Choice of Printer

[Rufus]

My better half is encouraging me to replace my 9 year old Canon 5 ink printer. (I am sure I shall discover the quid pro quo in due course)

A new printer would have only light use and I would be the first to admit it will be an uneconmic indulgence of my hobby, but hopefully it will once again last me 10 years.

My thoughts so far are:

- I would like an A3+ printer for local club competition prints and domestic display.
- I don't need archival quality prints, just predictable, good prints from a colour managed workflow.
- I will be printing in Colour and Black and White.
- I shall probably start using third party papers and ICC profiles to suit.
- Wireless would allow greater flexibility in placing the printer.
- Maximum footprint with all relevant printer trays in use could be a tie breaker but not a main consideration.
- Light usage means I should perhaps prioritise a low likelihood of clogging and short cleaning cycles (if such data is available)?
- I am not likley to use Pictbridge, card slots etc,
- Airprint would be a "nice to have", not a deal breaker
- It would be nice to be able print colour documents on office paper as well my photograghic requirements
- I would not use compatible inks, only originals.

I have identified two possible printers:

- Canon PIXMA Pro-100S - Cost £310 - after deducting £50 cashback

- Epson SureColor SC-P600 Printer Cost £579 includes an iX-Rite ColorMunki Display calibrator said to be worth £119 and I do not possess a screen calibration device at present. So the effective cost of the printer would be £460.

The Canon has 8 inks and the Epson has 9 inks.

As far as I can tell, both these are fairly old, but current models, but I have not found any rumours of replacement models on the horizon.

The cost of inks could be a decider as it will be a significant ongoing cost. Would it be adequate to just compare the cost per pictolitre? Or do the printers lay different amounts of ink assuming the same image and paper is used? Presumably the more economical refillable tanks would only be suited to a high volume user.

Your take on this will be much appreciated.

[DanK]

I have no experience with the Epson, but I have a lot of experience with the Canon Pixma Pro 100. I used one until less than a year ago. It is a superb printer, and I think it would exactly fit the criteria you sketched out. It produces stunning prints, the only disadvantage of which is that they are not archival. (That said, in years of using two different Canon dye-based printers, I have had only one or two instances in which prints faded noticeably, and those after years.) I've had a total of 7 Canon dye-based ink printers over many years, 3 multipurpose and 2 dedicated photo printers, and I never have had a single clog, even after leaving a printer unused for months.

Canon runs period specials on this printer. Recently (it may still be going on), they had them for $150 US after a rebate. Also, they sometimes bundle them with cameras, and after they do, you can find them for sale on the web, still in unopened boxes but with the UPC code cut off for a rebate.

IMHO, the best way to think about costs is cost per print, not cost per picoliter. You can find estimates here: https://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost...-printing.html. The Pro 100 does comparatively well in this respect.

If by airprint you mean wireless, Canon printers offer that, and the setup is usually simple. I never set up my pro 100 that way, but I did set up the replacement (a Prograf 1000) that way, and it has been flawless.

Every paper vendor I have explored (not all of them, by any means) has ICC profiles for that printer.

By all means, calibrate your monitor.

I have never used refillable or non-OEM inks. I have heard that there are some good ones, but the few for which I have seen objective tests are not good. I just buy Canon inks.

Good luck.

[billtils]

David

I have a Pro 100S and the same "needs" specification, other than Airprint. I'd give it an unreserved recommendation.

[Manfred M]

The main difference between the Canon and Epson printers you are looking at are that the Canon uses dye based inks and the Epson runs on pigment based inks. The main advantage of pigment based inks are that they are more archival than dye based ones and are somewhat more resistant to moisture. Dye based inks tend to be somewhat more vibrant than pigment based ones.

Dye based inks do a bit better on coated papers than on uncoated ones (i.e. fine art papers), but you will have to get your nose pretty close to the print to see this. The reason that the Epson (and Canon pigment based printers too, I believe) have an extra black cartridge is that they use a different ink formulation for coated and uncoated papers.

I don't know the Canon printers at all, but have used the Epson P600 extensively and I own its "bigger brother", the P800. When it comes to clogging, I have never had any serious clogging issues with either the P800 or the 3880 that I replaced it with. I had to do a nozzle cleaning once with the 3880 and that was just before it died. Both the 3880 and P800 will go months without being used and seem to work very well on startup, even during the ultra dry Canadian winters. There are stories out there about dye based printers clogging less than pigment based ones, but this is generally based on printers that were on the market over 10 years ago or when people use production printers (i.e. ones that are meant for large volumes and are essentially used daily).

Based on your requirements, I suspect the Canon printer is going to prove adequate for your needs. The Epson printer is considered as a fine art printer while the Canon is more of a general purpose printer that also has a reasonable gamut for higher quality prints.

If you feel that you are going to do a lot of prints for competitions and plan to use fine art (rag) papers, then the Epson would be my recommendation. If you are primarily going to print on coated papers, including the baryta ones, the Canon will be fine. I find that my matte paper prints do better in competitions because there is less glare off them than the coated papers, so this seems to subconsciously impact the judges.

[Astro]

David,
I have an Epson SC-P600 (old now) and also have a CanonPixma Pro 10S recent . Quality of print with both excellent. Both are 'fine Art' (Giclee) printers ??? and as a result relatively slow , so not so good for office printing. Bothwill print onto office paper.
If you wish to print both colour and monochrome regularly, the Epson will get on your nerves since it will 'switch' from Photo Black to Matt Black (and arguably waste ink in the process). I used to 'batch' print Mono images to limit the hassle.

Putting aside the Color Munki Calibrator (which does make the Epson a good deal ), I would argue that the Epson probably beats the Canon 100S. When I was looking at getting a new printer, it was the Canon 10S not the 100S that matched the Epson P600 imho.

As regards ink cost... so far, I think the Canon is marginally better, but I have not really tried to compare.

One thing.. I decided to get the new printer because the Epson after 2 years, and a fair bit of use,developed an intermittent problem 'catching' paper at start of printing, often requiring a reload. The irritating thing was that it marked the paper when this happened. The economics of having a repair suggested getting a new printer was better.

Hope this helps....
James

[Manfred M]

Both are 'fine Art' (Giclee) printers ???

Giclée is not really a term that is used any more in the fine art community and really has no "legal" definition. In general giclée prints were fine art prints (pigment based inks used on archival fine art papers (usually cotton (rag) based). This would put the P600 into that group but not the Pixma Pro 100-S.

Current practice in the fine art world is to identify the paper and ink set used in the print production. Third party ink sets and dye based ink will not be accepted by reputable galleries. Chromogenic prints, especially from recognized arts are, even though they have a much more limited lifespan than some of the better known dye-based inksets.

[DanK]

Pixma Pro 10

To be clear, the Pro 100 uses dye inks, while the Pro 10 uses pigment inks.

Current practice in the fine art world is to identify the paper and ink set used in the print production. Third party ink sets and dye based ink will not be accepted by reputable galleries.

This is one of the main reasons I upgraded from the Pro 100 to the Prograf 1000. However, I doubt that anyone looking at the prints on my wall would be able to tell which was from which printer. I can't. However, most of my prints are on baryta and luster papers. I did some printing on matte papers with the Pro 100, and the results were fine. I have one of those prints hanging on a wall. I didn't do an A/B comparison of the printers with a matte paper, so it is certainly possible that the results would be slightly different, but I suspect the you would have to look pretty hard to see them.

I don't know the Canon printers at all, but have used the Epson P600 extensively and I own its "bigger brother", the P800. When it comes to clogging, I have never had any serious clogging issues with either the P800 or the 3880 that I replaced it with

I know other people who have had similarly good luck with Epson pigment printers, but I have also encountered people who have not. I don't know if there is any good source of systematic data. However, it stands to reason that dye-based inks would clog less, and would be easier for the machine to clean if there is a minor clog, because the inks contain only soluble material. On the Pro 100, the print head is user-replaceable,but it costs so much that this isn't a practical consideration unless you can't wait for a time when a new printer is cheap.

[Rufus]

Gosh, thank you all for some really helpful advice.

It is good to hear that clogging should not really be a concern even with light use. What Dan says about dye ink possibly being less prone to it than the pigment ink sounds eminently logical although people's experiences will obvioulsy differ.

I am inclined towards the Canon Pro 100S at present, as I am used to Canon and the price is attractive. However, I know nothing about the different papers that are available and which would be less suitable or even unsuitable. I don't think I shall be too concerned about exhibiting in galleries any time soon so I am thinking that dye inks and a more restricted paper choice associated with the Canon should not be a problem.

I realise that some confusion arose having mentioned "Airprint". I was thinking of Apple devices, but printing from my wife's AppleMac or our iPads would be done via the wireless facility and our home network. I think Apple calls this Airprint and it is built into some apps as well as being one of the "share" menu choices.

I shall ponder some more, but as the present Canon cashback offer ends mid-October a decision prior to that might be in order.

[DanK]

David,

I didn't try all that many, but I never found a paper that didn't work well with the Canon. At that time, I mostly printed on luster papers, and my default was Moab Exhibition Luster, but I also used a number of Red River luster and satin papers and, occasionally, Canon semigloss that came with it. I printed a lot of cards on Red River Polar Arctic Matte, which is a heavy rag matte paper. All of them worked very well. I also went through most of both Moab and Red River paper samplers and didn't notice any problems.

I no longer have my Pro 100 (I gave it to my son-in-law), so I can't do a formal comparison with my current pigment printer, but I don't think the differences in ink diffusion on matte papers should be a big concern. I did one direct comparison on a canvas paper, which is a treated but matte-like surface, and the two looked very similar to me. the only difference I noticed was a very slight difference in the deepness of the blacks.

In any case, the P600 is considered a very good printer as well, so I don't think either would be a bad choice.

Dan

[DaveS]

I am about to buy a new Color MFP for my business. I am looking for a device that will produce good pics and do a competent job for printing flyers etc. While I am not concerned about the cost per copy for the pics, the cost per copy for general printing is a factor

Any recommendations?

FYI, My budget is $1000 +/-

[Shadowman]

Dave,

What size prints and are you deterred by high ink costs as that is what dictates cost per copy although copy costs can be magnified by bad print jobs; either operator or machine error?

[rpcrowe]

I received a Canon Pixma Pro 100 as a freebie when I purchased a Canon 6D Mark-2 quite a few years ago. I never set it up because I have very little need for prints... However, my wife wanted me to set up the printer so she could use in conjunction with her latest fad of digital scrap booking.

I set the computer up according to the directions and I could not turn the power on successfully. Instead of the white on light on continuously it was flashing intermittently with the amber error light below the on button.

I received some very valid advice from Manfred that I should check to see it I had removed all the tape and packaging. Unfortunately that was not my problem.

I also found what I hoped was a fix from another website which recommended unplugging the computer, firmly pressing the On-Button 10-times and then pressing and holding the button for 10 seconds. Plugging in and turning on the computer was supposed to fix the problem. It did not!

Another suggestion was to ensure that the Pro 100 was plugged directly into a wall socket and not into a power strip. I looked beneath the desk at the power strip and the red on light was erratic. An old Brother Laser Printer that I had plugged into the same outlet strip did not work either.

I think that may have been the problem - but, when I plugged either the Pro 100 or the old Brother Laser into a wall socket neither worked.

Trouble shooting the Pro 100 on the Internet indicated that when the On Light and the Amber Error Light were alternately flashing, I needed to take the unit to a repair facility. Since the Pro 100 was long past the expiration of its warranty, I took it to my local printer repair shop whom I have confidence in.

The prognosis was that it would be more costly to repair the printer and to buy a new set of ink cartridges (the original cartridges were long past their prime) than to purchase a new Canon iP8720 printer which runs about $200 USD on Amazon.com. The repair guy said that in his opinion, the iP8720 was a very good printer for all but the heaviest professional use.

The moral of this story is that when I get a piece of gear, I will set it up immediately while the warranty is still in effect. Also, whether or not the power strip was the culprit in the demise of the two computers, I will be plugging the Canon 8720 directly into the wall socket.

BTW: the Brother Laser was a B&W model which had only cost me $89 USD and which I had been using for over ten years. I expected it to bite the dust pretty soon since I had given it some very heavy use. But, was it a coincidence that it failed and that I had been using the same power strip as the Canon?

I will report by Sunday how I like the Canon 8720 which should arrive on Saturday...

[Manfred M]

Two dead printers on the same circuit seems more like a power surge that fried something. It seems somewhat too co-incidental.

The flickering light on your power bar is likely nothing other than the bulb in the on / off switch getting older. Some use a strange, low powered discharge lamp. They tend to flicker as they age and might even fail completely, but the power bar should still work just fine.

[Acorn]

MORE ABOUT INK CHOICE - I am contemplating a move towards using third-party inks instead of continuing with the increasingly-priced OEM brand. I use a modest Canon six-ink inkjet printer that produces A4 colour prints of very acceptable quality. Not knowing if the Canon cartridges are water or spirit-based, I am at a loss to know which third-party inks are formulated identically to the Canon inks? Any accurate suggestions would be most welcome.

[DanK]

Two dead printers on the same circuit seems more like a power surge that fried something. It seems somewhat too co-incidental.

Exactly so, particularly since neither worked when moved to another outlet.

This was a helpful reminder. I have three printers by my desk (a B&W laser and a cheap multifunction for work, and my main photo printer), and only the first two are on surge protectors. Rather foolish, since the photo printer costs several times what the two others cost combined. I'll fix that this morning.

I am contemplating a move towards using third-party inks instead of continuing with the increasingly-priced OEM brand.

To each his or her own, but I never use anything but OEM inks. I have a vague recollection that there is a substitute for Epson inks that is considered OK, but as I don't use Epson printers, I didn't keep that information. The few OEM inks I have seen reviewed by reputable sites failed badly. Of course, that's only a few of them.

I am very doubtful that you will find anything formulated identically to canon inks. I would assume that their formulation is protected.

The actual cost per print of OEM inks looks a lot less extreme when calculated per print rather than per cartridge, with one important caveat. For example, Red River estimates the ink cost for an 11x14 printed on a Canon Pro-100 to be $1.68, and on my Prograf 1000, $1.40. (You can find the estimate and the method used to calculate it here.) What they don't calculate, however, is the ink lost in routine head cleaning. On my current photo printer, a Prograf 1000, you can actually see the ink being used. The computer has a tank to collect the ink that is wasted, and when you print, an indicator pops up on screen telling you how full it is. Usually, the indicator goes up slowly, but two times in the year and a half that I have owned it, the printer had to do a more thorough cleaning, and the indicator moved up substantially. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the capacity of that tank, and I haven't kept track of tanks carefully, so I can't calculate the additional cost accurately. However, one B&H customer claimed to have weighed one empty and full, and if he is right, they hold about 250ml each. If that is true, and IF my recollection of ink use and tank replacement is correct (a fairly big if), then waste ink has added about 45% to the per-print cost. My printer costs $1.40 per 11 x 14, so if that is all correct (again, a big if), then the true average ink cost of 11 x 14 prints printed at the highest quality is about $2.05 each, which I would have considered a bargain in the pre-digital days.

[Manfred M]

Barry - the cost per ml of ink is often related to the size of the ink cartridge.

Epson makes two prosumer level photo printers. The p600 that prints to 13" wide and the ink cartridges have a capacity of 25.9 ml. The P800 goes to 17" wide with a capacity of 80ml. While the 80ml cartridges are more expensive, the cost per mi is 2.25x higher for the smaller cartridges.

As for the use of non-OEM inks, I have never used them and all of the well known print makers around town stay away from them. There was one exception and that was a B&W inkset with drivers that come a custom supplier out of the North-Eastern USA, but with the newest Epson inksets, the advantages of this inkset is viewed as being less important. One has to dedicate a printer to using this inkset and print only in B&W (not reversible).

The two resources on ink quality and longevity are:

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

http://wilhelm-research.com/

[Manfred M]

I am about to buy a new Color MFP for my business. I am looking for a device that will produce good pics and do a competent job for printing flyers etc. While I am not concerned about the cost per copy for the pics, the cost per copy for general printing is a factor

Any recommendations?

FYI, My budget is $1000 +/-

Dave - most of the members here are looking at primarily printing photos and the printer that you are looking at seems to be more of an office style printer. Photo printers are not blazingly fast and generally use relatively expensive pigment based ink sets, but the output, when printed on high end archival papers can last for many decades, if not centuries. Hardly the type of work you are looking at having done.

You might want to look at reviews and comments on higher speed office style printers on sites that look at that type of technology.

[rpcrowe]

Received the Canon Pixma iP8720 printer this afternoon and the setup went fairly smoothly - until the setup requested the printer "Admin Pasword" which was supplied with the printer"

I had to look this up on the Internet and learned that the "Admin Password" was the computer's serial number. I wonder why they didn't say this to begin with.

A bit of a problem also with having the computer recognize the printer working in a wireless mode. I had to do the setup with a USB cable and then - I was able to disconnect the USB and the printer is working just fine on my network which includes both my computer and my wife's machine.

Print quality is pretty darn good with better color fidelity when I let Photoshop CC handle the color rather than the printer. The prints match my BenQ monitor quite well! I did my first tests with Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy II but, will soon begin to work with some other types of papers...

I printed these two images at 8x10 inch size:





All in all, I am pretty satisfied with this printer - especially at a $200 USD price point.

BTW: this is a dedicated photo printer, not an all-in-one model with scanner and fax... It is not exactly a fast operating printer but, I don't need speed for my print uses.

One thing that I like about Canon printers (at least the ones that I have worked with) is that their heads don't seem to clog as easily as some other brands that I have worked with. Since, I don't foresee doing a lot of printing, cost is not a big factor for me. Mostly, it is just the convenience of being able to pump out a print when I need one.

[DanK]

when I was first starting my own printing, I used one the better Canon multifunction printers, long since discontinued. It was four colors plus black, if I recall. The prints were surprisingly good.

I typically keep 4 printers in my house. At my desk, I have my photo printer, a laser for work, and a multifunction for work. We keep a second multifunction downstairs for everyone to use. With the exception of my current photo printer, a pigment-ink Prograf, most of these printers have been Canon dye-ink printers. We have had 6 Canon dye-ink printers, I think. (Two of the cheap multifunctions eventually had mechanical failures and had to be replaced, and I replaced my dye-based photo printers when they were still working fine.) They often sat unused for months, but I never once had a clogged head that required any intervention by me--not even turning on the printer's cleaning cycle manually through the print driver. Of course, all inkjets automatically go through a head-cleaning cycle from time to time, and these did, but I never had to do anything myself. With the exception of Manfred, I don't think I know anyone who has had a serious head clog on a Canon dye-based printer. That fact and their low cost is why I generally recommend them to people who would like to print but don't need archival prints.

[Shadowman]

when I was first starting my own printing, I used one the better Canon multifunction printers, long since discontinued. It was four colors plus black, if I recall. The prints were surprisingly good.

I typically keep 4 printers in my house. At my desk, I have my photo printer, a laser for work, and a multifunction for work. We keep a second multifunction downstairs for everyone to use. With the exception of my current photo printer, a pigment-ink Prograf, most of these printers have been Canon dye-ink printers. We have had 6 Canon dye-ink printers, I think. (Two of the cheap multifunctions eventually had mechanical failures and had to be replaced, and I replaced my dye-based photo printers when they were still working fine.) They often sat unused for months, but I never once had a clogged head that required any intervention by me--not even turning on the printer's cleaning cycle manually through the print driver. Of course, all inkjets automatically go through a head-cleaning cycle from time to time, and these did, but I never had to do anything myself. With the exception of Manfred, I don't think I know anyone who has had a serious head clog on a Canon dye-based printer. That fact and their low cost is why I generally recommend them to people who would like to print but don't need archival prints.

Dan,

You say you've never had a clogged head but I suspect you cleared any that was developing with the head-cleaning cycle, let a printer sit long enough idle and you will eventually get missing patterns on a test print.