thats me I want to come home please please
anyway the 2100 is not the big brother of the 950 it uses pigment ink other doesn't Lynn so lets get our facts straight
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New Epson Printers !!!
- Thread starter R. Malin
- Start date
anyway the 2100 is not the big brother of the 950 it uses pigment ink other doesn't Lynn so lets get our facts straight
D
DocH
Guest
Understood. And believe me, I WANT my 1280 to work - marvelous prints, every third, fourth or tenth one. The rest of the story is that my wife has a 780, different computer, even different processor. Less frequent, but occuring "Communication Errors" plague her as well. Random visitors to this forum report same. This is not a small defect, and it is Epson's driver. No argument that Microsoft shares the hit, but the hardware has "Epson" printed on it. WinXP OS; I think Epson has decided they'll fix it when they think the user base is large enough, or maybe they have blown off putting any more effort into fixing this particular glitch, because the new, shiny Epsons are on the horizon, and will work just dandy with XP and USB, and have separate cartridges and are oh, so archival, so current dedicated Epsonites, ever hopeful, should rush out and support their Alma Mater, 'cause the new, improved Epsons are bound to print SOOOO much better and more reliably than the naughty old, undependable ones....
DocH
DocH
1) Could never get the Epson to work reliably with USB; tried all
the fixes and then some. Parallel is so slow as to be worthless
for large prints; works dandy for envelopes, tho'.
2) Epson almost never updates drivers to correct printer issues -
Canon drivers currently Apr 2002; Epson from last November. Epson
is singularly unresponsive to customer issues related to software;
haven't been too impressed with tech support either.
3) Frequently had to run nozzle check and cleaning cycles with the
Epson if idle for even a few days. No major clogs, but a waste of
ink.
4) Like the individual ink cartridges much better in the Canon
(see above); Epson has finally decided the same.
Great output from the 1280; poor software support; poor response
from Epson; design showing its age (nozzle clogs and cleaning
requirements). End of story; Canon gets my business.
DocH
I doubt if the Epson will be better than the Canon.
Even if it is, Canon will fire back and put Epson back in it's
place
Pete
Steve Mills38027
Well-known member
What is so undependable about them. I have had my 870 for over two years and have not had a single problem. And the thing I wonder about with these separate cartridges for each color--it seems that you would almost constantly be changing a cartridge. Are we really going to save so much on ink to make the aggravation of changing a cartridge every couple days worth it?
Steve
Tom May
Senior Member
This reminds me. What's going to happen with the 5500?. The 7600 is now cheaper(unless there have been a recent 5500 price drop), larger format, probably faster, and more colors.
I have a 1280 with CIS and a 3000. I wish Epson would replace the 3000 with a A2(C size) format equivalent to the 2100.
I have a 1280 with CIS and a 3000. I wish Epson would replace the 3000 with a A2(C size) format equivalent to the 2100.
BamaPanda
Senior Member
I have a Stylus 600 downstairs ...have now replaced it with a C80. When the 600 was 2 months out of warranty, my daughter poked something in the innards and the next thing I knew ...the print head needed replacement. The shop told me that it would be close to the cost of a new printer, and gave me advise to call Epson, and talk to them. I left with my broke 600, came home ..called Epson. The lady I talked to was great, and even though it was out of warranty, she gave me a repair #, called the shop I just left, set it up for repair, and back I went. A week later I had my 600 back, good as new ...with NEW INK CARTRIDGES to boot.
A Smith
A Smith
Bob
I doubt if the Epson will be better than the Canon.
Even if it is, Canon will fire back and put Epson back in it's
place
Pete
Lynn Healy
Leading Member
My facts are precisely right. Go back and read again what I wrote. I specifically said that the 2100 uses pigment inks, which differentiates it from the 1290 right away.
However, the fact is that early media placements are announcing Epson's two new printers as if they were big and little brothers. What we don't know is how well they are understanding the information that Epson has provided them.
--
-- Lynn
I F Burley
Well-known member
I, too, have an 870 (and the predecessor to the S8xx/S9xx/S9xxx - the BJC-8200 and have reviewed dozens of other photo printers for my own site and UK computer and photography magazines.
The Canon single ink tanks individually last at arouind twice as long (number of prints) as a whole Epson 870 5-colour tank and some quite a bit longer.
The only inconvenience would be if all 6 or several of the tanks needed replacing around the same time.
My own tests show the ink costs of the Canon system is significantlt lower than the Epson system. Why do you think Epson has introduced single ink tanks in its latest printers (2100/2200 and 950)?
Ian
Ian Burley
The Canon single ink tanks individually last at arouind twice as long (number of prints) as a whole Epson 870 5-colour tank and some quite a bit longer.
The only inconvenience would be if all 6 or several of the tanks needed replacing around the same time.
My own tests show the ink costs of the Canon system is significantlt lower than the Epson system. Why do you think Epson has introduced single ink tanks in its latest printers (2100/2200 and 950)?
Ian
--
Ian Burley
mjbauer
Leading Member
-
I think Epson considered the 1270 replaced when they released the 1280/90 series, adding 2880 and borderless printing. The new Epson printer coming out in June/July ( depending on your locale) is a replacement for the 2000P or an upgrade for 12 series users who want archival qualities, brighter prints than the 2000, possibly better Black and White, etc.
I think all the top printers wlil do a very good job. I for one, have never had any trouble with my Epson 1200 or 1270, using four differnt operating systems. Windows 95, 98, Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional. I still use Windows 2000 on my print server wiih my 1270 with USB, and it works fine.
Mike Bauer
Fritz Norris
Leading Member
Everyone has their own opinion that's for sure but I would offer the following.
I own 2 Epsons and 1 HP. I have never been a big fan of Canon printers but after reading the reviews and comments I purchased the Canon S-900 about 6 weeks ago. I don't regret it. The prints are outstanding on serveral types of paper, Canon PPP, Office depot PHGPP, Jet Print Pro and Red River Ultra Pro Satin and Glossy (those are the ones I have used). The seperate ink tanks are great because the photo cyna and photo magenta run out first therefore you can replace tanks as they are used up (Epson must have finally decided that was a good idea). Speeeeed, anyone who says they don't have a problem waiting 7 or 8 mins waiting on an 8 X 10 to print is fooling themselves. My understanding is the new Epson (if it makes it to the US)still takes about 7 mins. to print and 8 X 10. I print them in about 90 Secs.
As to how long the prints will last; who knows how long any of them printed of ink jet prints and the current papers will last. That why I save everything to CD's
Another Epson may be in my future but not any time soon.
Just my opnion of course.
Fritz
I own 2 Epsons and 1 HP. I have never been a big fan of Canon printers but after reading the reviews and comments I purchased the Canon S-900 about 6 weeks ago. I don't regret it. The prints are outstanding on serveral types of paper, Canon PPP, Office depot PHGPP, Jet Print Pro and Red River Ultra Pro Satin and Glossy (those are the ones I have used). The seperate ink tanks are great because the photo cyna and photo magenta run out first therefore you can replace tanks as they are used up (Epson must have finally decided that was a good idea). Speeeeed, anyone who says they don't have a problem waiting 7 or 8 mins waiting on an 8 X 10 to print is fooling themselves. My understanding is the new Epson (if it makes it to the US)still takes about 7 mins. to print and 8 X 10. I print them in about 90 Secs.
As to how long the prints will last; who knows how long any of them printed of ink jet prints and the current papers will last. That why I save everything to CD's
Another Epson may be in my future but not any time soon.
Just my opnion of course.
Fritz
Graham Sp
Leading Member
I had a Epson 870 and it did have a USB printing issue where a half printed sheet was ejected randomly now and again that was never resolve for my set up, so I air on the side that Epson are harder to talk to and make no effort to improve the lot of passed customers.
Other than the ink / paper life I had no other issues with my 870.
Graham
Graham
http://www.graham.uk.net
Other than the ink / paper life I had no other issues with my 870.
Graham
--
Graham
http://www.graham.uk.net
D
Donald Cooper
Guest
Ian,
I love your site. It's great. But your ink "test" didn't test what you think it did. All you did was print a few images multiple times. Not surprisingly, you ran out of some ink before others. So in essence you tested the white balance of the images, not the relative cost effectiveness of the individual tanks.
I run out of four individual tanks on the same print. I haven't had a six color printer with individual tanks until now. But I can now tell you I ran out of all six tanks on the same print. Moreover, today several people posted saying the same thing.
This is important in that if you run out of all colors at the same time, the all in one is cheaper. That is very clear.
