated) metamerism and increased the color gamut which has made their pigmented inks very close to dye based. So which printer ??? If you are printing for personal use, proofing, or sending pictures to the family, I think dye inks are fine. With the recent advancements in pigments, I think that any professional that is selling their prints would be foolish not to use pigments. Once again, only my opinion but I think it's a no brainer. Unless someone comes up with a radical new fromula for dye inks, I believe that pigments ARE the future for professionals that sell their prints. As I said, in a few years, I doubt that Epson will even offer them on many of their machines.

So there's my 5 cents worth. Remember, I made no arguments about which company offerd the best quality print. I think that both Canon and Epson printers deliver stunning results. For someone selling their prints though, I think they would be wise to use pigmented inks and learn how to use them. The variety of media is also a very strong point and many perople have gotten away from the standard glossy print and realized the beauty of the matte and water color papers.

Disclaimer....I didn't mention dye sub printers because I am not familiar with them at all and have no idea on the longevity of them. I do know that many people use them for event photography and are very happy with them. My main problem with the current dye subs is the lack of media choice.
Kind regards,
John Mitchell

Gabriele Sartori said:

I love the printing quality of Epson I hate them though in terms of
mechanical quality but in particular the nozzles clogging.
It is basically impossible to use occasionally the Epsons that I
got without having to do long heads cleaning ( a big waste of ink
as well).

So I was thinking to move to Canon, I saw nice reviews about the
S900, now the questions:

1) Is it as good as Epson? I bought always Epson although they were
always disfunctional the printing quality was impossible to match.
Did Canon catch up?

2) Is it always ready to print or I’ve to “wash” the heads every
single time (like the Epson)?

3) Can I use the Epson glossy paper (I have quite a lot in
different formats) ?

4) Is the cost/copy higher or lower than Epson ? (I’m talking
exclusively about photo printing, I use a laser for text)

5) Is the material (ink, paper) easy to find just like the Epson?

Thanks to all of you. BTW is someone has the big Epson and doesn’t
have the problems that I had, let me know please.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Click to expand...

--
Ed Gelb

I've had all of the Epsons and decided to try the Canon S900 primarily due to the speed. My results out of the box were great. The speed is so good I find myself actually looking forward to printing rather than dread the time I knw it would take for each print. The printer is ready when you are. I've not done anything other than add ink as each individual tank runs out. Supplies are available from the Canon store, B and H and others. The 4x6 borderless works well as does anything printed on Canon Photo Paper Pro paper. I too have a large supply of Epson paper left over and use it for my own "proofs." I haven't tracked the cost difference becaause my "gut" tells me it is negligible. I've been taking pictures and doing darkroom work for my own amazement for over 50 years. I have all of the Nikon Coolpix and now the D100 which I swear by. I can't figure out why more dealers and photographers aren't up to speed on the S900. Hope this helps.
Ed

Gabriele Sartori said:

I love the printing quality of Epson I hate them though in terms of
mechanical quality but in particular the nozzles clogging.
It is basically impossible to use occasionally the Epsons that I
got without having to do long heads cleaning ( a big waste of ink
as well).

So I was thinking to move to Canon, I saw nice reviews about the
S900, now the questions:

1) Is it as good as Epson? I bought always Epson although they were
always disfunctional the printing quality was impossible to match.
Did Canon catch up?

2) Is it always ready to print or I’ve to “wash” the heads every
single time (like the Epson)?

3) Can I use the Epson glossy paper (I have quite a lot in
different formats) ?

4) Is the cost/copy higher or lower than Epson ? (I’m talking
exclusively about photo printing, I use a laser for text)

5) Is the material (ink, paper) easy to find just like the Epson?

Thanks to all of you. BTW is someone has the big Epson and doesn’t
have the problems that I had, let me know please.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

Click to expand...

--

Don't bale out on Epson, the new 2200 is outstanding. I have only had for a few days but it is the best I have seen

Greg Gebhardt
Jacksonville, Florida

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml

Jim

Gabriele Sartori said:

I love the printing quality of Epson I hate them though in terms of
mechanical quality but in particular the nozzles clogging.
It is basically impossible to use occasionally the Epsons that I
got without having to do long heads cleaning ( a big waste of ink
as well).

Click to expand...

Hi Gabriele,

I'm a big Epson fan and user. I have four set up right now. I'm using different 3rd party inks in all of them and hardly ever have a clog. I just installed a Epson 2200 for a client who also has an Epson 1280. We only did a couple comparison test prints on Semi-Luster paper - the 2200 edges out the 1280 prints in terms of smooth gradations and metarisum. The 1280 used a custom paper profile the I built for the client and the 2200 used the Epson stock media setting only. Pretty impressive.

If you would like to use a bulk ink system for an Epson - I use:

http://www.nomorecarts.com/

It's the best one out there. I am no why affiliated with them.

Don't know why you are having clogging issues. Are you turning the printer off properly? Pressing the power switch on the printer is the only way the printer should be shut down as the printer will do it's thing and sit the heads to the capping station. Also your capping station could misaligned and not properly sealing the head when off.

I don't know much about Canon printers. But I would avoid the HP printers as the ink takes a few days to dry down. This was confirm by someone trying to build a paper profile and noticed the inks "fading" for a couple+ of days.

--
Best Regards,

John V.