Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
Arthur Entlich 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.
>
> You may have heard that, but I think statistics would bear out otherwise.
If the majority of negative noise regarding print head problems favors
Epson, how can you find statistics that bear out otherwise. If that is
the case then the much information in this group is not representative
of the larger population.
>
> 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,
Permanent to me is lasting over 5 years. I hope that my Canon will
serve me that long. As far as print heads go, the most transient is
really the most permanent; I am speaking of HP. Since the head and
cartridge are built together, the head never gets a chance to wear out.
My 990 will probably last until I have a mechanical or circuit board
failure. It is a great business purpose printer. The newer HP have
semi-permanent heads separate from the ink but are much less expensive
than Canon.
> and the Epson are. I also look at the newsgroups and lists but
> recognize the statistic biases in them.
What biases do you see?
>
>
> 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.
My friend does not pirate CDs but has a huge music collection and prints
a great deal. I do not know of a duty cycle on the Epson that spells
out how many CDs a month the unit is designed to print. I almost got an
R300. I had a meeting with both the Canon and Epson representative at
the same time. Each told me the disadvantages of the others
merchandise. I chose the Canon.
> 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.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
in California we do not have good old clean fresh air. I 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram