grrr... done with Epson. Is Canon any better?

[joe bosak]

I don't print photos all that much [always planning too ofc], but my Epson R300 has lasted surprisingly well. Occasionally it has a paper feed problem, usually with thin HP non-photo paper, and about once a year it will not recognise an ink cartridge. I use cheap non-Epson ink from ebay, which generally works great.

Don't often get clogged nozzles [or, they are not as noticeable as they used to be], and I have had to reset the counter a few times over the years - maybe 3 times now - that's where you get the "service" or "error end of life" message or whatever it is [I think it's supposed to signify the printer had wasted enough ink and the reservoir of such is full] and you clear it by pressing a few buttons for 10 seconds when you boot up. Or something like that, either way the printer prints for another few years each time.

I have mine attached to a Netgear wifi network extender, so all the PCs/laptops can print to it. That just requires the Netgear software to be running on each PC, the printer itself doesn't have to be set up any particular way, it's just a usb printer.

Trying to ensure the print matches expectations seems somewhat hit and miss however, seems to necessarily involve trial and error.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I have an Epson r1900 and a Canon Pro 100 and find the Canon to be more fiddly to operate and get the right results. It has two paper feeds and can't seem to make up it's mind which will be the one to use. It requires more adjustments that vary in results to get the print to look like the screen. My Epson is far easier to use. Neither has had the ink blotch or clogged nozzle issue you have had.

 

[Range-rover]

I been a Canon printer user for years, all the stories of printer clog's from a few friends
kinda steered me away from Epson. I was using a Canon i9900 for about 10 years
with no trouble at all, I changed the heads once and being handy was ables to clean
inside the printer help, when it finally went, I purchased another a i8720 and it's
really good.

 

[35photo]

I love my Canon Pro 1000! After dealing with head clogs of 2 Epson printers both killed... I switched to Canon and much happier! Haven't had NOT ONE head clog even after the printer was off for a really long period of time... Plus I feel the print quality is better than the Epsons.. Love the colors and the richness... Excellent with B&W as well... Never dealing with Epson stuff ever again...

 

[Dogman]

Back in 2006 I took out years of frustrations with my Epson printer by taking it to the middle of the street in front of my house, and hurling it as high as I could into the air, and then watching it shatter into little pieces on the pavement.

I have found this to be the best way to deal with Epson printers.

Best,
-Tim

I did this with the motor drive for a Nikon FM. Except I slammed it into the pavement as hard as I could while calling it impolite names. It jammed up one too many times while I was on assignment.

It felt good. It really did.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I've used the Epson P600 and now the P800 over a period of about 6 years. No problems with either. I haven't used them for B&W, so I can't speak to that, but for color they do what I want them to do.

 

[filmtwit]

I can attest on the P600, I also have a 1430 converted to Cone B&W neg system. My only real problem is occasional pizza wheel problem on the 1430. So far no problems with the P600, even on big B&W work.

I've used the Epson P600 and now the P800 over a period of about 6 years. No problems with either. I haven't used them for B&W, so I can't speak to that, but for color they do what I want them to do.

 

[Calzone]

I only know Epson.

The difference between a Epson 3880 and a 7800 (a real Pro printer) is the paper transport. All the desktop small printers don't match the paper transports of the floor standing printers that use muffin fans to suck the paper flat.

I got my 7800 when it was a decade old, but it only made 1802 prints before I owned it. I used it a lot over the past few years.

Currently I am replacing the original dampers, and will change out the expendable parts on the capping station. The OEM parts are now about 14 years old.

According to the maintenance status report my printer's pumps, carrage motor, and capping station vacuum pump all have 4-5 stars out of 5 life left in them.

I call my 7800 "the Jersey Barrier" because it is both big and heavy, but for less problems I recommend the larger "Pro" printers. BTW the 78xx and 98xx printers are deemed as Epson's workhorses with very long print head life. I could be alright for decades.

Cal

 

[froyd]

Yes, I agree about the pro printers we had an ancient 9000 Epson at work that kept going poster after poster with hardly any issues ever. Unfortunately the 3800 and p800 are more than I need. I mostly print 10x10 or 12x12. However, they might be worth the space and cash for the extra reliability. Is just that after being disappointed again and again by Epson i del like I should be looking elsewhere.

 

[Steve M.]

"Back in 2006 I took out years of frustrations with my Epson printer by taking it to the middle of the street in front of my house, and hurling it as high as I could into the air, and then watching it shatter into little pieces on the pavement." You should apply for a job over at UPS. I think they used this identical technique on a couple of inkjet printers that I had the misfortune of shipping with them, and yes, they denied both claims for damage.

My darkroom results were mediocre to middling in the beginning. Then I discovered Adox MCC 110 fiber paper, and that was the end of that. No filters needed, just use a good neg and do a test strip. Fantastic results.

I suspect that a lot of people don't get good results w/ RC papers and give up. Fiber is a different animal, and the top of that food chain is the Adox stuff. Read the reviews, they're for real. You'd have to horsewhip me to go back to scanning, photoshop, clogged Epson heads and endless test prints

 

[PRJ]

Just get a Canon. Lots of people get swindled into the Epson thing. I think it is because back in the day people were able to make RIPs for Epson printers to improve them, then the professionals took advantage of this and piezography and the like were born. None of that is available for the Canons. Canons on the other hand just plain work. Plus, right now you can get them cheap. I think Canon has better color than Epsons too, but what the hell do I know, ahem.

I picked up a Pro 10 a few months ago for $100 after instant rebates and the $250 rebate from Canon. It even came with 50 sheets of 13x19 Canon paper. Ridiculous! I was thinking about getting a wide format one, but at that price, I can always get one of the IPF printers later...

The only caveat with Canon is if you want to print on matt fine art papers you are limited with some large borders, although I think PrintTool gets around that for like fifty or sixty bucks though i don't use it.

Hope that helps you.

 

[Ronald M]

I just gave up on digital printers a decade+ ago. It is cheaper to send it to a pro lab all things considered.

Want to print at home? My enlargers are set up ready to go. No ink issues, no mechanics. I have dozens of 1039 bulbs for the V35 and same for Focomat 1C and 4x5 Omega machines.

If the timers go bad and can not be replaced, I have a metronome.

 

[victoriapio]

My Canon i9900 has to be at least 10 years old and works perfectly for me and my diaughter who is a digital artist. Granted the B&W isn't that great but it's not bad for color up to 13x19. I'm sure there is a replacement.

My Canon ipf 6100 works wonderfully when I run enough prints through it to keep the ink fresh and the heads unclogged. Getting ready to fire it up again after a long period of non-use. I have a new set of print heads ready for the task. As you probably know, the secret to the wide format printers - and they print absolutely fabulous color and B&W - is to never let the print heads clog. That means rationing your printing so you excercise the print heads at least once per month. Perhaps one of the newer ipf models has some technology that will take care of the print head replacement issue with the older versions due to inactivity.

 

[zuiko85]

Interesting thread. Sounds like Canon is the way to go. Liked darkroom work but same problem as ink jet printers complained about, how to get best results. Have always wound up with full waste baskets of photo paper for a few 'acceptable' finished prints.
Have wanted to just have negs scanned and go from there so now I'll look into Canon for a printer. What scares me is the huge learning curve what with software and such.

* Fortunately I have the advantage of low standards.

 

[DennisM]

Canon Printer

Canon Printer

I've given enough money to Epson with a 2200, 2400, and r3000 over the past decade. Every model brought the promise of improvements, and while the print quality did improve (especially B/W), the reliability continued to be a big disappointment. True, clogged heads are a much rarer occurrence on the R3000 than they were on the old 2200, but I'm now dealing with other problems like paper feed issues and ink splotches.

The thing is I LOVE digital printing. Despite the aggravation of the Epsons, I churned out better prints from those machines than I ever did in the darkroom. My enlarger is mothballed for now.

However, I've reached the point where I'm ready to ditch the 3000. Unfortunately, due to its weight and the potential loss of human life, I have to resist the temptation to heave it out the window. Every time I have to print one image, what should be a matter of 1/2h tops turns into several hours of ink soaked paper towels, roller paper runs, repeated nozzle checks and swapping all the cartridges that die in the process of running multiple head cleanings and line purgings.

I really don't want to give my money to Epson anymore, but does anybody know if Canon is any better in terms of avoiding the maintenance issues that plague the Epsons? Has anyone made the switch and can speak from the perspective of someone who has used them for a few years?

I purchased a Canon Pro10 several months ago after researching both Epson and Canon; I ultimately decided on Canon after reading all the anecdotal evidence about Epson clogging and their reputedly poor customer service; in addition, a friend printed one of my Fuji jpegs on his Canon Pro 10, and I was impressed. I had to make several (two) calls to Canon CS to set it up properly; instructions are not the best IMHO; let me add that Canon CS was excellent; reps were patient, clear, and friendly; they stated that set-up calls were almost universal and added that I should not hesitate to call if I had problems. I have a 3-4 year old Windows 10 Dell PC. Canon walked me through setting it up in wi-fi mode; have had absolutely no problems. Verizon Fios router is about 8-10 ft from the printer; I was advised to keep the printer plugged in and "on" all the time which I have done. Let me add that printer is in a centrally air-conditioned and, of course heated environment. Bottom line: no regrets with Canon.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Guys, I have to ask, but by the time you spend money on the printer, ink, paper, and time to do it all, wouldn't it make more sense just to outsource the printing to someone who specializes in it?

I looked at the price of the Espson P800 ($1100) and thought: "That alone would cover all my prints for several years..." Add paper, ink, desk real estate and hassle and it's a no-brainer for me.

 

[sepiareverb]

Getting my Canon printer set up on my wireless network was one of THE most hardest task I have ever undergone. I dont know what it is like in the PC world but for Mac, Canon simply does not have a clue. It took 2 weekends and tons of help from forum members to get the job done. Other than this, Canon printers have been perfect for me. But I have nightmares about ever having to go through a wireless set up again. Truly a horrible experience.

That's what the wires are for.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Guys, I have to ask, but by the time you spend money on the printer, ink, paper, and time to do it all, wouldn't it make more sense just to outsource the printing to someone who specializes in it?

I suspect outsourcing the printing would be cheaper for the majority of us. I also suspect the same is true for most who print in a darkroom.

Being realistic, outsourcing the actual photography itself would be cheaper in many cases given what some spend on cameras, lenses, other photo gear, and travel for photos.

It boils down to what we enjoy and take pride in being in control of the entire process.

 

[DennisM]

Canon Pixma Pro 10

Canon Pixma Pro 10

I've read all the responses to the original post. I've had a Canon Pixma Pro 10 for about 5 plus months now and have been using it on a Windows 10 PC. Canon CS is superb; they patiently took me through installation and wi-fi setup. Absolutely no problems with wi-fi operation and no clogging or other issues. Ink replacement is a snap and quality is excellent in my opinion. I print mainly scanned B&W negatives and Fuji jpegs.

 

[Range-rover]

I had a i9900 for about 5 years, and it worked great. You can only clean them so much
and with a Canon you could change the print heads real easy, so when the finally went
I purchased a Canon ip8720 and it works great no problems.