Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Thinking of ditching my Epson 3880 and switching to a Canon imagePrograf IPF6300.  Should I?
Canon - 17 (53.1%)
Epson - 15 (46.9%)
Total Voters: 32

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Switching to Canon from Epson. Should I?  (Read 6726 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2011, 10:31:02 PM »
ReplyReply

You'll notice that the OP has left the building? He made one post and skeedaddled...the rest of this thread is just masturbation.
Logged
enduser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2011, 07:45:06 AM »
ReplyReply

If the original poster is still paying attention, count up which posts use the word "clog" most, Epson or Canon.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2011, 07:53:51 AM »
ReplyReply

You'll notice that the OP has left the building? He made one post and skeedaddled...the rest of this thread is just masturbation.

Not even as useful. :-)
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2011, 08:30:38 AM »
ReplyReply

If the original poster is still paying attention, count up which posts use the word "clog" most, Epson or Canon.

Yes, you'll see the word clog associated with Epson more than with Canon, but that is completely predictable and meaningless, because the technologies are different. As noted over and over again, Epson deals with clogs by letting you clean them as they happen, while Canon keeps them under-the-hood by building in extra nozzles such that when enough of them get clogged you spend 500 bucks on a new print head. We'll pay the price of using pigmented inks one way or another. That said, I'd love to see the Epson 3800 non-clog performance replicated in all their models.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Thelo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2011, 09:06:30 AM »
ReplyReply

If the original poster is still paying attention, count up which posts use the word "clog" most, Epson or Canon.

Why should he do that? I understood that he is already having Epson and so he should know if his printer is having any problems with clogging. (which I doubt)
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2011, 12:13:08 PM »
ReplyReply

The word "Troll" comes to mind. Drop a stone into the pond and watch the ripples spread . . .

John  Wink
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2011, 12:27:01 PM »
ReplyReply

The word "Troll" comes to mind. Drop a stone into the pond and watch the ripples spread . . .

John  Wink

A half-brained Troll? New species? :-)
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2011, 02:55:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, you'll see the word clog associated with Epson more than with Canon, but that is completely predictable and meaningless, because the technologies are different. As noted over and over again, Epson deals with clogs by letting you clean them as they happen, while Canon keeps them under-the-hood by building in extra nozzles such that when enough of them get clogged you spend 500 bucks on a new print head.

I believe there are two relevant aspects to the clogging issue. One is the ultimate cost of either approach, which we will likely never have good comparative data for, although I would love to see some.

The second is impact on productivity. My 2200 was fussy about clogs, and it cost me time and created worry. My 3800 has been great. It rarely clogs but I continued my habit of checking nozzles at the start of each printing session. It's fortunate I did, as it saved a few prints. There was still a productivity impact but it was much less and my worry was almost gone. As for my 8300, I've only printed one nozzle check, and it was because I thought I should. No productivity impact and no worry.

Bottom line for me. If the current Epson large format printers behaved like my 3800 I would not have hesitated to make a purchase. Instead I looked at Canon, and liked what I saw in the 8300. In the bigger scheme of pros and cons, clogging issues went past my personal threshold of concern. That threshold may be different for each one of us.

In spite of the troll, I've enjoyed our conversation.  ;-)

Terry.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2011, 03:04:17 PM »
ReplyReply

You'll notice that the OP has left the building? He made one post and skeedaddled...the rest of this thread is just masturbation.
Yep .. thought so from the start.  I smell a troll.
Logged

CityShooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2011, 12:48:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to all of you who have posted.  I'm definitely not a troll, just a semi-professional photographer with fairly little experience with inkjet printers.  I've only had one, and clogging has definitely be a thorn in my side. 

Rather than zero in on one issue and narrow the discussion to my personal preferences and usecases, I thought I'd ask a simpler question and see how people answered it. 

It seems that there are strong opinions in both camps, which lead me to believe that it's almost a toss-up between the two.  I will say, though, that more people voted (in my poll) for switching to Canon by a small margin.  It's pretty clear that Canon is building very high quality products and that the word is getting out than Canon is now a force to be reckoned with and that Epson can no longer get away with building products that are frustrating to use. 

I'm feeling drawn to Canon.  Call it an educated personal preference.  Wink

Cheers.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 06, 2011, 12:50:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope it hasn't been educated only by what you read in this thread. I would seriously recommend a lot more real research focused around your own priorities before making this decision.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
CityShooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2011, 12:53:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I have indeed done a lot of reading and talked with several techs and two dealers in my area.  Canon is definitely coming out ahead based not only what I use the printer for (weddings, portraits, fine art) but also because of image quality and usability.  Canon has apparently just worked exceptionally hard at making a better machine than Epson. 
Logged
Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2011, 12:57:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Welcome to the list CityShooter.

Terry.
Logged
CityShooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2011, 01:00:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry - I actually meant the IPF6300, not the earlier model. 
Logged
bellimages
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 309


WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 06, 2011, 01:19:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I've used Epson printers for many years. Clogging is an issue with any printer that pushes ground pigments though microscopic print heads. Maybe someday they will overcome this technical issue, but for now, we have to live with it. But as noted by many other posts, Epson allows you to unclog the heads yourself.

My current 7900 is working great. The prints are outstanding. And THAT is the bottom line for me. You need to compare the two units, and determine which output suits your eye.

I will add one comment, Epson's tech support is top notch. I am 100% satisfied with them. And their customer support people are even better.
Logged

Jan Bell, Owner/Photographer, Bell Images
www.bellimages.com

"Making the simple complicated is commonplace, Making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity."    Charles Mingus
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 06, 2011, 01:57:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I have indeed done a lot of reading and talked with several techs and two dealers in my area.  Canon is definitely coming out ahead based not only what I use the printer for (weddings, portraits, fine art) but also because of image quality and usability.  Canon has apparently just worked exceptionally hard at making a better machine than Epson. 
Really?  Image quality?  You can argue features all you want, and if you need the roll feed of a 6300 or the width or the speed, or just don't want to spring for the Epson (big rebates right now), fine. They're both good machines and image quality is not a factor in the decision - if you aren't getting completely fantastic prints out of your 3880 you won't get any better prints out of the Canon ...in fact they will look pretty much identical 99% of the time. You are asking for opinions in a world where there are no objective opinions, add to that asking dealers and techs who may know how to get the machines to print, but do they really know how to print?    You don't think they are completely biesed, just like everyone else, based on what they like (or what they make the most money selling).   And why in the world would you base any decision like this on a meaningless poll?  If Canon is leading, it's simply more Canon users voted, or many like myself that don't bother voting in stuff like this.  And of course, your first post is a question that has been hashed to death so many times on this forum.  A few searches and you would understand why you look like a troll ... 1st time poster asking a question that has been beat to death for several years now ...

From an image quality difference Canon is not better.  An ipf6300 vs a 3880 very close, but don't let the slightly larger gamut of the canon mislead you ... that doesn't add much to image quality except a few rare images ... and in the case of flesh tones and smooth skin transitions in the hands a skilled user that 3880 will come out as good and often better than the Canon.

But don't try to "justify" a switch from an image quality perspective ...because that's not a factor. Unless you need a feature of the ipf6300, ditching your 3880 is a complete waste of money.
Logged

Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #36 on: June 06, 2011, 03:57:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Was there much of an IQ difference between the 3800 and 3880?

Terry.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 06, 2011, 04:44:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Was there much of an IQ difference between the 3800 and 3880?

Yep...improved total gamut of color and finer detail due to the improved dithering...
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646


« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2011, 10:17:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Epson "lets you clean the clogs yourself"? How generous of them.. That cracked me up big time. I gotta remember that one. I'll put it in the next tech paper I write. Mark one up for Epson, they let you clean your own clogs :-) .
Logged
Rob Reiter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224



WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2011, 10:53:27 PM »
ReplyReply

As a former Epson user who has happily switched to Canon for the last four years, I agrees with Wayne's point here. A far bigger influence on the prints you make will be the work you do in Photoshop, not whether your printer is an Epson or a Canon. I'm happy with my Canon 8300 for it's reliability and cost. Image quality is a given in high end printers these days. If you aren't printing commercially, as I am, it will probably be years before you need to replace the heads on a Canon; you get at least 4000ml of ink through each one. And the new head cost is more like $400 or less. I wasted that much ink cleaning my Epson 9800 in the time it took me to need a replacement on the Canon, and I don't suffer the daily aggravation of head cleanings.

And keep in mind that a Canon 6300 or 8300 comes with 330 ml cartridges installed. It took me 6 months to go through those, printing daily for myself and my clients. Shop and price aggressively. It's a buyer's market in printers today.


Really?  Image quality?  You can argue features all you want, and if you need the roll feed of a 6300 or the width or the speed, or just don't want to spring for the Epson (big rebates right now), fine. They're both good machines and image quality is not a factor in the decision - if you aren't getting completely fantastic prints out of your 3880 you won't get any better prints out of the Canon ...in fact they will look pretty much identical 99% of the time.


Logged

http://www.lightroom.com Fine art printing for photographers and other artists
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad