Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:28:24 GMT, measekite
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.

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
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.

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.)

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

MUCH MUCH less problems for you if you buy Canon.




On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:17:41 +1300, 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

- 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

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.)

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" wrote in message
...


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" wrote in message
om...



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.)

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.)

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" wrote in message
...


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" wrote in message
om...



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.)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:05:40 GMT, Arthur Entlich
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

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:28:24 GMT, measekite
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

veni, vidi, reliqui