Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson LF vs. Canon LF  (Read 19294 times)
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« on: January 21, 2011, 09:25:39 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems like most all here are Epson "whores" Why?  I received sample photos from Canon and granted I believe they are "ringers" (too good especially gloss) but why do people here buy the Epson 4900 when they could buy the Canon 8300 44" for the same price?  Is Canon really that far beneath Epson? 
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5541


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2011, 09:32:43 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems like most all here are Epson "whores" Why?

You might wanna be a little careful about calling anybody a whore...not very PC if ya know what I mean...

Epson took an early US fine art printing market lead. Canon has been playing catchup ever since. HP is about out essentially of the market these days so a lot of the current economic situation is a direct result of Epson having been #1 and Canon and HP (now sort of out of the running) trying to chip away. Part of that is trying to impact the market with pricing...but if you spend any time on LuLa you'll see there is a fundamental difference between Epson and Canon/HP. And it has zero to do with anybody being a whore...
Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2011, 09:39:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

maybe a bad choice of word, however I have been mostly an Epson whore since the Photo EX, except for when speed was important, but that advantage has seemed to disappear.  Let's not use the word "Whore" let's say strong bias towards Epson?  HP far behind?  Really?  Reading Canon reviews it seems they are close if not surpassed Canon in certain areas, yet they seem very far behind?

I know you are very biased towards Epson, do you ever test Canon LF printers?  If not, why not?

« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 09:42:59 PM by Gemmtech » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5541


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2011, 10:11:04 PM »
ReplyReply

HP far behind?  Really?

Not far behind...the "current versions" of HP printers are fine. But it seems the company, HP, has pretty much closed down their fine art inkjet efforts and have turned their attention more towards the graphic arts Indigo efforts...so don't expect to see much movement in the HP initiatives moving forward...

As for Canon's current efforts, they are laudable but considering how far they've had to come to compete with Epson, it's been a struggle. I think Canon is behind Epson when it comes to connecting with fine art printing as apposed to "photo printing" (there is a distinction ya know).

Yes, I've compared the state of the art Canons against the state of the art Epson printers (such as the 9900). Nothing Canon has done has prompted me to consider changing from Epson to Canon...part of that my be my bias because of my Epson relationships, but in my mind, competing purely on price (which is the current situation since the Epson/Canon state of the art is so close) simply isn't in my wheelhouse...since I HAVE a 9900 that produces excellent prints, why would I give that up for a Canon? No good reason in my mind...if you haven't yet made a commitment, then the question is different, ya know? It's really down to a two horse race at this point and I'm already on the Epson pony...
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2953



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2011, 03:27:16 AM »
ReplyReply

interesting ... personally I think this forum is Canon biased and anti Epson more than the other way around.
Logged

Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2011, 03:35:27 AM »
ReplyReply

"interesting ... personally I think this forum is Canon biased and anti Epson more than the other way around."

I'd say that this forum seems to be more biased relating to problems or lack there of regarding the two, with the Canon receiving the kudos for never clogging or breaking down, though as you have stated many times, "The Canons do clog, but you don't know it until you have to replace the $500.00 print head"

The bias I was talking about was the members here seem to buy Epson over Canon 10-1, yet the Canon LF is getting excellent reviews and seems it's as good as Epson in most areas and better in some like bronzing / GD? 
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2953



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2011, 03:58:28 AM »
ReplyReply

The bias I was talking about was the members here seem to buy Epson over Canon 10-1, yet the Canon LF is getting excellent reviews and seems it's as good as Epson in most areas and better in some like bronzing / GD?  

That may partly be due to dealer availability ... there are usually good dealers in most markets for Epson printers, not so much for Canon, and there is a comfort level with a local dealer.  Local dealers means inks are easy to get on the spur of the moment ... with a Canon you may have to stock some ink because it might be a couple of days away if you run out.

As far as "better" than Epson, hard to say.  Bronzing and GD are a function of both the inks and the paper, and I don't see any real issues of it with the Epson.  I've never seen any inkjet paper that had no GD at all, but it's minimal and you have to look for it  ... just doesn't present a problem once a print is framed on the wall.  Similar with bronzing.  I know my ipf6100 certainly had more issues with GD than the 11880.  I've only seen ipf8300 prints at trade shows, and while it appears they have improved this, I can't say it's "better", and even if it is it's like saying a BMW is better than a Mercedes or vice versa .. they're both pretty darn good.

They're both great printers, I've used both and I still prefer Epson ... sort of like Jeff.  I love the output and I'm already on that pony.  I actually believe on extremely high quality images in the hands of skilled printers you can get more out of an Epson --- I've just never seen anything printed in the Canon booth that rivals the prints I see in the Epson booth at trade shows. But that's certainly a subjective observation and perhaps reflects far more on the choice of images used and the company used to produce those images than the printers themselves.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2011, 01:55:44 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8009


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2011, 04:02:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Don't know, but with Jeff Schewe we have a heavy weight in the Epson corner.

Best regards
Erik




interesting ... personally I think this forum is Canon biased and anti Epson more than the other way around.
Logged

keith_cooper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 470



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2011, 04:50:56 AM »
ReplyReply

... I received sample photos from Canon and granted I believe they are "ringers" (too good especially gloss)...

I'm curious as to whether this is possibly true? Have you had a chance to get any of your own images printed?

In the UK, Canon sample images are available from http://www.sampleprint.co.uk/ - I'm pretty sure that at least some of these are genuine, since they have some of my own images in the set you can choose from :-)

As someone who's recently got an iPF8300 and looked at offerings from HP/Epson/Canon, I can say that the differences are getting very close in printer performance.

I'd say we're at the point where many people couldn't easily spot the difference in a blind test - particularly if they didn't know the image really well.

I can measure different factors and point to lists of numbers, but when it comes to prints that someone might want to put on their wall, many of these differences are pretty meaningless. Granted, there are applications where different technical parameters are important, but the proportion of such users is smaller than they might perhaps like to think ;-)

Of course it doesn't always suit 'experts' in -any- camp to point this sort of thing out :-) :-)
Logged

Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2011, 05:55:48 AM »
ReplyReply

"I'm curious as to whether this is possibly true? Have you had a chance to get any of your own images printed?"

They have to be or everybody would be praising Canon's pigment gloss prints and they aren't.  The Canon sample prints are the only pigment prints I've seen with no GD.  Obviously dye prints don't have the GD issue.  Every sample print I have received from Epson have had GD albeit minor, but there.  I haven't had a chance to have my own images printed with a Canon, but I know I'd be disappointed and will continue to use dye with gloss.  If I could get a pigment gloss print like the one Canon sent I'd use it for most gloss prints, but it's not realistic.  I admire Epson for being honest, they don't send out "ringer" prints, they are very nice but the GD is still there.

I thought HP didn't have any GD or bronzing issues because they use a clear gloss topcoat?  

« Last Edit: January 22, 2011, 06:07:48 AM by Gemmtech » Logged
keith_cooper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 470



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2011, 06:30:19 AM »
ReplyReply

But what paper was used? I'd be curious to know.

Out of curiosity, what office/division of Canon sent you the prints?

I can only speak from my personal dealings with the large format people at Canon UK, but they would be mortified if they found that someone was sending out false prints in their name.
Logged

Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2011, 07:36:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I received the prints from Canon USA done on the IPF6350, the first print I looked at was a woman in a wedding dress with flower petals around her, this print was on Canon Fine Art Photo Rag 188gsm by Hahnemuhle

2nd print old man Canon Premium RC Photo luster

Both these prints looked very good, but I can't say any better than the Epson prints except that there's very little GD on the 2nd print and to be honest, just looking at the print now do I see the GD for the first time. you really have to look for it and have the light hit it just right.

3rd print  I threw this one off to the side at first because it was a glossy print and I know pigment inks are lousy with gloss media.  But then I picked it up and looked at it and I was amazed at how well it looked for a pigment gloss print.   It's a green motorcycle with flames Media is Canon Glossy Photographic Paper 240gsm and again if you tilt it just right I guess one can see a little bit of bronzing, though no GD, but I'm sure with a blown highlight, crashing wave, bright sun etc. you'd have GD, but this is certainly the nicest pigment gloss print I have seen, not to dye standards but probably good enough.

Logged
keith_cooper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 470



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2011, 07:46:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks - I'll have a look with some glossy media on my 8300.

I just don't normally print glossy at all, but I'll have a look since I've got a few misc. boxes of Canon media around after testing the 6300 last year.

I still have a 44" unopened roll of Epson PGPP that was a freebie back in 2004 with our Epson 9600 - perhaps time for it to see the light of day at last :-)

So, are you still minded to regard them as 'ringers'? :-)
Logged

abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2011, 09:28:43 AM »
ReplyReply

This isn't an interesting discussion as of yet, so let me throw my $.02 into the ring.

If you were to ask me about Canon or HP inkjet technology 3 or 4 years ago, I would have told you that Epson was the 5,000,000 pound gorilla that threw the other guys out of the ring. As of this moment in time, I think all 3 players have very viable products out on the market and the quality gap is very very close, depending on your own specific needs or sensitivities. As a guy that has all 3 of the latest 44" printers (Epson 9900, Canon iPF8300, HP Z3200), they are all good a different things. I think it comes down to usability, access to support, TCO, paper handling, etc etc etc.

I think there are more anti-Epson folks on this forum than die hard supporters, primarily because I think Epson didn't have the right large format products on the market for a long time (switching of black inks was a huge pain until the 7900/9900 models came out), and also because of clogging issues. The clogging issues is an interesting one, because on the thermal heads on the Canon and HP models there is still clogging, but with more nozzles you never know about them until the head has died. The replacement cost is much much less than the Epson, but it is still a cost and hassle.

As an independent guy who happens to create profiles for an inkjet paper company, as well the running of fine art digital printing workshops, I need to own many different printers on the market. We are living in good times right now, as the quality of these products is quite high and costs are coming down (especially with the Canon and HP models). What's not to like?

Personally, I don't enjoy printing on the Z3200 due to speed, paper handling (rear paper loading is a pain, as well as cut sheets), and I am very happy printing on the Epson 9900 and Canon iPF8300. The new Epson 4900 that I obtained this week is a dream when compared to the Canon iPF5100, which I won't even bother turning on. Too bad Canon and HP don't have an answer to the Epson 3880, because more competition would be a good thing.

I added up the number of inkjet printers I have, and it is kind of mind numbing:

Canon Pro 9000 II
Canon Pro 9500 II
Canon iPF5100
Canon iPF8300
Epson 2200
Epson R2400
Epson R1800
Epson R1900
Epson R1400
Epson 3800
Epson 3880
Epson 4900
Epson 9900
HP B9180
HP Z3200

And I have access to the Epson 4800 and 4880 at my assistant's home.
Ok, this is getting long-winded. /out
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2011, 10:06:50 AM »
ReplyReply

So, are you still minded to regard them as 'ringers'? :-)

I just don't know, all I do know is pigment printers don't do well with glossy prints and this print I have from Canon on glossy media is a nice print.  

"I added up the number of inkjet printers I have, and it is kind of mind numbing:"

WOW




Logged
keith_cooper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 470



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2011, 10:52:02 AM »
ReplyReply

That's a lot of printers, I've had many of them here, but unfortunately they had to go back to their real owners. Then again, I don't think my wife is keen to have the house return to the state it used to be in ;-)

...but seriously, I'm finding it much more difficult to say what's new (that you'd notice) when looking at new printers, and I agree it's a lot more about overall usability than it used to be.

Looking at the Canon iPF5100, there does indeed appear to be a glaring hole(s) in the range. An iPF5300 would make for an interesting addition to the market, given Canon's aggressive pricing strategy with the iPF8300 ...or at least in the US that is, since there seems to have been considerably more discounting of late than we've seen in the UK
Logged

Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2011, 12:02:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been an Epson user(whore) Tongue since 95, and printed on nearly all of them, esp. LF (today 11880, 9900).
Last week I was at Canon Center and printed my test-images on the 8300 for a couple of hours.
Nice output, but something, which I don't exactly can explain, is not like an Epsonprint.
It's still sort of "synthetic" over a Canonprint. To saturated, to much color, darker. Like an ad for a car company.
And the media/paper handling isn't my cup of tea.

So, I'm in Jeff and Wayne's corner until something different can convince me.

/Sven
Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
keith_cooper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 470



WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2011, 01:20:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Sven, I'm assuming you didn't get to profile the printer for your paper? It wasn't until I'd had a 6300 for a while and created some of my own profiles that I decided I liked it :-)

It's just that your comments about the colour echo my first thoughts when I had the 6300 turn up.

This is one of the reasons I'm a bit skeptical when I see test prints at trade shows ;-)
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2953



WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2011, 02:20:47 PM »
ReplyReply

The Canon sample prints are the only pigment prints I've seen with no GD.

Well, it's certainly possible to print without gloss differential on most new printers, even subjects with a lot of "white".  My first look at real output from the 8300 was last February at the WPPI trade show, and even had some images of mine printed. It's there, but definitely improved over the 61/8100 series. The output also looked cleaner to me, but not sure if that was imagined or not.  I talked briefly with David Sparer from Canon, and one comment he made might explain that ... they put a lot of effort into reducing/eliminating the "tail" of the droplets (his word) to get a cleaner more evenly shaped droplet.

AT this point it seems to be more about features and price than anything.  I have no problem with MK/PK switch because I just hardly ever use MK (and when I do I just print on my 11880).  But to others this is a big deal. I personally like the straight through paper path of the Epson, and find it handles more media types easier than my 6100 did.  I love the spindle free roll loading of the Epson, and I feel the printers menu system and driver setup on my Mac is simpler and easier to use (that may be improved on the new Canons, my experience dates back to the 6100). Clogging isn't an issue for me, sure I get em, but they aren't that frequent anymore.  But the printer is used frequently and that definitely helps an Epson.

And as a Canon dealer, Canon still just doesn't seem that interested in really making their printer division a factor through their dealer network.  I guess it's not a problem, since I've only ever had one request for a quote on a Canon printer and that was from another state.  Makes me wonder what Canon has in mind - maybe the LF printer division is more like a hobby.
Logged

Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2011, 03:27:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Sven, I'm assuming you didn't get to profile the printer for your paper? It wasn't until I'd had a 6300 for a while and created some of my own profiles that I decided I liked it :-)

It's just that your comments about the colour echo my first thoughts when I had the 6300 turn up.

This is one of the reasons I'm a bit skeptical when I see test prints at trade shows ;-)

It was Canon profiles on Canon media. And I really liked the 300 gms HW Gloss Photo.

And yes, I was thinking about profiling after my reply. Making your own profiling and fine-tuning the printer, media and handling,
taking everything out of it, makes all three brands (E, C, HP) to workhorses.

/Sven
Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad