Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
drink, for you Brits).

But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.

So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:

-CD/DVD direct printing
-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
-"gloss" optimizer
- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)

So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
(this is not meant as flame bait.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good.
Epson printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to
clog. The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon
i9900 while the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson
R1800.

That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less
to run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other
periodicals. The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I
use Surething labels for CD printing and have no problems.

I hope this post has been helpful.

Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:

>Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>drink, for you Brits).
>
>But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
>printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
>Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>
>So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>
>-CD/DVD direct printing
>-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>-"gloss" optimizer
>- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>
>So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>(this is not meant as flame bait.)
>
>
 

Douglas

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
262
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not in the
US.WHAT? I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds
is less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I owned a
Canon i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks are more
vibrant,but at times that actually is a bad thing!That sometimes is
unrealistic!I also own an Epson R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It
uses pigment inks,and printed cds are more water resistant than ones done
with dye based inks.Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all
cases,and for all users,is pure bull!I have owned every brand of printer
made,and have had good and bad luck with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy
the printer that fits my needs,and by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the
main factor!
"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fSiZd.10111$C47.4916@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
> less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good. Epson
> printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to clog. The
> Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon i9900 while the
> Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson R1800.
>
> That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less to
> run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
> specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
> has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other periodicals.
> The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I use Surething
> labels for CD printing and have no problems.
>
> I hope this post has been helpful.
>
> Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:
>
>>Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>>printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>>Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>>rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>>drink, for you Brits).
>>
>>But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
>>printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
>>Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>>
>>So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>
>>-CD/DVD direct printing
>>-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>-"gloss" optimizer
>>- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>
>>So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>>(this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Douglas wrote:

>First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not in the
>US.WHAT?
>
I believe I said or at least I meant that Epsons print on specially
priced CDs but the Canons do not in the US.

>I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds
>is less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I owned a
>Canon i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks are more
>vibrant,but at times that actually is a bad thing!That sometimes is
>unrealistic!I also own an Epson R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It
>uses pigment inks,and printed cds are more water resistant than ones done
>with dye based inks.
>

>Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all
>cases,and for all users,is pure bull!
>
Canon Printers are better in all cases for all users EXCEPT for
professionals who need pigmented inks when they sell there prints. In
that case longevity is the number 1 concern and vibrancy and visual
quality are secondary. Epson prints still look good.

>I have owned every brand of printer
>made,and have had good and bad luck with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy
>the printer that fits my needs,and by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the
>main factor!
>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fSiZd.10111$C47.4916@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
>>less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good. Epson
>>printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to clog. The
>>Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon i9900 while the
>>Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson R1800.
>>
>>That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less to
>>run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
>>specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
>>has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other periodicals.
>>The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I use Surething
>>labels for CD printing and have no problems.
>>
>>I hope this post has been helpful.
>>
>>Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>>>printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>>>Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>>>rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>>>drink, for you Brits).
>>>
>>>But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
>>>printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
>>>Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>>>
>>>So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>>cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>>
>>>-CD/DVD direct printing
>>>-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>>-"gloss" optimizer
>>>- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>>- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>>- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>>
>>>So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>>>(this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
 

Douglas

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
262
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Here is your post! " Epsons print on
>>specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents"

Also,as I stated dye inks are vibrant,but sometimes they are too
vibrant,thus the photo is NOT as realistic as it should be.You have a very
closed mind,and very little real knowledge of the subject,printers! I think
I can even guess your age.Just for some insight on you,how many printers
have you owned in your life?
Yes,I sell prints,so the pigment inks are important.I also install systems
and networks and often push Canon printers!I have about 25 new printers on
hand,10 of those are Canons.My own network incudes 16 different printers,at
the moment.I have built and installed systems for 30 years.I know,for a
fact,there is NO one brand of printer that is that much better than all
others!Maybe when you finish highschool,you will have a chance to live and
learn!I just hope others that read your BS will check out the facts!
"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RRlZd.10182$C47.64@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Douglas wrote:
>
>>First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not in the
>>US.WHAT?
> I believe I said or at least I meant that Epsons print on specially priced
> CDs but the Canons do not in the US.
>
>>I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds is
>>less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I owned a Canon
>>i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks are more vibrant,but
>>at times that actually is a bad thing!That sometimes is unrealistic!I also
>>own an Epson R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It uses pigment inks,and
>>printed cds are more water resistant than ones done with dye based inks.
>>
>
>>Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all cases,and for all
>>users,is pure bull!
>>
> Canon Printers are better in all cases for all users EXCEPT for
> professionals who need pigmented inks when they sell there prints. In
> that case longevity is the number 1 concern and vibrancy and visual
> quality are secondary. Epson prints still look good.
>
>>I have owned every brand of printer made,and have had good and bad luck
>>with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy the printer that fits my needs,and
>>by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the main factor!
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:fSiZd.10111$C47.4916@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
>>>less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good. Epson
>>>printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to clog.
>>>The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon i9900 while
>>>the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson R1800.
>>>
>>>That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less to
>>>run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
>>>specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
>>>has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other periodicals.
>>>The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I use Surething
>>>labels for CD printing and have no problems.
>>>
>>>I hope this post has been helpful.
>>>
>>>Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>>>>printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>>>>Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>>>>rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>>>>drink, for you Brits).
>>>>
>>>>But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
>>>>printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
>>>>Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>>>>
>>>>So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>>>cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>>>
>>>>-CD/DVD direct printing
>>>>-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>>>-"gloss" optimizer
>>>>- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>>>- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>>>- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>>>
>>>>So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>>>>(this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...
> So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
> cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>
> -CD/DVD direct printing
> -1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
big deal
> -"gloss" optimizer
needed for Epson ink
> - 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
always good for an A3 printer
> - 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
Canon will do 23"
> - 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>
> So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
> (this is not meant as flame bait.)
>
>
Photo-i will have an R1800 review in next day or two
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

colinco wrote:

>In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...
>
>
>>So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>
>>-CD/DVD direct printing
>>-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>
>>
>big deal
>
>
>>-"gloss" optimizer
>>
>>
>needed for Epson ink
>
>
>>- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>
>>
>always good for an A3 printer
>
>

You are comparing apples and oranges. The Canon answer to the Epson
1800 is the Canon i9900, both wide carriage. The IP87500 competes with
the R800, both narrow carriage.

>>- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>
>>
>Canon will do 23"
>
>
>>- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>
>>So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>>(this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Photo-i will have an R1800 review in next day or two
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Douglas wrote:

>Here is your post! " Epsons print on
>
>
>>>specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents"
>>>
>>>
>
>Also,as I stated dye inks are vibrant,but sometimes they are too
>vibrant,thus the photo is NOT as realistic as it should be.You have a very
>closed mind,and very little real knowledge of the subject,printers! I think
>I can even guess your age.Just for some insight on you,how many printers
>have you owned in your life?
>Yes,I sell prints,so the pigment inks are important.I also install systems
>and networks and often push Canon printers!I have about 25 new printers on
>hand,10 of those are Canons.My own network incudes 16 different printers,at
>the moment.I have built and installed systems for 30 years.I know,for a
>fact,there is NO one brand of printer that is that much better than all
>others!Maybe when you finish highschool,you will have a chance to live and
>learn!
>
:-*

I have been responsible for over 4,000 computers, 2000 printers (inkjets
and lasers, and have been the lead on numerous programming projects as
well as a professional consultant since the days of the IBM PC when the
2 main printers were the Okidata and Epson dot matrix, and that was
before Canon developed the engine for the HP LaserJet I. I did this
after substantial business experience and after getting my BS from a
major university. Subsequent to that I got my MCSE (Microsoft Certified
Systems Engineer). I guess I need to finish High School! :p

>I just hope others that read your BS will check out the facts!
>
>
BS stands for Bachelor of Science. Is your degree from the school of
hard knocks?

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:RRlZd.10182$C47.64@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Douglas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not in the
>>>US.WHAT?
>>>
>>>
>>I believe I said or at least I meant that Epsons print on specially priced
>>CDs but the Canons do not in the US.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds is
>>>less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I owned a Canon
>>>i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks are more vibrant,but
>>>at times that actually is a bad thing!That sometimes is unrealistic!I also
>>>own an Epson R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It uses pigment inks,and
>>>printed cds are more water resistant than ones done with dye based inks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all cases,and for all
>>>users,is pure bull!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Canon Printers are better in all cases for all users EXCEPT for
>>professionals who need pigmented inks when they sell there prints. In
>>that case longevity is the number 1 concern and vibrancy and visual
>>quality are secondary. Epson prints still look good.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I have owned every brand of printer made,and have had good and bad luck
>>>with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy the printer that fits my needs,and
>>>by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the main factor!
>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fSiZd.10111$C47.4916@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
>>>>less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good. Epson
>>>>printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to clog.
>>>>The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon i9900 while
>>>>the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson R1800.
>>>>
>>>>That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less to
>>>>run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
>>>>specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
>>>>has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other periodicals.
>>>>The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I use Surething
>>>>labels for CD printing and have no problems.
>>>>
>>>>I hope this post has been helpful.
>>>>
>>>>Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>>>>>printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>>>>>Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>>>>>rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>>>>>drink, for you Brits).
>>>>>
>>>>>But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
>>>>>printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
>>>>>Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>>>>cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>>>>
>>>>>-CD/DVD direct printing
>>>>>-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>>>>-"gloss" optimizer
>>>>>- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>>>>- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>>>>- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>>>>
>>>>>So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>>>>>(this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:28:24 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>:-*
>
>I have been responsible for over 4,000 computers, 2000 printers (inkjets
>and lasers, and have been the lead on numerous programming projects as
>well as a professional consultant since the days of the IBM PC when the
>2 main printers were the Okidata and Epson dot matrix, and that was
>before Canon developed the engine for the HP LaserJet I. I did this
>after substantial business experience and after getting my BS from a
>major university.

Well, as the OP, I guess I should say that I go back to the days of
the IBM 709x, the system/360, and fast machines like the CDC 6600s.
Also punch cards, 2914 disk packs, and 1403 line printers.

As well as S100 CP/M machines with dual 8" floppy drives, ca. 1978.

But that doesn't make me any more of a printer expert than the next
guy.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Sounds like you are an expert on MVS and the acabus. ;-)

Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:28:24 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>:-*
>>
>>I have been responsible for over 4,000 computers, 2000 printers (inkjets
>>and lasers, and have been the lead on numerous programming projects as
>>well as a professional consultant since the days of the IBM PC when the
>>2 main printers were the Okidata and Epson dot matrix, and that was
>>before Canon developed the engine for the HP LaserJet I. I did this
>>after substantial business experience and after getting my BS from a
>>major university.
>>
>>
>
>Well, as the OP, I guess I should say that I go back to the days of
>the IBM 709x, the system/360, and fast machines like the CDC 6600s.
>Also punch cards, 2914 disk packs, and 1403 line printers.
>
>As well as S100 CP/M machines with dual 8" floppy drives, ca. 1978.
>
>But that doesn't make me any more of a printer expert than the next
>guy.
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:01:52 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Sounds like you are an expert on MVS and the acabus. ;-)

Yeah. MVS and MVT and MFT (remember those), plus Abacus releases 2.01
through 12.6.

Sure and begorra, but what does that have to do with the price of tea,
or tea-colored ink, in China?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

No we are not wronf to Ignore Epson. Everyone buy Cannon :p

MUCH MUCH less problems for you if you buy Canon.




On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:17:41 +1300, colinco <colincomma@yawhoo.com>
wrote:

>In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...
>> So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>> cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>
>> -CD/DVD direct printing
>> -1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>big deal
>> -"gloss" optimizer
>needed for Epson ink
>> - 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>always good for an A3 printer
>> - 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>Canon will do 23"
>> - 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>
>> So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>> (this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>
>>
>Photo-i will have an R1800 review in next day or two
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Personally, I think that a person considering purchasing an inkjet
printer should do research and consider Epson, HP and Canon. I feel
that the Canon is by far superior for many reasons. However, if I were
in the business of selling prints, I would have chosen Epson due to the
pigmented inks even though I feel the viewing quality of Canon prints
are better.

In that case reprinting is not an option and you have no control how the
customer will care for the print. You need longevity.

Plasma BOY wrote:

>No we are not wronf to Ignore Epson. Everyone buy Cannon :p
>
>MUCH MUCH less problems for you if you buy Canon.
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:17:41 +1300, colinco <colincomma@yawhoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...
>>
>>
>>>So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>>cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>>
>>>-CD/DVD direct printing
>>>-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>>
>>>
>>big deal
>>
>>
>>>-"gloss" optimizer
>>>
>>>
>>needed for Epson ink
>>
>>
>>>- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>>
>>>
>>always good for an A3 printer
>>
>>
>>>- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>>
>>>
>>Canon will do 23"
>>
>>
>>>- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>>
>>>So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>>>(this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Photo-i will have an R1800 review in next day or two
>>
>>
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Dear Iron Lady (or Maggie, if you prefer),

We are equally confused by the confusion.

Here is how "we" would break things down:

Epson 1800:

Use pigment inks which have a very long permanence (at least in
accelerated testing)

The gloss optimizer is a necessity due to the fact that pigment colorant
inks tend to be slightly "dull" surfaced when dry and therefore will not
look equally glossy on glossy paper, making the colored areas otherwise
more flat looking that the areas without ink. Therefore the gloss
optimizer is coated over the pigmented ink to equalize the shine with
glossy paper. Canon doesn't require this because it uses dye colorant
inks which do not causes flattening of the surface gloss or glossy papers.

Epson offers more types of specialty papers

Epson offers the DVD/CD direct surface printing

Epson has better color drivers

Epson heads are permanent, meaning they will usually last much longer,
but should they clog, they need to be maintained and unclogged.

The ink sets will cost more than Canon.

Epson makes a 8" wide version as well called the R800.


Number of nozzles in not that critical to results or speed (to a point).

The Canon will probably be faster.

The inks are dye colorant based and tend to me fugitive (fade)

The drivers do not provide as accurate a color balance

Ink sets will be cheaper than Epson.

Head failure (they are considered semi-permanent, and do fail) allows
for replacement by user, but the heads are costly when available.

Substitute ink and refilling are much easier on the Canon cartridges,
and they do not have a very sophisticated or complex system of
monitoring ink levels.

Canon offers a minimal paper selection.

I hope this provides some insight into the differences.

Art


Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:

> Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
> printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
> Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
> rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
> drink, for you Brits).
>
> But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
> printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
> Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>
> So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
> cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>
> -CD/DVD direct printing
> -1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
> -"gloss" optimizer
> - 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
> - 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
> - 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>
> So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
> (this is not meant as flame bait.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In general, you will find that professional fine artists and
photographers will be using Epson printers. They may or may not bother
with 3rd party inks to save money. These people tend to need reliable
and consistent results.

Canon printers are purchased more by people who do not sell their work
and feel they can always "reprint" them when or if they fade, and tend
to be people for whom ink price is more important because they do not
sell their work. They tend to refill their cartridges to keep price
down on their ink costs.

Both factions have their purposes and reasons.

Art


Plasma BOY wrote:

>
> No we are not wronf to Ignore Epson. Everyone buy Cannon :p
>
> MUCH MUCH less problems for you if you buy Canon.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:17:41 +1300, colinco <colincomma@yawhoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article Lady Margeret Thatcher says...
>>
>>>So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>>cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>>
>>>-CD/DVD direct printing
>>>-1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>
>>big deal
>>
>>>-"gloss" optimizer
>>
>>needed for Epson ink
>>
>>>- 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>
>>always good for an A3 printer
>>
>>>- 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>
>>Canon will do 23"
>>
>>>- 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>>
>>>So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>>>(this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Photo-i will have an R1800 review in next day or two
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

It may be helpful, but I'm not sure it is truthful.

Have you seen the output of a R800 or a R1800 printer for comparison? I
somehow doubt it. I would say the output is very similar or better than
the Canon for these printers, in terms of color accuracy, because the R
800 and new R1800 printer uses both primary and secondary colored inks.

And I am not sure what the statement " Epsons print on
specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents." means.

Epsons print on printable surface CDs/DVDs. These usually come with
either a white or clear inkjet ink receivable surface. Epson have
worked out a licensing agreement for North America with the patent owners.

With proper home maintenance, Epson's heads will outlast Canon heads.

Art


measekite wrote:

> Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but are
> less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as good.
> Epson printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a tendency to
> clog. The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of the Canon
> i9900 while the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version of the Epson
> R1800.
>
> That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost less
> to run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons print on
> specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The Canon i9900
> has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many other
> periodicals. The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and better. I
> use Surething labels for CD printing and have no problems.
>
> I hope this post has been helpful.
>
> Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:
>
>> Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>> printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>> Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>> rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>> drink, for you Brits).
>>
>> But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
>> printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
>> Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>>
>> So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>> cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>
>> -CD/DVD direct printing
>> -1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>> -"gloss" optimizer
>> - 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>> - 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>> - 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>
>> So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>> (this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I really can't fault Douglas' assumption about your age, because
unfortunately, there is something in the certainty of many of your posts
that tend to express a rather sophomoric approach to the world.

Things simply are not as black or white as you tend to believe, when it
comes to printers, or most other issues.

Some of the blanket statements you have made over the last few months
are without warrant, and could not be based upon experience, because
they simply aren't accurate.

With all the experience you have, you should know better than make such
blatantly "absolute" statements about products. If Epson printers, as
one example, were as horrible as you made them out to be, they wouldn't
be selling tens of millions of them.

Without knowing the needs of the original poster, you directed "her"
away from one brand to another. Someone who works with systems they set
ups for others, or in sales, knows that the interests of the client are
best served by first finding out what it is they need the equipment to
do before suggesting one brand product is superior to the next.

I recommend Canon printers to people who must have speed and cheap ink
costs over permanence, as an example. I recommend HP for people who
will have long periods of time without their printer being in use or who
seek simplicity of use (as an example, I suggested HP for a school which
was outfitting printers for vision impaired students).

I almost always suggest Epson for people selling their work or demanding
fine art quality and many OEM paper types.

Art



measekite wrote:

>
>
> Douglas wrote:
>
>> Here is your post! " Epsons print on
>>
>>
>>>> specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents"
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Also,as I stated dye inks are vibrant,but sometimes they are too
>> vibrant,thus the photo is NOT as realistic as it should be.You have a
>> very closed mind,and very little real knowledge of the
>> subject,printers! I think I can even guess your age.Just for some
>> insight on you,how many printers have you owned in your life?
>> Yes,I sell prints,so the pigment inks are important.I also install
>> systems and networks and often push Canon printers!I have about 25 new
>> printers on hand,10 of those are Canons.My own network incudes 16
>> different printers,at the moment.I have built and installed systems
>> for 30 years.I know,for a fact,there is NO one brand of printer that
>> is that much better than all others!Maybe when you finish
>> highschool,you will have a chance to live and learn!
>>
> :-*
>
> I have been responsible for over 4,000 computers, 2000 printers (inkjets
> and lasers, and have been the lead on numerous programming projects as
> well as a professional consultant since the days of the IBM PC when the
> 2 main printers were the Okidata and Epson dot matrix, and that was
> before Canon developed the engine for the HP LaserJet I. I did this
> after substantial business experience and after getting my BS from a
> major university. Subsequent to that I got my MCSE (Microsoft Certified
> Systems Engineer). I guess I need to finish High School! :p
>
>> I just hope others that read your BS will check out the facts!
>>
>>
> BS stands for Bachelor of Science. Is your degree from the school of
> hard knocks?
>
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:RRlZd.10182$C47.64@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>> Douglas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but not
>>>> in the US.WHAT?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe I said or at least I meant that Epsons print on specially
>>> priced CDs but the Canons do not in the US.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in cds
>>>> is less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment! I
>>>> owned a Canon i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye inks
>>>> are more vibrant,but at times that actually is a bad thing!That
>>>> sometimes is unrealistic!I also own an Epson R800,mainly to print on
>>>> cds and dvds.It uses pigment inks,and printed cds are more water
>>>> resistant than ones done with dye based inks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all cases,and for all
>>>> users,is pure bull!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Canon Printers are better in all cases for all users EXCEPT for
>>> professionals who need pigmented inks when they sell there prints.
>>> In that case longevity is the number 1 concern and vibrancy and
>>> visual quality are secondary. Epson prints still look good.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have owned every brand of printer made,and have had good and bad
>>>> luck with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy the printer that fits my
>>>> needs,and by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the main factor!
>>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fSiZd.10111$C47.4916@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but
>>>>> are less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as
>>>>> good. Epson printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a
>>>>> tendency to clog. The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version
>>>>> of the Canon i9900 while the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage
>>>>> version of the Epson R1800.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost
>>>>> less to run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons
>>>>> print on specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents.
>>>>> The Canon i9900 has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and
>>>>> many other periodicals. The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper
>>>>> and better. I use Surething labels for CD printing and have no
>>>>> problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope this post has been helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>>>>>> printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>>>>>> Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>>>>>> rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>>>>>> drink, for you Brits).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
>>>>>> printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>>>>> cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -CD/DVD direct printing
>>>>>> -1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>>>>> -"gloss" optimizer
>>>>>> - 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>>>>> - 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>>>>> - 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>>>>>> (this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> It may be helpful, but I'm not sure it is truthful.
>
> Have you seen the output of a R800 or a R1800 printer for comparison?
> I somehow doubt it. I would say the output is very similar or better
> than the Canon for these printers, in terms of color accuracy, because
> the R 800 and new R1800 printer uses both primary and secondary
> colored inks.
>
> And I am not sure what the statement " Epsons print on
> specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents." means.

It means that the printable CDs cost more than the standard ones cost.
That helps defray the cost of a label. Also, in 10 months my friend had
Epson replace his R300 3 times due to problems with the feeding of CDs.
I do admit he prints hundreds of them and that was the primary criteria
for choosing Epson. Had the British model been available in the US, he
said he might have opted for the Canon.

>
> Epsons print on printable surface CDs/DVDs. These usually come with
> either a white or clear inkjet ink receivable surface. Epson have
> worked out a licensing agreement for North America with the patent
> owners.
>
> With proper home maintenance, Epson's heads will outlast Canon heads.

I do not know that to be true or false. I have heard of more problems
with Epson heads than Canon.

>
> Art
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but
>> are less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as
>> good. Epson printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a
>> tendency to clog. The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of
>> the Canon i9900 while the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version
>> of the Epson R1800.
>>
>> That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost
>> less to run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons
>> print on specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The
>> Canon i9900 has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many
>> other periodicals. The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and
>> better. I use Surething labels for CD printing and have no problems.
>>
>> I hope this post has been helpful.
>>
>> Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:
>>
>>> Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>>> printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>>> Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>>> rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>>> drink, for you Brits).
>>>
>>> But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
>>> printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
>>> Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>>>
>>> So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>> cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>>
>>> -CD/DVD direct printing
>>> -1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>> -"gloss" optimizer
>>> - 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>> - 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>> - 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>>
>>> So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>>> (this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>>
>>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I really can't fault Douglas' assumption about your age, because
> unfortunately, there is something in the certainty of many of your
> posts that tend to express a rather sophomoric approach to the world.
>
> Things simply are not as black or white as you tend to believe, when
> it comes to printers, or most other issues.
>
> Some of the blanket statements you have made over the last few months
> are without warrant, and could not be based upon experience, because
> they simply aren't accurate.
>
> With all the experience you have, you should know better than make
> such blatantly "absolute" statements about products. If Epson
> printers, as one example, were as horrible as you made them out to be,
> they wouldn't be selling tens of millions of them.


I have never said they are horrible. I believe that Canon is better at
this point for most purposes except for professionals who need longer
lasting inks. While I have always used HP and do think that my HP990CSE
is best for my business use (Hi Speed Draft that looks like near letter
quality for an inkjet) I originally decided to get an Epson printer for
Photos and for my wife's use. After researching all of the latest
models I decided on the Canon IP4000. I am happy with the choice. The
other alternative would have been the R300 but the results I saw were
better from the Canon. I also valued duplex printing and twin paper
feeds over CD printing. It is only after I bought my printer did I
learn that Canon uses less ink and that the carts are cheaper. I also
was concerned about clogging with fixed print heads.

>
> Without knowing the needs of the original poster, you directed "her"
> away from one brand to another. Someone who works with systems they
> set ups for others, or in sales, knows that the interests of the
> client are best served by first finding out what it is they need the
> equipment to do before suggesting one brand product is superior to the
> next.
>
> I recommend Canon printers to people who must have speed and cheap ink
> costs over permanence, as an example. I recommend HP for people who
> will have long periods of time without their printer being in use or
> who seek simplicity of use (as an example, I suggested HP for a school
> which was outfitting printers for vision impaired students).
>
> I almost always suggest Epson for people selling their work

I do not disagree with that.

> or demanding fine art quality and many OEM paper types.
>
> Art
>
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Douglas wrote:
>>
>>> Here is your post! " Epsons print on
>>>
>>>
>>>>> specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also,as I stated dye inks are vibrant,but sometimes they are too
>>> vibrant,thus the photo is NOT as realistic as it should be.You have
>>> a very closed mind,and very little real knowledge of the
>>> subject,printers! I think I can even guess your age.Just for some
>>> insight on you,how many printers have you owned in your life?
>>> Yes,I sell prints,so the pigment inks are important.I also install
>>> systems and networks and often push Canon printers!I have about 25
>>> new printers on hand,10 of those are Canons.My own network incudes
>>> 16 different printers,at the moment.I have built and installed
>>> systems for 30 years.I know,for a fact,there is NO one brand of
>>> printer that is that much better than all others!Maybe when you
>>> finish highschool,you will have a chance to live and learn!
>>>
>> :-*
>>
>> I have been responsible for over 4,000 computers, 2000 printers
>> (inkjets and lasers, and have been the lead on numerous programming
>> projects as well as a professional consultant since the days of the
>> IBM PC when the 2 main printers were the Okidata and Epson dot
>> matrix, and that was before Canon developed the engine for the HP
>> LaserJet I. I did this after substantial business experience and
>> after getting my BS from a major university. Subsequent to that I
>> got my MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer). I guess I need
>> to finish High School! :p
>>
>>> I just hope others that read your BS will check out the facts!
>>>
>>>
>> BS stands for Bachelor of Science. Is your degree from the school of
>> hard knocks?
>>
>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:RRlZd.10182$C47.64@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Douglas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but
>>>>> not in the US.WHAT?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe I said or at least I meant that Epsons print on specially
>>>> priced CDs but the Canons do not in the US.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in
>>>>> cds is less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment!
>>>>> I owned a Canon i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye
>>>>> inks are more vibrant,but at times that actually is a bad
>>>>> thing!That sometimes is unrealistic!I also own an Epson
>>>>> R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It uses pigment inks,and
>>>>> printed cds are more water resistant than ones done with dye based
>>>>> inks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all cases,and
>>>>> for all users,is pure bull!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Canon Printers are better in all cases for all users EXCEPT for
>>>> professionals who need pigmented inks when they sell there prints.
>>>> In that case longevity is the number 1 concern and vibrancy and
>>>> visual quality are secondary. Epson prints still look good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have owned every brand of printer made,and have had good and bad
>>>>> luck with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy the printer that fits
>>>>> my needs,and by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the main factor!
>>>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fSiZd.10111$C47.4916@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer
>>>>>> but are less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite
>>>>>> as good. Epson printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have
>>>>>> a tendency to clog. The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage
>>>>>> version of the Canon i9900 while the Epson R800 is the narrow
>>>>>> carriage version of the Epson R1800.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost
>>>>>> less to run, clog less and all around are better printers.
>>>>>> Epsons print on specially priced CDs but not in the US due to
>>>>>> patents. The Canon i9900 has been an Editors choice at PCMag,
>>>>>> PCWorld and many other periodicals. The i9900 is a couple of
>>>>>> hundred cheaper and better. I use Surething labels for CD
>>>>>> printing and have no problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope this post has been helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>>>>>>> printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>>>>>>> Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>>>>>>> rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>>>>>>> drink, for you Brits).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have
>>>>>>> CD/DVD
>>>>>>> printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the
>>>>>>> claims that
>>>>>>> Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+
>>>>>>> extra
>>>>>>> cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -CD/DVD direct printing
>>>>>>> -1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>>>>>> -"gloss" optimizer
>>>>>>> - 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>>>>>> - 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>>>>>> - 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for
>>>>>>> Epson?
>>>>>>> (this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:05:40 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net>
wrote:

>In general, you will find that professional fine artists and
>photographers will be using Epson printers. They may or may not bother
>with 3rd party inks to save money. These people tend to need reliable
>and consistent results.

Actually, it depends on ink quality and the CIS systems marketed by
Permajet and Lyson are at least as good as the Epson cartridges.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:28:24 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>BS stands for Bachelor of Science. Is your degree from the school of
>hard knocks?
>
No, it doesn't The correct acronym is BSc. ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:08:23 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>> With proper home maintenance, Epson's heads will outlast Canon heads.
>
>I do not know that to be true or false. I have heard of more problems
>with Epson heads than Canon.
>
Actually, I've heard of more clogging problems with Epson heads, but
that doesn't mean the heads have died, just that they need cleaning.
OTOH, as to outlasting, I've heard of more Canon heads needing to be
completely replaced because they have burnt out than any other make.
And, indeed, when I had the misfortune to be a computer support
person, that was the case.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:08:23 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>With proper home maintenance, Epson's heads will outlast Canon heads.
>>>
>>>
>>I do not know that to be true or false. I have heard of more problems
>>with Epson heads than Canon.
>>
>>
>>
>Actually, I've heard of more clogging problems with Epson heads, but
>that doesn't mean the heads have died, just that they need cleaning.
>OTOH, as to outlasting, I've heard of more Canon heads needing to be
>completely replaced because they have burnt out than any other make.
>
>

Could it be that the heads burn out because people do not heed the out
of ink warning and keep using the printer with some of the inks dry.

>And, indeed, when I had the misfortune to be a computer support
>person, that was the case.
>
> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>Hecate@newsguy.com
>veni, vidi, reliqui
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <3AKZd.19028$Pz7.6606@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<measekite@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Could it be that the heads burn out because people do not heed the out
>of ink warning and keep using the printer with some of the inks dry.
>
The Canon printer driver will allow you to print *after* the out of ink
warning has come up? With the heads dry??? Now that *IS* a design
defect!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

>> With proper home maintenance, Epson's heads will outlast Canon heads.
>
> I do not know that to be true or false. I have heard of more
problems with Epson heads than Canon.

You may have heard that, but I think statistics would bear out otherwise.

There are a lot of things about Epsons that absolutely make me disgusted
with their marketing and business model, but they do some things well.

I try not to pull any punches about inkjet printers. I watch the
market, watch the thousands of emails I get personally each year
describing problems with Epson printers (since that happens to be the
area I have the most knowledge in, due to owning many of them and having
taken them apart and read many service manuals), but I have also worked
with people with Canons (occasionally, not my area, because I don't own
any) and they do have many more head failures than Epson. Simply put,
the reason is the heads aren't designed to be permanent, and the Epson
are. I also look at the newsgroups and lists but recognize the
statistic biases in them.

Having said that, here are my observations:

There is one set of Epson heads that have a much higher failure rate
than the other models, these are the 870, 890 and 1270, 1280 and 1290
printers.

Epson heads need to be maintained with extra cleaning beyond the
cleaning utility to keep them running well for all models. It isn't
that involved, usually needs to be done once every 6-12 months and
usually will keep the heads going "forever".

Durabrite printers with pigment colorant inks are more problematic,
because of the nature of the ink, which is in part why Canon will not go
near that technology.

Epson's other problem is some C and CX printers that have a problem with
the purge vacuum feed tube falling off the bottom of the cleaning station.

Canon heads are semi-permanent, and they also clog, even with dye
colorant inks. They "digest" themselves over time, because they use
thermal resistors to heat the ink, and this continual heating and
cooling eventually burns the nozzles out. Epson uses a cold heat
system which doesn't wear out for literally billions of actuations.

I suggest Canon for people who have certain printing needs. I think as
long as people know the limitations of each brand or ink type, they can
make intelligent decisions, which is what I am most interested in
helping people reach. Years ago, I would very rarely suggest any Canon
because they had poor reliability. They have certainly made major
advances since they redesigned their printers, and the buying public has
responded to that.

For people who want to print inexpensively, do not sell their work or
need permanent images and do not need CD/DVD on disk printing, Canon
printers offer a good option.

Expecting a $200 printer to print "hundreds of CDs" without any failure,
considering the complexity of the mechanical mechanism is a little
unfair. He/she needs an industrial unit, or should expect to have to
replace the unit several times. I can only assume that this person is
either producing commercial product (or pirating like crazy) and most
warranties have restrictions regarding using consumer versions for
commercial purposes. The R300 is hardly a commercial model.

I have no idea if the British Canon CD/DVD printing mechanism is any
more robust.

Epson makes no money on "specially priced" CDs for printing upon... they
cost more to make and the CD companies charge more because they are a
specialty product. I assume the Canon CD printer (in Britain) uses the
same disks.

Lastly, the R300 has nothing to do with the R800 or R1800, the build is
quite different, as is the output quality. The R 800 and 1800 use
Ultrachrome pigmented inks and gloss optimizer, the R300 and R200 are
dye colorant ink printers. They also use a different color set.


Art


measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> It may be helpful, but I'm not sure it is truthful.
>>
>> Have you seen the output of a R800 or a R1800 printer for comparison?
>> I somehow doubt it. I would say the output is very similar or better
>> than the Canon for these printers, in terms of color accuracy, because
>> the R 800 and new R1800 printer uses both primary and secondary
>> colored inks.
>>
>> And I am not sure what the statement " Epsons print on
>> specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents." means.
>
>
> It means that the printable CDs cost more than the standard ones cost.
> That helps defray the cost of a label. Also, in 10 months my friend had
> Epson replace his R300 3 times due to problems with the feeding of CDs.
> I do admit he prints hundreds of them and that was the primary criteria
> for choosing Epson. Had the British model been available in the US, he
> said he might have opted for the Canon.
>
>>
>> Epsons print on printable surface CDs/DVDs. These usually come with
>> either a white or clear inkjet ink receivable surface. Epson have
>> worked out a licensing agreement for North America with the patent
>> owners.
>>
>> With proper home maintenance, Epson's heads will outlast Canon heads.
>
>
> I do not know that to be true or false. I have heard of more problems
> with Epson heads than Canon.
>
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer but
>>> are less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite as
>>> good. Epson printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have a
>>> tendency to clog. The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage version of
>>> the Canon i9900 while the Epson R800 is the narrow carriage version
>>> of the Epson R1800.
>>>
>>> That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost
>>> less to run, clog less and all around are better printers. Epsons
>>> print on specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents. The
>>> Canon i9900 has been an Editors choice at PCMag, PCWorld and many
>>> other periodicals. The i9900 is a couple of hundred cheaper and
>>> better. I use Surething labels for CD printing and have no problems.
>>>
>>> I hope this post has been helpful.
>>>
>>> Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>>>> printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>>>> Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>>>> rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>>>> drink, for you Brits).
>>>>
>>>> But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have CD/DVD
>>>> printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the claims that
>>>> Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>>>>
>>>> So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+ extra
>>>> cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>>>
>>>> -CD/DVD direct printing
>>>> -1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>>> -"gloss" optimizer
>>>> - 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>>> - 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>>> - 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>>>
>>>> So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for Epson?
>>>> (this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>>>
>>>>
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS