Epson or Canon, who makes the best printer for the money?

Im a bit confused about photo printers... I obviously want the best for my money but I'm not sure which printer that would be. I went into Staples to check out the printers and the salesperson told me that the Canon Pixma 9000 was better than the Epson they had on display, I think it was the Epson R2880. I would like to be able to print larger formats ( I would like to go higher than 13" width) and I want the best print quality for the money.

I'm also curious about the print cartridges, how long they last and how expensive they are to replace.

I was going to stay below 600. until I realized that I could apply for BillMeLater and pay the printer off in 6months. So now Im considering a printer around 1000. (unless its not worth it)

Advise please

You could get the excellent Epson 1400 A3+ format printer.

What you save on the purchase price would keep you (even in Epson expensive cartridges) in business for years.

Get refillable cartridges with high quality pigment or dye inks and you could go almost for ever!

(I use the excellent pigment inks and refillable cartridges form inkjetfly.com - both high quality and low cost inksets compared to the original Epson ones. Check the link in my signature for more detailed advice)

--
Zone8
3 Quotes by Ansel Adams:

"A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into." "A good photograph is knowing where to stand." "Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter."
LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm

After a lot of research, I concluded that the 3880 is the best printer available for around $1000. I bought mine when Epson offered a $200 rebate (which expired 3/31/2011). Net cost was $929.

Even though I don't print high volume, I concluded that the lower cost per ML of ink and the full 80ML cartridges that came with it made it a great buy. Both the 3800 and 3880 have an excellent reputation for not clogging. And, since it's a very popular printer, all of the quality, non-OEM ink vendors have refillable cartridges for the 3880.

And the prints? Very nice!

I love the 3880. I'm happier than a pig in brown stuff!!!

Dan.

TelaMoon said:

Im a bit confused about photo printers... I obviously want the best for my money but I'm not sure which printer that would be. I went into Staples to check out the printers and the salesperson told me that the Canon Pixma 9000 was better than the Epson they had on display, I think it was the Epson R2880. I would like to be able to print larger formats ( I would like to go higher than 13" width) and I want the best print quality for the money.

I'm also curious about the print cartridges, how long they last and how expensive they are to replace.

I was going to stay below 600. until I realized that I could apply for BillMeLater and pay the printer off in 6months. So now Im considering a printer around 1000. (unless its not worth it)

Advise please

Click to expand...

If I was buying new right now I would seriously look at the Epson 3880 for around $1130.00.

That being said I am very, very happy with my Epson R1900 and don't plan on a upgrade for a while.

Right now the R1900 prices are very good - Epson has it marked down to $300.00 with free shipping - I am almost tempted to buy a spare.

\\ http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?sku=C11C698201

don't wait too long - I believe the R1900 will soon cease manufacturing if it hasn't already

$980 after rebate at BHphoto.

Just one warning on choosing a printer. Dye ink printer have a larger color gamut than pigment based printers. Print the same photo on each type and you will definitely see the difference.....

Bob P.

Petruska said:

$980 after rebate at BHphoto.

Just one warning on choosing a printer. Dye ink printer have a larger color gamut than pigment based printers. Print the same photo on each type and you will definitely see the difference.....

Bob P.

Click to expand...

You may be right about the color gamut but the dye printers are not archival.

Dan Clark said:

After a lot of research, I concluded that the 3880 is the best printer available for around $1000. I bought mine when Epson offered a $200 rebate (which expired 3/31/2011). Net cost was $929.

Even though I don't print high volume, I concluded that the lower cost per ML of ink and the full 80ML cartridges that came with it made it a great buy. Both the 3800 and 3880 have an excellent reputation for not clogging. And, since it's a very popular printer, all of the quality, non-OEM ink vendors have refillable cartridges for the 3880.

And the prints? Very nice!

I love the 3880. I'm happier than a pig in brown stuff!!!

Dan.

TelaMoon said:

Im a bit confused about photo printers... I obviously want the best for my money but I'm not sure which printer that would be. I went into Staples to check out the printers and the salesperson told me that the Canon Pixma 9000 was better than the Epson they had on display, I think it was the Epson R2880. I would like to be able to print larger formats ( I would like to go higher than 13" width) and I want the best print quality for the money.

I'm also curious about the print cartridges, how long they last and how expensive they are to replace.

I was going to stay below 600. until I realized that I could apply for BillMeLater and pay the printer off in 6months. So now Im considering a printer around 1000. (unless its not worth it)

Advise please

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The larger ink cartridges make all the difference. I fully agree with you. doing serious printing with the small cartridges is almost impossible as 1 is always running out.

Regarding third party ink - i wouldn't touch it.

probert500 said:

probert500 said:

Regarding third party ink - i wouldn't touch it.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Another prejudiced comment.

Good third party inks are excellent. I have been using compatible inks in Epson and Canon printers for years. My current pigment inks from inkjetfly.com produce high quality, so whilst understanding your prejudice - I felt the need to comment objectively based on actual use and results, rather than your "only original cartridges/inks are any good" approach.