In order to know what is more cost effective, you'd have to know the white balance characteristics of what a person printed -- if everything sums to grey, as in my case, the all-in-one is better. Your experience may vary, but the methodology of your test virtually insured a very uneven ink use. And not surprisingly that's what you found. And I could get similar results if I printed all images from the Arizona Red Rock country -- I'd run out of magenta first. No question. But that's not how I'd print normally -- I'd have the Red Rock and then the Seattle Grey/Blue/Greens and so forth. At the end of the day I'm printing grey.
I guess I just don't understand why you think your test is valid, and I'd be interested in why you think it is. Just curioius.
DSC
I love your site. It's great. But your ink "test" didn't test what you think it did. All you did was print a few images multiple times. Not surprisingly, you ran out of some ink before others. So in essence you tested the white balance of the images, not the relative cost effectiveness of the individual tanks.
I run out of four individual tanks on the same print. I haven't had a six color printer with individual tanks until now. But I can now tell you I ran out of all six tanks on the same print. Moreover, today several people posted saying the same thing.
This is important in that if you run out of all colors at the same time, the all in one is cheaper. That is very clear.
In order to know what is more cost effective, you'd have to know the white balance characteristics of what a person printed -- if everything sums to grey, as in my case, the all-in-one is better. Your experience may vary, but the methodology of your test virtually insured a very uneven ink use. And not surprisingly that's what you found. And I could get similar results if I printed all images from the Arizona Red Rock country -- I'd run out of magenta first. No question. But that's not how I'd print normally -- I'd have the Red Rock and then the Seattle Grey/Blue/Greens and so forth. At the end of the day I'm printing grey.
I guess I just don't understand why you think your test is valid, and I'd be interested in why you think it is. Just curioius.
DSC
D
Donald Cooper
Guest
I'd agree with you about speed being a truly wonderful thing which is better than marginally better quality. But the Canon comes up short in a few areas:
1. The Canon driver, which is an annoyance at best or a show stopper depending on your printing needs
2. If you care need or want pigment inks Canon isn't an alternative
3. If you need big prints ..... (somebody just pointed this out to me)
4. If you want to print CDs .......
BTW, I ran out of all six tanks on the same print (even black!). So I was longing for the all-in-ones. Then again, you can get Canon non-OEM ink so it's a lot cheaper.
And yes, Canon printers have been down the last six years or so. But don't forget the great BJC-820. I still know people who are still running that thing. What a tank.
1. The Canon driver, which is an annoyance at best or a show stopper depending on your printing needs
2. If you care need or want pigment inks Canon isn't an alternative
3. If you need big prints ..... (somebody just pointed this out to me)
4. If you want to print CDs .......
BTW, I ran out of all six tanks on the same print (even black!). So I was longing for the all-in-ones. Then again, you can get Canon non-OEM ink so it's a lot cheaper.
And yes, Canon printers have been down the last six years or so. But don't forget the great BJC-820. I still know people who are still running that thing. What a tank.
Robert Bedwell
Senior Member
Tom....I have had excellent results with my 5500. It's a real workhorse. I still plan on using it as a workhorse for printing proofs and smaller enlargements. I will use the 7600 for gallery prints, portraits and larger output. I haven't seen a price drop on the 5500 but the pricing of the 7600 is mysterious to me. Perhaps Epson will replace the 3000 with the 5500. The 3000 is one of the best buys in the marketplace and has been around for a long time.
Bob
Bob
Fritz Norris
Leading Member
I print from Qimage, never had a problem with drivers.
2. If you care need or want pigment inks Canon isn't an alternative
BTW, I ran out of all six tanks on the same print (even black!). So
And yes, Canon printers have been down the last six years or so.
My bad experence was several years ago with the BJC 2100. It was a real piece of junk. Canon replace it 2 times before the warranty expired. When the 3rd one quit I got an Epson 800 which I am still using. (with cheap cartridges off Ebay for text)
Fritz
--
43sbest
I F Burley
Well-known member
Of course the best test is real life, but for practicality, I had to devise a test that I could run consistently from one printer to another. The value in my tests is in the comparison of costs.
But I have been very encouraged to hear that many other people who just use their own printers for every day printing find that they run out of the same inks first and also report very similar overall consumption rates.
I'm confident that my test is a useful guide to ink consumption.
Ian
Ian Burley
But I have been very encouraged to hear that many other people who just use their own printers for every day printing find that they run out of the same inks first and also report very similar overall consumption rates.
I'm confident that my test is a useful guide to ink consumption.
Ian
--
Ian Burley
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum