Canon PIXMA PRO-1 versus Epson R3000

[Jack Worsnop]

I am lookining to buy a prionter in the near future. These seem to be the only 2 that meet my price/quality needs.

I have done some comparisons and would like soe opinion on the following points.

1) Does the PRO-1's droplet size of 4pl compared to the R3000's 2pl make a significant difference?

2) How do I compare the resolutions, Pro-1 is 4,800*2,400 (11,520,000) against R300's 5,670 X 1,440 (8,164,800)?

3) What is the impact of the paper thickness, Pro-1's 0.6 against R3000's 1.3mm and roll?

4) The availability of paper profiles for each?

I have a Canon 5D Mk11 with 24-70 F2.8L II USM and 70-200 F2.8L USM lens.

[pnodrog]

They both do well in reviews so you would probably find it difficult to pick which produces the best result. Personally I would want a 1.3mm capable printer. High on my comparison list would be the cost of ink. In fact I know of few photographers that have paid the extra for an A2 Epson 3880 in preference to the R3000 because the difference in price is almost overcome by the difference in the cost of the ink included. Whether that will be of real benefit to you would depend on the size and number of prints you will be doing.

The Canon Pixma pro-1 has been given some very good reviews regarding it's B&W capability.

My old Epson is now so out of date that for the few prints I do now I use a local specialist who has both Canon and Epson large format printers and a great stock of canvas and a wide variety of papers. I would need to do a lot more printing to warrant investing in my own.

[Manfred M]

I would tend to agree with Paul on his analysis regarding the Epson 3880. I did an analysis on the ink cost and found that for my use, the pro level 3880 would pay for itself in ink savings in less than a year of use. Operating costs are an important consideration when it comes to printer choice.

[Donald]

Don't know if the above comments re ink cost are taking account of bulk ink options.

I recently bought the R3000 and, along with it, bought the Permajet (part of The Imaging Warehouse) Eco-Flo bulk ink system. It's an additional capital outlay, but the ink cost is significantly reduced as a result.

[rpcrowe]

I am talking "old technology" now but, I previously used an Epson R1800 and had considerable problems with the ink jets clogging during light or intermittent use.

I don't use my printer all that often but, definitely need it to print when I want it to. My Canon Pixma Pro 3000 Mark II has never clogged. I don't know whether this has anything to do with the Pixma Pro I vs. the Epson R3000 or not!

One thing that I like about the Canon Printer is that the Canon Easy Print software is quite easy to print with (pun intended). Although the name of the software conjurs up images of a simplistic program designed for amateur "print from camera" use; the Easy Print Software is really quite a capable, yet easy to use program...

I attended a Canon presentation on the Pixma Pro-1 and didn't quite carry much away from that program except that the Pixma Pro 3000 Mark II is quite enough printer for me.

I would assume in your research, that you saw this Canon blurb on the Pixma Pro-1. But, in case you did not, here is a link:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...rs/pixma_pro_1

[Manfred M]

Richard - the technology in the Canon printers (electrical heating element) is theoretically less prone to clogging than the Epson piezo crystal approach. The Canon print head can be user replaced and the Epson has to go back to the factory

That being said, I had a Canon printer that clogged all the time and I've never had a clog with my Epson 3880, even after I went about 6 months without doing a print. (That was the downside of being stuck in a cast for almost 1/2 a year and not getting down to my basement office to do any printing). I started it up and my first print was perfect, so go figure. I've had my 3880 for over 3 years and it has been 100% problem free so far.