--
Zone8
3 Quotes by Ansel Adams:

"A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into." "A good photograph is knowing where to stand." "Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter."
LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm

True, but it's what one wants, great color or fade resistance. I personally coat my dye prints that are hanging on a wall and don't see much, if any, fading after a year. I rarely keep my prints after that length of time and if they do fade just print another one.

Bob P.

.....you can't go wrong with Epson. I print and sell 13x19 prints using the Epson 1400.

Just depends on your budget! One piece of advice: don't buy the all-n-one (print,fax,scan) printers!

....wait a minute, my Epson 1400 printer will last 100 or more! After 2 yrs. my clients still love their 13x19 prints. I get spot-on colors when I use Qimage.

Petruska said:

True, but it's what one wants, great color or fade resistance. I personally coat my dye prints that are hanging on a wall and don't see much, if any, fading after a year. I rarely keep my prints after that length of time and if they do fade just print another one.

Bob P.

Click to expand...

I mention it as a concern for people selling editioned prints - if they fade in a year that would be a major problem.

Te implication that inkjets don't have good color is misleading. The color on my z3100 is very very good.

Dye and pigment printers are both inkjets.

I have seen both dye and pgiment prints from Epsons and Canons (dye and pigment) hanging on a house wall both fade in less than a year. I agree that dye fades faster than pigment. I also see very good quality custom lab chemical prints also fade hanging on a wall.

I'm now experimenting with different print spray coatings to see just how well they help against fading.....I'll report the results next year unfortunately.

Maybe some day they will even a better printer system

Bob P.

probert500 said:

Petruska said:

True, but it's what one wants, great color or fade resistance. I personally coat my dye prints that are hanging on a wall and don't see much, if any, fading after a year. I rarely keep my prints after that length of time and if they do fade just print another one.

Bob P.

Click to expand...

I mention it as a concern for people selling editioned prints - if they fade in a year that would be a major problem.

Click to expand...

If they fade in a year, if there's a fire, if there's a flood. The latest dye inks are tested for longevity & get reasonably good results but not as good as Pigment inks which aren't as good as photographic prints. If archival is your main concern you should use a Fuji lab, why sell people second best archival properties on limited edition prints by using pigment ink when you can get much longer lasting prints using the Fuji method?

probert500 said:

Te implication that inkjets don't have good color is misleading. The color on my z3100 is very very good.

Click to expand...

The implication that dye inks will fade away in front of your eyes is also misleading as they have a very long life behind glass. Most of the shots sold nowadays for $100 - $200 will be thrown out in the trash when people redecorate or when the kids come home to clean out when the buyers have grown old & died. I don't think you should kid yourselves that your Limited Edition Prints done with pigment ink will become family heirlooms like an Adams or Bresson.

I have dye ink prints that have been hanging up behind glass for over 8 years & they still look great as do my darkroom prints which have been hanging up for 37 years.

Regards Rod

My complaint about Canon is the lack of paper handling options. For example the 9500 mrk II won't do borderless 11x14 which is my favorite size to print since I can get very nice frames at Costco for 11x14 2 frames for $20.

Robert
--

The hardest thing about Photography is choosing a camera! After that it is all fun!

RobertBarnett said:

My complaint about Canon is the lack of paper handling options. For example the 9500 mrk II won't do borderless 11x14 which is my favorite size to print since I can get very nice frames at Costco for 11x14 2 frames for $20.

Click to expand...

As I assume you mean the frame becomes the "border" as well (i.e. no white or other mount showing) I assume that means you have the print surface touching the glass Robert.

Not a good idea at all. Glass contains some acidic residues which will affect the print and any shiny surface of prints (if photo type plastic papers used) will in time stick to the glass.

--
Zone8
3 Quotes by Ansel Adams:

"A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into." "A good photograph is knowing where to stand." "Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter."

LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only PLUS other useful tips:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm

I want to add something here about fading.

Prints need to be displayed to fade more rapidly. In the 30 homes that I visited in the last few months only one had photos on the walls and these were bridal from a few years ago, obviously the husband and wife are older looking now and are going to take them down. I asked many home owners why they only display paintings and never photos. They all basically replied that photos on a wall look cheesy to them and that they will probably never display a photo, only paintings.

I do weddings, over the past holidays I asked family and friends do they ever look at their wedding albums, the over 30 crowd said probably only the first month or so and never looked again, except for one person.

The under 30 crowd said they don't want an album, the only want the disc with JPGs so they can upload some to Facebook, a 5-10 minute slideshow would be nice also so that can upload to YouTube, play on their big screen TVs, to show people how the wedding went when they ask. They also want the photos on disc within a couple days of the wedding, that's a must. They want them on their IPADs which has higher resolution than the prints, easier to show photos than an album.

I had made some large cutom printed canvas portraits of a few bides as gifts and not one was ever hung on a wall, they are in the owner's attic.

What I'm getting at is printing is not the hot issue anymore for a lot of people, they want fast digital files. Thus, print longivity is moot.

Even ourselves as photographers, we have thousands of photos that we edit and probably never look at them again within a week. I just purged my 4 hard drives of thousands of photos the last few weeks that I will never look at again.

Zookbinders (makers of wedding albums) did a survey recently and found that 80% of weddings don't want albums anymore...OUCH!

So serious printing is probably more for the landscape crowd and fine art and most of this is B&W.

And as you stated anything worth saving should be printed chemically at a great lab, I can get great 16x22's for $15 each. I was going to by an Epson 3880 not long ago and changed my mind when I realized how many 16x22's I could get from the lab for the equivalent printer, ink and paper costs. I'm sure some other readers will disagree with what I wrote here, but that is the facts around here where I live in PA.

Petruska said:

I'm sure some other readers will disagree with what I wrote here, but that is the facts around here where I live in PA.

Click to expand...

Strange lot around your area!

Certainly in my family (meaning all relatives - mostly in UK) pictures at various stages of growth of kids and so forth adorn walls and places of rest - where any frame will fit, so does not relate to your experiences in any way (BUT read on!). Some (although mostly the older members) have suitcases full of their "Memories" - hundreds of photos that get brought out from time to time, with family members sitting on the floor, pouring through and recounting tales as memories are jogged by the old photos of past gatherings and events.

However, I have always advised keen photographers to consider making photo books - to give as gifts to family and friends. Blurb offer 7x7 books for photos with 80 pages for peanuts with the soft cover - in UK only around £11 (roughly $18).That way, your images are likely to survive and be looked at - compared to what I consider is the fairly normal alternative - meaning all the digital files and prints, so carefully stored and made for archival longevity - will simply go into the nearest black bin bag and on to the local rubbish tip when you pop your clogs.

I do agree that many wedding albums never see the light of day again, even shortly after the event and DVDs get stored away - probably never to be viewed again. Rather like the old family 8mm & 9.5mm movies that, with the old projector, never gets out from its attic storage area after the first couple of showings. Even those made into DVD media never get shown again either, after the first couple of times. Same goes for all those colour trannies in shoe boxes, quietly fading away ..... somewhere.

They all end up in the rubbish tip as well. Oh ..... Calamity!

--
Zone8
3 Quotes by Ansel Adams:

"A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into." "A good photograph is knowing where to stand." "Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter."

LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only PLUS other useful tips:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm

In the US it is just a fast paced trend of looking at the photos immediately on Facebook/YouTube and then no interest after a day or two.

I'm 61 years old, we have boxes of prints from over a hundred years ago of family, we get to see what they looked like when we want. Now I have asked the family members that have small childern if they are printing photos of the kids and saving them....NO!

I said do you at least save the digital files.....NO!

My sister at 54 is just as bad she is a fairly good photographer, but she takes photos of family and friends at events and weddings and only keeps them on her memory card showing them to people on the camera LCD for a couple of days and then erases them, no prints ever, no saved files to disc.

I was at a wedding where the bride got very upset with the pro photographer that wanted her to pose for formals. She got very mad and said look, I have no interest in photos, my parents want these, I don't, they hired you, I didn't, I want to be happy and party today...... All her young friends shot stills and video with their IPHONEs, uploaded them to Facebook and YouTube immediately so everyone interested who was not at the wedding could see them.

It's all changing and will probably change a lot in the near future.

Bob P.

rodbam said:

probert500 said:

Petruska said:

True, but it's what one wants, great color or fade resistance. I personally coat my dye prints that are hanging on a wall and don't see much, if any, fading after a year. I rarely keep my prints after that length of time and if they do fade just print another one.

Bob P.

Click to expand...

I mention it as a concern for people selling editioned prints - if they fade in a year that would be a major problem.

Click to expand...

If they fade in a year, if there's a fire, if there's a flood. The latest dye inks are tested for longevity & get reasonably good results but not as good as Pigment inks which aren't as good as photographic prints. If archival is your main concern you should use a Fuji lab, why sell people second best archival properties on limited edition prints by using pigment ink when you can get much longer lasting prints using the Fuji method?

rodbam said:

Te implication that inkjets don't have good color is misleading. The color on my z3100 is very very good.

Click to expand...

The implication that dye inks will fade away in front of your eyes is also misleading as they have a very long life behind glass. Most of the shots sold nowadays for $100 - $200 will be thrown out in the trash when people redecorate or when the kids come home to clean out when the buyers have grown old & died. I don't think you should kid yourselves that your Limited Edition Prints done with pigment ink will become family heirlooms like an Adams or Bresson.

I have dye ink prints that have been hanging up behind glass for over 8 years & they still look great as do my darkroom prints which have been hanging up for 37 years.

Regards Rod

Click to expand...

Your reply is odd. Look - on a factual level the lamda process is less archival than a properly done inkjet. My work that's done with film is on fuji crystal archive and processed RA4.

Regarding kidding myself - I may do that, as we all do - but my stuff sells for multiple thousands and is in museum permanent collections - I 'd like to think it'll all be around for a while.