eleskin
Well-known
I am used to a "16x20" fiber base glossy double weight paper for prints that I exhibit and sell, and I am a little turned off that the printers below $1000 only print up to 13" wide. It seems that Canon offers the best printers for this task, although Epson is a little cheaper. So in the Canon vs. Epson war, who wins? I am attracted to the Canon iPF5100. Who has one for their M8, and what do you think about economy of operation (Ink use) and print quality (especially papers that look like Fiber base double weight glossy in conventional darkrooms).
PS: I have heard alot about Epson clogging problems. Not as much with Canon.
PS: I have heard alot about Epson clogging problems. Not as much with Canon.
aniMal
Well-known
Printers are waaay too expensive in larger format, so I bought a second hand A1 printer myself...
A good tip might be to call the importers direct and ask if there are any pro models in refurbished condition. Pro printers are also more serviceable, and the ink is cheaper by a huge margin.
A good tip might be to call the importers direct and ask if there are any pro models in refurbished condition. Pro printers are also more serviceable, and the ink is cheaper by a huge margin.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Double Negative, maybe you could talk a little more about your experiences with the Canon. I've been toying with the idea of a printer in the $400 range for several months, and that is one of the possibilities.
jbrubaker
Established
I suggest Epson 3800
I suggest Epson 3800
I beleive that the Epson 3800 is now below $1000. It wiil print up to 17" x 37" and make beautiful BW or Color prints. I've owned many other printers, but I think Epson really got it right with the 3800!
I suggest Epson 3800
I beleive that the Epson 3800 is now below $1000. It wiil print up to 17" x 37" and make beautiful BW or Color prints. I've owned many other printers, but I think Epson really got it right with the 3800!
eleskin
Well-known
Atlex.com has great prices on Wide Format printers
Atlex.com has great prices on Wide Format printers
Atlex.com has the Canon iPF5100 for $1329.00 with free shipping. This sounds great. Shades of Paper is $1,500, B&H over $1,700. The more I read about Epson, the more scared I am of clogging. I think my mind is made up. Anyone deal with Atlex.com? How is there service?
Atlex.com has great prices on Wide Format printers
Atlex.com has the Canon iPF5100 for $1329.00 with free shipping. This sounds great. Shades of Paper is $1,500, B&H over $1,700. The more I read about Epson, the more scared I am of clogging. I think my mind is made up. Anyone deal with Atlex.com? How is there service?
sojournerphoto
Veteran
IPF5100 handles both roll and sheet very well and produces excellent output. I've just changed an IPF5000 for an HP Z3100, but only because of the cost of head replacement on the Canon. Output is excellent - the 5100 improves in terms of smoothness and gloss differential and bronzing. In my view the best 17 inch printer out there. If you're in the UK there are some good deals on 5000s I believe - try flash centre?
If you only want to print on cut sheets then the epson 3800 is also supposed to be excellent and if you prefer rolls and will only print on glossy or matte (switching is very expensive) the the 4800 or 4880 should be fine - but cut sheet handling may well be inferior to the canon.
All produce good output once you get properly profiled and practiced.
Mike
If you only want to print on cut sheets then the epson 3800 is also supposed to be excellent and if you prefer rolls and will only print on glossy or matte (switching is very expensive) the the 4800 or 4880 should be fine - but cut sheet handling may well be inferior to the canon.
All produce good output once you get properly profiled and practiced.
Mike
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I must add that my Epson 2400 has never had a nozzle clog in 3 years and several thousand prints. That is even after sitting unused for a month. I gave up doing nozzle checks after the first year as they were always perfect.
The old 1280's made great prints but did have a tendency to clog when using pigment inks (non Epson). I believe they were last made in 2003 I believe. I would not recommend buying one these days as they are now three generations old.
You can make good prints on just about any printer made these days. Even the sub $100 Epsons.
It does seem that the overwhelming majority of fine art printers use Epsons. Possibly it it because they have always used Epsons and never saw any reason to change. Or possibly it is because of the large support infrastructure of users and 3rd party inks.
I notice that many Sam's Clubs are installing Epson 7600's to do poster size prints. Read into that what you want, but that tells me they must have some comparative economy vs. the competition.
I do suggest that if you are just starting out printing digitally that you do so with a low cost printer. It is definitely not a point, click, and print proposition. There is a learning curve and it may not be for you. A more expensive printer will not make you any better any more than an expensive camera will make you a better photographer. It is better to learn that with a $100 printer than a $2,000 one.
The old 1280's made great prints but did have a tendency to clog when using pigment inks (non Epson). I believe they were last made in 2003 I believe. I would not recommend buying one these days as they are now three generations old.
You can make good prints on just about any printer made these days. Even the sub $100 Epsons.
It does seem that the overwhelming majority of fine art printers use Epsons. Possibly it it because they have always used Epsons and never saw any reason to change. Or possibly it is because of the large support infrastructure of users and 3rd party inks.
I notice that many Sam's Clubs are installing Epson 7600's to do poster size prints. Read into that what you want, but that tells me they must have some comparative economy vs. the competition.
I do suggest that if you are just starting out printing digitally that you do so with a low cost printer. It is definitely not a point, click, and print proposition. There is a learning curve and it may not be for you. A more expensive printer will not make you any better any more than an expensive camera will make you a better photographer. It is better to learn that with a $100 printer than a $2,000 one.
mh2000
Well-known
the R3800 is quite a great printer, but still costly.
Richard Marks
Rexel
May I just recommend this very useful link which has gone through pretty much all the points raised.
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5598
I have spent a long time before going for a printer and have finally gone for the Epsom 2880 and can certainly recommend the ptint quality. For me I rarely print wider than 13" and if so its usually block mounted canvas portraits and I have a commercial source of doing this which is very reasonable (also the client pays!). The issue with wide formats is actually an approximately 50% saving on ink costs, but this is provided you have enough output to use the inks in a reasonable time. You hopefully should have some idea of what your output is and this might be a helpful way to go. Incidentally the Epsom clogged nozzle thing does not seem to be a problem with anything from the 2400 model onwards, and I am told by Epsom UK that it has never been an issue with the wide format models (they would say that though!). The otherissue is using non epsom inks in their set up has certainly been the cause of some of the clogging issues, ;particularly some of the continuous ink flow systems.
Regarding the 2880, picture quality is faultless, the black and white does not show bronzing. The down loadable profiles from Permajet work spot on for me. The major irritation is changing from phot black to mat black with changing paper surfaces. it does not bother me but it could be an issue. I belive it may be possible to download a profile that allows photo black to work on any surface.
Good luck
Richard
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5598
I have spent a long time before going for a printer and have finally gone for the Epsom 2880 and can certainly recommend the ptint quality. For me I rarely print wider than 13" and if so its usually block mounted canvas portraits and I have a commercial source of doing this which is very reasonable (also the client pays!). The issue with wide formats is actually an approximately 50% saving on ink costs, but this is provided you have enough output to use the inks in a reasonable time. You hopefully should have some idea of what your output is and this might be a helpful way to go. Incidentally the Epsom clogged nozzle thing does not seem to be a problem with anything from the 2400 model onwards, and I am told by Epsom UK that it has never been an issue with the wide format models (they would say that though!). The otherissue is using non epsom inks in their set up has certainly been the cause of some of the clogging issues, ;particularly some of the continuous ink flow systems.
Regarding the 2880, picture quality is faultless, the black and white does not show bronzing. The down loadable profiles from Permajet work spot on for me. The major irritation is changing from phot black to mat black with changing paper surfaces. it does not bother me but it could be an issue. I belive it may be possible to download a profile that allows photo black to work on any surface.
Good luck
Richard
aad
Not so new now.
I've had two clogs on my Epson 2400 over the 2 years I've had it, but certainly nothing that seemed a big deal. I check before running a big print. Uses a lot of ink, but the prints are fantastic.
trev2401
Long Live Film!!!
I ve printed with both the R2400, 1800, 3800 and the 4800. Personally, i owned the 2400 for over 4 years, and worked with the 3800 for over 3 years at a studio. Although i have read about the clogging with the epsons, i have never experienced a single clog (touch on wood) even when printing in large volumes. Yes, the bigger guys (3800, 4k series) tend to suck more ink when cycling/cleaning, but when observing proper usage techniques, i think that its far cheaper per ml on the bigger guys, than with the 1280/1900 series of printers.
As for the epson vs canon wars, as mentioned in previous posts, most fine art printers tend to stick with epson, together with a few of the bigger printing stores down here in SF. (poster/billboard printers). Not too sure why but i guess epsons been in the market for big prints quite a bit.
I worked with the canon 9k series for over 3 years with a previous store, and well... the results were just ... different... especially when compared to printing with even the older R2400 and epson paper (velvet fine art, etc)
I used to do tons of wet printing in the dark room and the output from all the epsons were just simply breathtaking, almost similar to printing with RC matte in my opinion. The canons were fine too......but the labs/shops i worked with tended to have a harder time getting the prints to match what customers wanted from their b&w scans or digital files vs the epsons.
Oh well... just my 2 cents worth here.
As for the epson vs canon wars, as mentioned in previous posts, most fine art printers tend to stick with epson, together with a few of the bigger printing stores down here in SF. (poster/billboard printers). Not too sure why but i guess epsons been in the market for big prints quite a bit.
I worked with the canon 9k series for over 3 years with a previous store, and well... the results were just ... different... especially when compared to printing with even the older R2400 and epson paper (velvet fine art, etc)
I used to do tons of wet printing in the dark room and the output from all the epsons were just simply breathtaking, almost similar to printing with RC matte in my opinion. The canons were fine too......but the labs/shops i worked with tended to have a harder time getting the prints to match what customers wanted from their b&w scans or digital files vs the epsons.
Oh well... just my 2 cents worth here.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Just one more point about the clogging up
There may be an effect to do with keeping humidity constant around the print heads. This may be more of a problem in the US. Here in Blighty id gladly sacrifice the odd print for even a week of decent weather! Now the older Epsoms allowed you to lift the covers up whilst printing in order to glimpse the image coming out. According to Epsom this was part of the problem. The latest ones have the print heads much better enlosed and this might explain why the newer machines run better.
Richard
Best wishes
Richard
There may be an effect to do with keeping humidity constant around the print heads. This may be more of a problem in the US. Here in Blighty id gladly sacrifice the odd print for even a week of decent weather! Now the older Epsoms allowed you to lift the covers up whilst printing in order to glimpse the image coming out. According to Epsom this was part of the problem. The latest ones have the print heads much better enlosed and this might explain why the newer machines run better.
Richard
Best wishes
Richard
Olsen
Well-known
Ha, ha! (Same here!)
daveco
Newbie
figfoto
figfoto
I Have Been Using The Epson 2400 For About 2 Years. As Mentioned Above, An Excellent Printer But An Ink Hog. It Seemed Like Every Time I Turned It On It Cost Ten Bucks [allways A Cartridge Or Two Going Or Near Empty]. I Have Since Switched To The Jon Cone Cis System For The 2400 And I Must Say Is The Best $300.00 I Have Spent.
It Does Clog, Usually The Yellow Or Lite Black, But After One Auto Nozzle/clean It Works Fine, As Opposed To The Oem Inks [which Now Meant 3 Cartridges To Change After A Clean Cycle]. I Have So Far Printed 2 Portfolios : 11x14 [50 Sheets Each] And Approx. 120 8x10 [test Prints] And I Have Not Changed A Bottle Yet. The Magenta, Photo And Light Black Are Just A Hair Under Half Full As Of Today.
It Does Clog, Usually The Yellow Or Lite Black, But After One Auto Nozzle/clean It Works Fine, As Opposed To The Oem Inks [which Now Meant 3 Cartridges To Change After A Clean Cycle]. I Have So Far Printed 2 Portfolios : 11x14 [50 Sheets Each] And Approx. 120 8x10 [test Prints] And I Have Not Changed A Bottle Yet. The Magenta, Photo And Light Black Are Just A Hair Under Half Full As Of Today.
Tom Niblick
Well-known
I've been running big Epsons professionally for the last 10 years. As long as you run them, they're the best printers made. I have two 9800s that run 8 hours a day 5-6 days a week and never a problem. If they sit unused, the heads will clog. So if you are a one print a week kind of photographer, get a Canon because you can change your own heads. However, if you are serious about printing, get an Epson.
Tom
kuzano
Veteran
Who are these people who have Epson ink clogs?
Who are these people who have Epson ink clogs?
I have brought my Epson R2200 back to service after at least a 3 month time out two times now. On the first return to service it took two nozzle clean cycles to bring it to full operation. I did this again two days ago, and it took one nozzle clean. Both times all the ink cartridges were at varied stages of full/empty. This last time, on cartridge was on empty and one was calling for replacement. The low and empty cartridges were NOT the ones showing spaces in the print nozzle check. And, if I recall correctly there were only three spaces in the checks off all nozzles.
OEM ink. I suspect most ink clogs occur with aftermarket inks or refills. I never do any of that.
Who are these people who have Epson ink clogs?
I have brought my Epson R2200 back to service after at least a 3 month time out two times now. On the first return to service it took two nozzle clean cycles to bring it to full operation. I did this again two days ago, and it took one nozzle clean. Both times all the ink cartridges were at varied stages of full/empty. This last time, on cartridge was on empty and one was calling for replacement. The low and empty cartridges were NOT the ones showing spaces in the print nozzle check. And, if I recall correctly there were only three spaces in the checks off all nozzles.
OEM ink. I suspect most ink clogs occur with aftermarket inks or refills. I never do any of that.