Recommend high volume photo printing on inkjet

[ullipops]

Keep the tone please. Back on subject...

The more I read about this 4900 issue the more it seems that Epson techs are very loose on the trigger when giving the verdict 'new print head'. I have a feeling that many of them could probably be revived after seeing the video and reading the comments in the link below. They must profit a lot on these heads which just makes Epson look even worse if it is true.

I had actually decided to look more into the Canon iPF6400 but of course a dirt cheap 4900 just showed with the usual print head failure. The tech had ordered the patient a new print head (as usual) but I am really really tempted to buy it and see if I can get it working. School photography season is just about over so I don't need one urgently, but my fingers are itching if not just to satisfy my curiosity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU6PbizbKaw

 

[CakeHole]

I can think of several reputable ink manufacturers that widely support most Epson models but only a very small number of Canon and HP printers. To name a few, Inktec, Inkrepublic, Cone, Champion, OCP and so on. As a matter of fact, the only manufacturer I know of that makes ink for the newest Canon 12 color models is ImageSpecialists.
With Epson you get more options, both quality and cost-wise.

The canon uses Matte black, Photo black, Pale cyan, Cyan, Pale magenta, Magenta, Yellow, Red, Green, Blue, Grey, Pale grey

The Epson 4900 uses Photo Black, Cyan, Vivid Magenta, Yellow, Vivid Light Magenta, Light Black, Matte Black, Light Light Black, (dont ask thats the stupid name Epson call it), Orange, Green, Light Cyan

To even suggest one over the other is going to be vastly easier to obtain i would guess is silly. Blue if i had to guess would be the hardest for the Canon, Orange and Light, Light Black (i assume or would hope thats more Grey?) for the Epson. I imagine both mean you will have to buy from specific places.

Pointless anyway as i doubt you can easily refill the carts in either machine, and especially not multiple times RELIABLY.

In general, full coverage photographic prints require 1ml of ink per A4 (give or take).
This is just my opinion, but in a commercial environment 4L is a very very small amount of ink.

He is not in a commercial environment hes going to be using the printer heavily for only a few months a year.

The way I have my own equipment set up now for instance, If I were to switch to Canon, I should increase the prices I sell my prints for by a factor of about 2x to compensate for the cost of the printheads.

I do not see how or why, i imagine the waste ink tanks you go through on your Epson cost you more in the long run. You have 2 of them to replace on the Epson 4900.

The way I see it, a set of printheads will cost me as much as the ink that will go through them, and probably more.

You are assuming they will need replacing. Which is unknown.

With my Epsons I have printed several times that, so I am already past the point where anybody can suggest that Canons are the better option because Epsons fail.

Epsons do fail, or rather clog and do it far too easily.

See, I have one 7900 with 40 liters gone through to date, with its printhead costing $1500 or so and still working like the day I bought it. Had I been using a Canon I would have replaced 10 printheads by now, costing me three times the money the Epson head costs...

That maths fails, firstly the 4L if anything (in fact i dunno where you even got that figure) as i pointed out is a GUIDELINE, just as i imagine the GUIDELINE for your Epson is for it to last NOWHERE near as long as it has. You are automatically assuming one is more reliable than the other without side by side testing. You can not say one will exceed manufacturers GUIDELINES and the other will not without side by side consistant testing. I highly doubt your Epson was rated or had a GUIDELINE for 40 litres of ink.

Let's see it from my perspective; to print one 30-spread digital album you'd need about 120ml of ink. So, a Canon printhead would only be good for printing about 30-40 albums. Doesn't look that impressive when thinking it like that.
And, by the way, try repeating your math above; 800 24x26" prints is NOT equivalent to a 19200x20800" print, but to a 19200x26" print, which is about 300 square meters, not square miles, more or less the area of the walls of a typical house

I dunno how you reach the 19200x26" figure, That would be one long skinny print. As for measurements again you are wrongly assuming the Canon would fail.

There are some of us that buy a commercial printer to do commercial work you know. That's what I do and that's what the Canon guys do. It's not unusual to go through tens of liters of ink per year, so the Canons will need their heads replaced once every few months.

Not according to people on this forum which have pounded lower grade Canons for years with thousand upon thousands of prints and never had to touch the printhead.

I am not trying to steer him away from any model. nor do I am in any way affiliated with Epson. I'm stating things as I see them. Epson printers (if they don't malfunction of course) are more economical in the long run than Canons.

I remain unconvinced, theres plenty around the net about the Epson 4900 having issues but not about the Canon i mentioned having to have heads twice in a year.

 

[CakeHole]

Keep the tone please. Back on subject...

The more I read about this 4900 issue the more it seems that Epson techs are very loose on the trigger when giving the verdict 'new print head'. I have a feeling that many of them could probably be revived after seeing the video and reading the comments in the link below. They must profit a lot on these heads which just makes Epson look even worse if it is true.

I had actually decided to look more into the Canon iPF6400 but of course a dirt cheap 4900 just showed with the usual print head failure. The tech had ordered the patient a new print head (as usual) but I am really really tempted to buy it and see if I can get it working. School photography season is just about over so I don't need one urgently, but my fingers are itching if not just to satisfy my curiosity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU6PbizbKaw

I personally think both would be good printers HOWEVER AND THIS IS A BIG HOWEVER....

If the printer is not going to be in regular use several months of the year i would not touch an Epson, they clog if not used regularly. Not just the models recommended here either. If you are going to use the printer regularly then i imagine it would be fine otherwise ask yourself when the school season starts up do you want to fiddle with a clogged printer each time? If the answer is no then i would not recommend anything Epson.

You can also of course wait for long term members who have posted regularly over the years to weigh in on the discussion which may be best.

 

[ullipops]

My logic sense complete agrees. My curiosity just want to buy it and see if I can fix it. It's a monster though so being covered for now with a Canon pro9500 it also wouldn't take up space until really needed.

 

[costadinos]

My logic sense complete agrees. My curiosity just want to buy it and see if I can fix it. It's a monster though so being covered for now with a Canon pro9500 it also wouldn't take up space until really needed.

Wouldn't suggest going down this path. If you want one, why not just buy one new?
And, if you are really concerned about the 4900, you may as well go for a 7890, which hasn't gotten this amount of bad reviews. This one is still within your price range, and it would also allow you to produce different products, like canvases. Wouldn't be a bad idea for a school photographer.

The canon uses Matte black, Photo black, Pale cyan, Cyan, Pale magenta, Magenta, Yellow, Red, Green, Blue, Grey, Pale grey

The Epson 4900 uses Photo Black, Cyan, Vivid Magenta, Yellow, Vivid Light Magenta, Light Black, Matte Black, Light Light Black, (dont ask thats the stupid name Epson call it), Orange, Green, Light Cyan

To even suggest one over the other is going to be vastly easier to obtain i would guess is silly. Blue if i had to guess would be the hardest for the Canon, Orange and Light, Light Black (i assume or would hope thats more Grey?) for the Epson. I imagine both mean you will have to buy from specific places.

Pointless anyway as i doubt you can easily refill the carts in either machine, and especially not multiple times RELIABLY.



He is not in a commercial environment hes going to be using the printer heavily for only a few months a year.


I do not see how or why, i imagine the waste ink tanks you go through on your Epson cost you more in the long run. You have 2 of them to replace on the Epson 4900.


You are assuming they will need replacing. Which is unknown.



Epsons do fail, or rather clog and do it far too easily.

That maths fails, firstly the 4L if anything (in fact i dunno where you even got that figure) as i pointed out is a GUIDELINE, just as i imagine the GUIDELINE for your Epson is for it to last NOWHERE near as long as it has. You are automatically assuming one is more reliable than the other without side by side testing. You can not say one will exceed manufacturers GUIDELINES and the other will not without side by side consistant testing. I highly doubt your Epson was rated or had a GUIDELINE for 40 litres of ink.



I dunno how you reach the 19200x26" figure, That would be one long skinny print. As for measurements again you are wrongly assuming the Canon would fail.



Not according to people on this forum which have pounded lower grade Canons for years with thousand upon thousands of prints and never had to touch the printhead.



I remain unconvinced, theres plenty around the net about the Epson 4900 having issues but not about the Canon i mentioned having to have heads twice in a year.

Dude, have you even had any experience with a LFP?
What you wrote here looks exactly like the uneducated guesswork that leads people to bad decision making all the time.

You can't be seriously suggesting that color is the only thing important when purchasing ink. Every printhead is different, even for printers of the same brand. You have to buy ink that is designed for a specific model, you can't for instance take the black used in the Epsons and use it in a Canon, especially for bubblejet printers that are more prone to damage when used with the wrong type of ink.

The wasted ink in my LF Epsons is about 10% of the consumed ink. For large volumes of work, say for a total throughput of 10L, I would have had to buy 11L of inks.
A canon user would have almost no ink wasted, but would have to buy two heads in the same amount of time. Still, this would cost him twice as me.

The 4L is not a guideline, it's the expected life of the printhead. And this is going to be really close to that figure, especially if you are a heavy user.
The Epson head is permanent.
As for side by side testing; I have three Epsons my self that never needed a new head. A fellow printer has 2 Canons, 24 and 44, they need a new printhead every 4L of ink like clockwork. I know three more guys with 8 Epsons in total. Only one of them (a 7890) needed a replacement head and that was covered by warranty. And there are a couple of printshops I know that use 44 and 60" lower end plotters. They, too, replace heads regularly.

As for the print area equivalent; you want a print that's equivalent in size to 800 24x26". You can either place 800 of them side by side, in which case you'd have a long (800*24)x26 print, or you can place them in a rectangular grid, 20 on one side and 40 on the other, in which case you'd be left with a (20x24)x(40x46)=480x1840 inch print.

 

[CakeHole]

Nowhere did i say you could chuck any ink in any printer i pointed out what would be the most difficult inks to get for a Canon and an Epson, nothing more. Oh and BTW "The wasted ink in my LF Epsons is about 10% of the consumed ink" and you have ran 4 litres of ink through your printer that means your waste ink tank has approaching 0.5 litres of ink.... Good luck with that

The rest is already what has been over with you just assuming a Canon will need new heads with no provided evidence. If you search these forums you will find people with far lower end Canon models that have done tens of thousands of prints with no issues all on models far more lower end than this, with far shorter "expected" life spans. There are people that have printers 10+ years old of varying models, NONE of them are "expected" to last that long but clearly they have.

Any manufacturer figure is also a guideline. Or using what you have stated "The 4L is not a guideline, it's the 'expected life' of the printhead."

EXPECTED=GUIDELINE, the same as an estate agent saying i "expect" your house to sell for 250,000 and then the house actually selling for more or less. The same as a doctor saying a person has a "expected" 10 years more of life and them then dying in either 5 or 15 years. Expected is a guideline, nothing more.

My keyboard i am typing on has an "expected" lifespan of 100,000 keystrokes, it being over 10 years old though i can say for certain it has exceeded that by quite some margin. A canon printhead is no different. A manufacturer saying x or y part will last x number of uses or x number of years is not a set in stone figure on any item you buy.

Please if you are going to insist this printer or other Canons need 2 new printheads a year in every post provide some evidence to this, there is plenty of internet related content about Epson 4900 issues so providing some about this Canon needing multiple new heads rather than just repeating it should not be too difficult.

You say you do not work for Epson yet you seem to think they are the only model that can exceed any manufacturers "expected" life. I know of HP printers where i work which are 20+ years old and have never had anything done to them except given paper and ink. My Canon MP610 is over 10 years old, never clogged and never had a new printhead, Canon do not "EXPECT" it to last that long, but it has so any quoted "EXPECTED" life span for the printhead was OBVIOUSLY WRONG.

 

[CakeHole]

I have an Epson Stylus color 3000 serviced a month ago. Still the first dx2 print head installed. The printer is used with a rip and printing all black (four channel black Dye) for silkscreen processing

My client has this beast since 1999 and it still prints

At least 5 jobs each week =5*cymk=20 sheets A2

He has two devices and it works great for him, I can't really imagine both an canon nore hp printer that could compete in this case

20 sheets of A2 is only equal to 80 A4 pages a week (an A2 sheet is only 4 times the size of A4... 20 x 4 =80)
That equates to 16 A4 sheets per WORKING DAY (16 sheets x 5 working days = 80 sheets) that is nothing for any half decent printer.

To even suggest No other brand can manage that is funny. Somehow i think printers that are in offices all around the world which have sat there for decades do more than a average of 16 pages per day.
The HP 500C at my place of work has been there since 1992 oh and it does just a bit more than 16 pages per day In fact 16 pages is like its morning warm up while we make coffee.


NOT going to reply to this thread any further, as it appears to have become nothing more than a sales exercise for Epson people with ridiculous claims.

YOU heard it hear first, no brand other than Epson will last years and no brand will do 16 pages a day.

 

[CakeHole]

"At least 5 jobs each week =5*cymk=20 sheets A2"

which equates to a minimum of 80 A2 sheets per month.

"at least one liter per month."

which equates to 12.5ml per A2 sheet (1000ml divided by 80 A2 sheets for the month = 12.5ml per page)

or 3.125ml per A4 page (12.5ml divide by 4 (A4 being 4 times smaller) = 3.125ml)....... ERRRRRR NO dont think so unless the printer drinks like a fish, try AGAIN.

Helps if you do not make maths up as you go along. Or call people trolls that can actually count.

Image and what on the display is sooooooooooo appropriate here....

Thats really it from me now otherwise simple sums are just going to become embarrassing for someone. Stick to selling Epson stuff on Ebay

 

[The Hat]

@CakeHole excuse me for butting in but you seem to be agreeing/disagreeing with everybody including yourself here, you have said you’d not respond in the tread three time now.

Point taken, so can you finally agree with yourself and let it rest ?