Are we wrong to ignore Epson photo printers?

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:08:23 GMT, measekite
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

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:08:23 GMT, measekite
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

veni, vidi, reliqui

In article , measekite
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 bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

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.)

Yes, that's a really good way to ruin the heads of a thermal inkjet.
But use itself also uses the printer heads up over time with thermal
printers.

Art

measekite wrote:



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.

That's a good point. I thought Canon printers used an optical sensor to
recognize ink low condition.

Art

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

In article , measekite
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!

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.)

I hear about more Epson head clogs than most other printers, because
Epson uses permanent heads, offers pigment colorant inks, they have the
number one spot in printer sales after HP worldwide (and HP uses toss
away heads), as well as because I encourage email about Epson printers,
and because I frequent Epson lists.

However, head failures with Epsons are statistically rare, and certainly
their print heads have a longer life span than any other inkjet printer.
I almost daily hear from people who are running 8 to 10 year old Epson
inkjet printers. That is very rare with other brands, because, they
fail due to breakdown, or the technology is so inferior relative to
current output that no one bothers using them. Epson's very first color
inkjet came out at 720 x 720 dpi output, which even today give a
reasonable nearly photographic output on good inkjet paper.

The biases I was speaking of are due to the issue I mentioned above as
well as that people who tend to be on printer news groups are either
people who spend a lot of time printing semi-pro (and many of those
people are Epson users) or they are people who only show up on the group
when they have a problem, and since Epson introduced the pigment color
inks and made the printers very accessible (cheap), they sell many to
people who do not give them a lot of use or who don't recognize that in
order to work with a pigment ink printer, you have to be more diligent
in keeping it from clogging.

I do suspect Epson could do better with formulation changes, better
cleaning routines, etc, but the C series printers are selling quite
inexpensively, and it is probably too costly to do it "right".

Art

measekite wrote:



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?

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:53:35 GMT, measekite
wrote:


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.

AFAIK that shouldn't happen. I.e. the Canon driver should stop the
printer if the inks run dry. If not that doesn't say much for the
Canon driver or the printer.

--

Hecate - The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:41:16 GMT, measekite
wrote:


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.

Not at all. The majority of problems you read about on this and other
newsgroups are to do with heads clogging - not heads *dying*.

--

Hecate - The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...