Epson or Canon Printers?

[@Slave-Of-Christ]

I've owned 3 Epson 13“ printers, one of which was an office type printer, scanner, fax, etc. No complaints about the print quality. Major complaints about clogging. Stressed me out big time. Now a very happy Canon Pro-1000 owner. Haven't had it that long and haven't put any better papers through it yet, so can't help with comments about how it feeds. I've only ever heard praise from others, however, concerning it feeding paper very well. That might not necessarily mean that it won't balk at somewhat curled paper though; I don't know.

[@ericklara4441]

I currently print on a pro 1000 and I love the printer. the quality of the prints and the pretty much hassle free operation has made it a joy to work with. It feeds fine art paper pretty well. I regularly use 315gsm 21mil paper and it prints like a champ.

[@phototocanvaspdx]

Thanks for sharing. Today my P900 had a bunch more issues and I am thinking about pulling the trigger on a new pro-1100!

[@josephsigler2699]

20 yr Epson art printer here. I've never personally used the small format printers but I have heard the P900 is terrible for feeding thick paper and even worse if you add the roll paper option. I just run the small sheets through my big Epson printers. I try to use 17x22 cut sheets, but I have been known to print on cut offs. Printing on roll cutoffs is risky business as there is a good chance of head strikes. I love my 9900's, and the 11880 and we have been getting used to the P20000 over the past year but it's temperamental. Been thinking of switching to Canon just for the user replaceable printhead. The P20000 head is around $2500 plus tech fees. Love this video as I have been meaning to ask why you use Canon vs Epson.

[@phototocanvaspdx]

I really appreciate your input. Seeing as that I don't actually use a large format Epson I was nervous this would just annoy people. I tried to be clear that I was just speaking to my experience. Honestly Im looking for one person to say why Epson large formats are better, as I see them in more shops by like a 2:1 ratio at least. And every one I know with Canons loves them. Look into the 4600 series that just came out I hear they are incredible. Thanks again for the input!

[@phototocanvaspdx]

I had a customer in yesterday talking about how Epson large formats can run sheets. My canons can but they roll them and you need like an extra foot of paper for the printer to grab as it finishes printing. How do Epson large formats deal with sheets in those regards?

[@josephsigler2699]

@@phototocanvaspdx It sounds like large format Epson's might have the advantage on large cut sheets. I've had a lot of luck running 36x48 cut sheets from Hahnemuhle and Innova through mine. The 9900, 11880, and now the 9570 all have straight through paper paths. My P20000 is not a straight through path but it still handles thick fine art sheets very well. No extra foot of paper needed, more like an inch on the Epson. I am always leaving some kind of margin and trim the excess so I do not really print right to the edge. Rolled Fine Art papers have caused me plenty of headaches over the years due to the curvature of the rolled paper hitting the print head. Those print head strikes can lead to a head replacement which is very expensive on an Epson compared to Canon.

[@phototocanvaspdx]

@@josephsigler2699 For sure. I hadn't realized until this week that Epsons cut sheet design worked so well. Maybe Canon can consider that in future models! Ha! I will say that about 70% of my printing these days is fine art paper, and I have only ever had ONE issue with the head hitting the paper and it was a Hahnemule metallic. A good number of prints that come out of my P900 have head marks (on fine art paper). Im not expecting it to last very long, and will likely replace it with a Canon.

[@bizpixvegas7651]

Great video and great advice. Agree with Canon choice 100%. I had an Epson 9800 which was horrible with the clogged heads. I found an alternative ink supplier and bought bottles and did my own refilling. I had to clean the heads everyday. I wasted a lot of the "cheap" ink too. The results were great but the constant head cleaning was just not practical because I wasted ink and more importantly lots of time. I got out of the large format printing but if I ever go back in again, Canon will be my choice hands down. I also have an Epson P800 but have not used it in years. It is probably dead by now!! BTW, I bought several Pro 100 printers when Canon was practically giving them away. I have not had major issues with them. Again, I am using after market bulk inks (refilling my cartridges) and the colors are as good as the OEM Canon inks. I have almost 85% cost saving in ink cost.

[@phototocanvaspdx]

Thanks for your comments! So good to hear im not the only one. Are you on a PC? The pro-100 issues I had were all about double profiling and its a well know problem. Just curious why you didnt have the issue. I used third party inks in it for a while but all those images are insanely faded after just two years (in a drawer, no sun exposure). After that I'll never use after market inks again.

[@bizpixvegas7651]

@@phototocanvaspdx No I am on the Mac platform. I have not had fading issue as I keep my prints away from strong light and or in portfolio books. The color fidelity and print brightness vs. the screen have been haunting me to this day!

[@phototocanvaspdx]

@@bizpixvegas7651 thats lucky, my prints were stored in drawers and still look awful (the third party inks prints). What software do you use to print?

[@bizpixvegas7651]

@@phototocanvaspdx I use Photoshop and standard printer drivers. At some point I profiled some of my papers with the Epson but have not done so with my Canon. The issue I am having is plugged up shadows and lack of shadow detail. Overall the images look good but not to the same detail level I am seeing on my monitor. I do use a BenQ 2K monitor that supports sRGB space but not Adobe RGB. I have an i1 monitor calibrator and calibrate the monitor from time to time.

[@boristahmasian1644]

@@phototocanvaspdx Sorry for the late reply. I used Photoshop and I suppose it used the Epson driver to do the printing. I got decent prints but not wow type quality. I used standard Epson profiles. I have the hardware (now very old) to make my own profiles. I compared them with Epson's paper specific profiles and they looked slightly better. The difference was not as much as I had hoped. These prints were all made with generic inks. As far as longevity, I have a print on luster paper that is about 8-years-old and it still looks like day one. The ink was generic, so was the paper. I got them from two different place in California.

[@bryan67thomas]

My first photo printer is a Canon Pro-100 that I picked up at Goodwill for $20 dollars. It's absolutely a love hate relationship. I really happy with the results I can get out of it but that process is far from easy or straightforward. At some point I hope to upgrade to the Pro-1000 or Pro-1100

[@tundrusphoto4312]

Thank you for this. I was leaning towards an Epson but will have to give serious consideration to Canon.

[@phototocanvaspdx]

What size are you looking at?

[@brucekester7638]

I am not in your category of printer user, but I do regularly print on canvas with my Canon Pro-100 for retail sales items with 13"x19" capable format. I refill my carts to make printing affordable and otherwise couldn't make it profitable. An upgrade to a Pro-200 eliminates this option. In 8 years I've had to replace one printer - cheaper than any canvas capable printer out there. I'm fully in the thumbs up crowd for Canon. I also have an Epson ET-2700 that is nothing but a headache. Yes, the tank tech makes it cheaper on consumables, but the heads simply can't keep from clogging, and the colors can only be charitably described as weak. My 2¢ worth.

[@Light_Quill]

I have recently discovered your channel and am really happy that I did as I like your style and the substance of what you convey. On the point of your video today, I used to own two Epson 17” printers, one of which being a 4900, and while it did produce beautiful prints when it worked, it gave me (to your point) so many clogging issues that it turned into a nightmare despite having two print heads replaced under warranty. I passed on the P900 for the reasons that you described and I went for the Canon Pro 1100 which is mechanically the same as the Pro 1000 but with reformulated inks. Having read nothing but praise about the paper feed system of the Pro 1000 and the quality of its prints, I was eager to give Canon a go. While the Pro 1100 produces gorgeous prints when it works the way it should, it unfortunately has banding issues that make every print a flip of a coin: will it print correctly or will there be banding? Canon replaced my unit under warranty (outstanding customer service I have to say - I had my replacement printer at my doorstep in less than 24 hours) but unfortunately the new one displays the same banding issues as my previous one. I hope that they will be able to fix this issue ASAP otherwise I will have to switch to an Epson P5370 as consistency and predictability are features that you would expect from a printer that gets marketed as a “pro level” printer. Just my 2 cents.

[@phototocanvaspdx]

Such valuable info, and thank you for the kind words! Im sorry to hear of your struggles with the 1100 (I didnt even know about that one!). I assume you've adjust the paper feed? I get banding occasionally in the large formats and when I run a fee adjustment it fixes it. Glad the customer service has been helpful, they have always been solid with me.

[@Light_Quill]

@@phototocanvaspdxThank you for the suggestion - you have no idea how many things I tried. I have also been working with a technician who is with the manufacturer of my FA papers of choice (Canson) who has been nothing short of amazing at helping me out. I have custom profiles for all my Canson papers (created through their .a1mx files) and among other things I ran paper feed calibration for all of them. It did improve things a little bit, but it was only marginal unfortunately. I even sent the images that gave me most trouble to the Canson technician and he could replicate the issue on their Pro 1100. Unfortunately there is an issue with these printers. It does not affect all prints, some that I made and came out right are just beautiful, with spot on colors and deep blacks, but the problem is that you never know when the issue will present itself and that just doesn’t work. I am hoping that Canon is on top of it and fixes the problem soon because I want to like Canon printers but I am not there yet because this has been my first experience with them. I heard from you and from many others that their large format units are outstanding but unfortunately they are not what I own :-)

[@phototocanvaspdx]

@@Light_Quill Again, so much valuable info. if you hear about a fix let me know. Whatever you do I would not switch to Epson. Does the regular Pro-1000 have the issue?

[@Light_Quill]

@@phototocanvaspdxI sure will - I hope they can come up with a fix soon. As to your question - based on what I read the Pro 1000 did not have banding issues (I did not own one, so I cannot attest to it directly), however the Canson technician told me that one of the images that I sent to him displayed banding on both the Pro 1100 and the Pro 1000. Go figure. One thing that I meant to add regarding your point that Canon print heads are user replaceable and Epson’s are not is that there is a reason behind it. Canon uses thermal print heads which heat up ink when they spray it out, so they are essentially consumables that need replacing after a certain (high) number of prints. Epson on the other hand uses piezo technology for its print heads which does not require heating up the ink to be sprayed out, so in theory their print heads should last much longer and not require replacement by the user. That is of course unless they clog all the time as my 4900 used to!

[@stephencrozier2194]

I have been a printer for over 20 years, epson user for 12-15 years. now have 5 canon pro wide formats (2 pro4000, 4600, 2600 & 6100) one point though comparing prints in the way you did is not a very accurate way to do it, waaaaay to many variables to make it a useful comparison

[@phototocanvaspdx]

@@stephencrozier2194 I guess I’m confused by the variables? Same image, same paper, proper icc profiles…

[@stephencrozier2194]

@@phototocanvaspdx but profiling has various variable, I could make profiles that would give either of the results. a more accurate way is measuring gamut etc

[@stephencrozier2194]

@@phototocanvaspdx sorry I pressed entrer to quick. so for example I could change the printer setting on both printers, and get close to either result, based on changing things like ink density etc etc. BTW, I not suggesting there isnt a difference, the blacks are WAAAAAAY better on the anon but just saying to amylase between two inkjet and 2 machines its more that just print the image on both etc

[@phototocanvaspdx]

@@stephencrozier2194 Sure adjustments can be made, but two prints using vendor profiles for art paper should not be that different. I get incredibly accurate prints from my canon machines with no fine tuning aside from custom profiling, which I don't even need to do often. Some prints from the epson look great but it varies significantly more than my Canon machines.

[@stephencrozier2194]

@@phototocanvaspdx oh vendor profiles vary massively, depending on the vendor, and how they are doing them. I dont have an issue with my canons, mind I do make some custom profiles, I just find it easier when matching stuff totally, same with my scanners I make custom profiles for those too

[@TheSydguy30]

I hate Epson which a passion. Mine died after a firmware update, it stopped recognizing the printer cartridges instantly (obvious planned obsolescence) and it is EVERYWHERE (the issue from others) I just bought a Canon and love it. Epson customer service is awful and the company is just unethical.