Switch from Epson to Canon printer?

[Chester McCheeserton]

Who's made the switch? Worth it? Happy?

The cartridges for the epson 3880 which I use have gone up from around $50 to over $80 for 80 ml in the past 10 years.

If I buy the canon Pro2100 24 inch printer it looks like their inks come in 160 ml cartridges for around $100.

What about this chroma optimizer ink – are people using that? Does it help eliminate gloss differential?

I don't care about the Cone inks, I do more color then B&W...I have heard that side by side, with the same file - that epsons print just a tiny fraction sharper....but given the price of ink and ease of switching out the print head when it goes, I think I'm going to have to jump ship over to canon.

[BBW]

I went from Epson 3880 to the Canon Pro-1000. I switched due to higher ink costs (like you discovered), my MK to PK switch failed, and the wasted ink when MK <-> PK switching occurred. The plus part of the 3880 was I never encountered a ink clog that could be solved with a single light head cleaning cycle. I had a 4900 that was clogging way more, so when the head had the magenta channel permanently missing, off to the recyclers it went.

With the Pro-1000, the 80 mL cartridges here in Canada are about CDN 75 (US 60), so savings there. I liked the idea of dedicated matte and glossy channels, so that helped my decision along. The optimizer helps but not as much as claimed by Canon. For me, what I gained by switching was slightly lower ink cartridge costs, dedicated matte and glossy channels, and updated electronics (auto shake of inks was a little disturbing at first :).

Hope this helps your decision. I still use the Epson but in limited matte only mode in the ABW mode.

[Oren Grad]

If you're looking at a 24" Canon, then compare the ink costs with a 24" Epson. Those, too, use larger cartridges with lower per-ml cost compared to the smaller desktop models.

[Chester McCheeserton]

I liked the idea of dedicated matte and glossy channels, so that helped my decision along. The optimizer helps but not as much as claimed by Canon. For me, what I gained by switching was slightly lower ink cartridge costs, dedicated matte and glossy channels, and updated electronics (auto shake of inks was a little disturbing at first :)..

Thanks for your input - that is helpful info....I do use both matte and photo black and it's at least once a month when I space out and accidentally send one with the wrong settings, it's a unpleasant feeling to just sit there for 4 minutes listening to the printer flush the ink to change and then change back...and good to know about the auto shake.

[Chester McCheeserton]

If you're looking at a 24" Canon, then compare the ink costs with a 24" Epson. Those, too, use larger cartridges with lower per-ml cost compared to the smaller desktop models.

Point taken...that does make sense

[interneg]

Who's made the switch? Worth it? Happy?

Yes. Very. Lets me easily make prints on matte papers that would have been difficult with previous Epsons without muddy shadow values (maybe the very latest generation is better, not convinced). Many of the reviews are apparently written by people who seem to spend their time worrying about hypothetical test charts rather than printing actual images with dark value details to demanding standards on Photo Rag etc. You can even do stupid things like making a split tone tritone separation, reconverting to RGB & printing it with far better results than it should give for so many misdemeanours. You can load specific paper handling files (am1x) that include information to complement the icc profile. The print head is designed as a user replaceable expendable part & takes 10-15 mins to replace. Lasts about 3 years or so of steady use with some intense throughput, probably less if you're really going hammer & tongs full-on production printing.


If I buy the canon Pro2100 24 inch printer it looks like their inks come in 160 ml cartridges for around $100.

You can use 160/330/700ml tanks depending on what inks you use most heavily. It's pretty efficient overall. The 24" machines are very heavy & big compared to the Epsons - 75kg or so. If you really want to enjoy counting your pennies, you can run Canon Accounting Manager.


What about this chroma optimizer ink – are people using that? Does it help eliminate gloss differential?

It evens out the finish quite significantly - you have multiple choices in how it's applied - overall, just to the dark values, or just in the image area. I recall the latter can only be done in the free Canon printer plugin which acts essentially like a spooler/ RIP. I always use the CO with any gloss/ lustre/ satin/ baryta paper in overall mode.


I don't care about the Cone inks, I do more color then B&W...I have heard that side by side, with the same file - that epsons print just a tiny fraction sharper....but given the price of ink and ease of switching out the print head when it goes, I think I'm going to have to jump ship over to canon.

The Canon does a lot better than the Epson heads in longevity and actual printmaking - I reckon you can see improvements in resolution up to 500ppi+ from the Canon - the prints also look very natural. Frame of reference to my Pro 2000 (essentially the practical differences with the 2100 are small) is to Epson 11880 (major banding problems on 2 different machines!), and whatever alphabet soup of a name the current top line Epson 44" is sold as.

[Kiwi7475]

I went the opposite route but that was driven by the fact that I wanted to use QTR for alt-processes......

[Chester McCheeserton]

Yes. Very.

Thanks interneg - wasn't aware of the choices in ink volume, and happy to hear from another person who made the jump. Good to know you think it excels in the deep end of curve....I've never done anything like split tone tritone separation. But always scan my B&W as RGB then dump the color in PS by simply going image/mode/grayscale and then changing it right back to rgb which I'm sure many would consider a misdemeanor if not a felony.

[interneg]

I went the opposite route but that was driven by the fact that I wanted to use QTR for alt-processes......

That's essentially the main vote in favour of Epson - and they don't use the sub-tanks Canon use (to support hot swapping ink tanks) so they're easier to drain & mess with inks etc.

[Chester McCheeserton]

Are there still people claiming that the Epson ultrachrome inks might be more (cough) archival?

[interneg]

But always scan my B&W as RGB then dump the color in PS by simply going image/mode/grayscale and then changing it right back to rgb which I'm sure many would consider a misdemeanor if not a felony.

Not at all - though I tend to split the channels (if I scanned BW in RGB - usually only for staining developer negs) & pick the cleanest. With normal developers it's usually the green channel - which is usually what most scanners default to for greyscale scans in the first place...

Other thing about the Canon is that I have much easier access to engineers here than with Epson - but bear in mind that moving the Canon may be a much bigger undertaking once it's set up, involving one degree or another of ink drainage.

[interneg]

Are there still people claiming that the Epson ultrachrome inks might be more (cough) archival?

The newest Epson inks are supposed to be better - but all inkjet inks are going to change with time, no matter what their partisans wish. The supposed testing is questionable to say the least - and we don't know enough about paper behaviour either. On the other hand, they all seem to outperform Crystal Archive & the other chromogenic papers for display life. When somebody's work is sold predicated purely on some strange notion of 'archival' you just know it's got no other redeeming features.

[Oren Grad]

Are there still people claiming that the Epson ultrachrome inks might be more (cough) archival?

Can't generalize about the brands. Both are pretty decent already, and every generation of their respective inksets makes incremental progress in this respect. Also, longevity is a function of ink/paper combinations, not of the inks alone.

Study the test results at Aardenburg Imaging, read about and understand their methodology, and draw your own conclusions.

https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/

[bob carnie]

I have both - Epson 7800 and Canon IPF 9400 and I love both units. When I want archival I go to pt pd and gum.