I have always believed that it is a marketing hype about Claria ink. It is just dye based ink plus hypes. I do not see how it can excel in an Epson printer comparing to Canon Pixma with Chromalife100. The number 0f 100 here is of course a fantasy up to everyone's believe too. But the real life reality is Canon prints better looking photos.NOTS3W said:
Canon or Epson or Canon or Epson
- Thread starter NOTS3W
- Start date
lolopr1
Print Addict
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 173
- Location
- Florida
- Printer Model
- Epson 4800,R3000 & 9600
It's very very sad, I have been observing since I came here few people trying to impose their personal opinion and basically traying to discredit other people comments. It's a shame. :/
Lolopr1 - this is a moderator managed forum. As one of the moderators I can tell you that we are on the forum daily to be certain that the discourse is civil and respectful. In addition, we eliminate posts that are frank efforts to sell a product or service. Participants do state their opinions, and we hope that they are based on their own personal experience. In the case of this thread regarding the comparison between Epson and Canon printers I would expect posts of varied points of view. I don't see attempts to discredit comments here - I see personal opinions that may take an opposite tack. I'm sorry that your perception is different from mine, but that is your right.
One only needs to go onto the comp.periphs.printers usergroup to see posts of unsupported bias, conflict and put-downs that virtually hijack the site at times. We've kept the forum clear of that sort of nonsense so we can stay on point with the sharing of information about printers, inks and paper.
One only needs to go onto the comp.periphs.printers usergroup to see posts of unsupported bias, conflict and put-downs that virtually hijack the site at times. We've kept the forum clear of that sort of nonsense so we can stay on point with the sharing of information about printers, inks and paper.
I guess a pro Honda guy stepped on the toe of a pro Toyota guy. Sorry, I did not see him coming. Lolpr1's observation wasn't for no reason. I am pissed recently by ITC's ruliing that granted victory to Epson's legal maneuver in rounding up almost all after market Epson compatible ink cartridges, which leaves all Epson printer owners no choice but high rip off prices for ink supplies. My bias against Epson is obvious. I will change my mind only if Epson printers have enough changes in the future to convince me that they are better. Thank you for commenting, Fotofreek.
Tin Ho, just as Canon has refilling options available, Most Epsons also have refilling options open as well and with resettable chips to boot. The amount of disappointment would be akin to the Canon chipped cartridges. Now that most have gotten over the Canon issue, so will those owning Epsons as well. How can one be pissed off at a party ( Epson) exercising their legal right??? It is entertaining that grown men can still be fanboys of commercial offerings like printers.
Look I own both and more and they all are pretty good in most respects. I still love my old Epson 777 from 8 years ago, the noise, whirring and the reliability and the fact it was rescued from landfill just does something for me. And yes, the sloth of the print speed reminds me that the world is changing too fast. But then again I still enjoy LPs on my Linn Sondek of which I am a fanboy. The best turntable? no but it does do something I like and as long as it does that it is best for me.
Just as I was comparing output between an R1800 and and Epson 4800 the other day, they are both good in their own right but each takes some poetic license to the image. Canon does the same. The output from an i9900 has quite a dose of poetic license, and is subject to opinion. Is it because it is profiled to enhance colors favored by eastern cultures? Perhaps but that is what makes the world turn.
Look I own both and more and they all are pretty good in most respects. I still love my old Epson 777 from 8 years ago, the noise, whirring and the reliability and the fact it was rescued from landfill just does something for me. And yes, the sloth of the print speed reminds me that the world is changing too fast. But then again I still enjoy LPs on my Linn Sondek of which I am a fanboy. The best turntable? no but it does do something I like and as long as it does that it is best for me.
Just as I was comparing output between an R1800 and and Epson 4800 the other day, they are both good in their own right but each takes some poetic license to the image. Canon does the same. The output from an i9900 has quite a dose of poetic license, and is subject to opinion. Is it because it is profiled to enhance colors favored by eastern cultures? Perhaps but that is what makes the world turn.
My first inkjet printer was an Epson Stylus Color 900. A good printer in its time, and a real workhorse. I did have some banding after a few years of use and got advice from a participant on the printer usergroup, Arthur Entlich, on how to unclog the Epson printheads. I had about 400 images to print after an extended trip, was not looking forward to buying OEM inks, and decided to refill the carts. It was a real pain - bottom fill adaptor, vacuum the ink/air foam out of the sponge filled ink chamber, and refill with a measured amount of ink. Messy as well. I just wasn't satisfied with the resultant color balance. This could have been from my beginner's attempt at refilling these carts. I found Neil Slade's site online, took his advice, and bought a Canon i960 printer and MIS inks for refilling. Easy carts to refill, much less messy, and excellent print results.
I know that MIS subsequently had spongeless Epson refill carts that could be refilled from the top like the Canon carts. Nonetheless, I like my Canon printers for ease of refilling, the ability to remove the printhead for simple maintenance, and the availability of refill inks with excellent color response. While I've been happily using the Canon printers I've seen the progression of Epson printers with some pigment-based inks that tended to clog frequently and sometimes severely, and the complaints regarding excessive use in ink in cleaning cycles. Having said all that, if I were to want archival quality prints I would have purchased an Epson printer (I don't recall the model number - the large format version of the 1280) for more important prints. If I were a graphic artist or wished to sell photo prints I would have absolutely gone with the large format Epson that uses pigment-based inks. If my business was selling photo prints I would have stayed with Epson OEM inks as well as that would be part of the cost of doing business. I don't know anything about the new Canon pro printers, but I've read that Canon now has pigment-based photo printers as well.
I know that MIS subsequently had spongeless Epson refill carts that could be refilled from the top like the Canon carts. Nonetheless, I like my Canon printers for ease of refilling, the ability to remove the printhead for simple maintenance, and the availability of refill inks with excellent color response. While I've been happily using the Canon printers I've seen the progression of Epson printers with some pigment-based inks that tended to clog frequently and sometimes severely, and the complaints regarding excessive use in ink in cleaning cycles. Having said all that, if I were to want archival quality prints I would have purchased an Epson printer (I don't recall the model number - the large format version of the 1280) for more important prints. If I were a graphic artist or wished to sell photo prints I would have absolutely gone with the large format Epson that uses pigment-based inks. If my business was selling photo prints I would have stayed with Epson OEM inks as well as that would be part of the cost of doing business. I don't know anything about the new Canon pro printers, but I've read that Canon now has pigment-based photo printers as well.
Hey here's an interesting twist.
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/BuyEpson/ccProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-13267
Epson is clearing out older printers at prices higher than what newer printers cost ....look at the R320 that's two models back! for $179. I wonder if they know that Epson fanboys want the older models prior to CLARIA based printers and are now willing to pay the price. Why? again availability of aftermarket products and proven CISS performance with proper setup, waste ink mods and reset software availability. Not the best, technically, but could be a real workhorse.
Also I received an email from Canon Canada a couple weeks ago that they were clearing out iP6600D for $79 including new cartridges. Whoa! that was a sweet deal. At the time I had two Epson R380s on my hands so for lack of space, I didn't bite.
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/BuyEpson/ccProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-13267
Epson is clearing out older printers at prices higher than what newer printers cost ....look at the R320 that's two models back! for $179. I wonder if they know that Epson fanboys want the older models prior to CLARIA based printers and are now willing to pay the price. Why? again availability of aftermarket products and proven CISS performance with proper setup, waste ink mods and reset software availability. Not the best, technically, but could be a real workhorse.
Also I received an email from Canon Canada a couple weeks ago that they were clearing out iP6600D for $79 including new cartridges. Whoa! that was a sweet deal. At the time I had two Epson R380s on my hands so for lack of space, I didn't bite.
No, Epson OEM cartridges have hardly ever been as easy as Canon's to refill. I believe it was you who told us that Epson has been changing printer's firmware so that a new after market resetter will probably work only for 3 months. Isn't that an effort of Epson trying to make it ever harder to refill? Canon now has chips on OEM carts too but Canon user's manual has instructions that tell customers how to disable ink level monitor. Although it is not Canon's good will in telling you how to refill PGI and CLI cartridges it at least convinced me that Canon had no intention to constantly making it harder for customers who want to refill.mikling said:
I hope you are not saying you are actually cheered by Epson's victory of its legal maneuver. You may have reasons to be cheerful. But not for me, and not for millions of Epson customers. How can you be not pissed by not able to buy G&G Epson compatible ink cartridges? And it is not amusing to call that's Epson exercising its legal right. I would call that a challenge of US anti-trust laws. When it took G&G to court you can expect G$G to have zero chance to win. For Epson it's only pocket change. But for G&G they need to liquidate everything in order to pay lawyers.mikling said:
Believe me, I am driving 25 year old cars, three, not just one. By no means it means the brands of my old cars are so great that I am driving the best cars even 25 years old. If your Epson 777 is indeed noisy and slow you will not want to base on that to defend for Epson's quality. I still have an Epson mechanical dot matrix printer in working shape. I would never based on that to judge Epson's new printers.mikling said:
The reason I am biased against Epson, besides its obvious greed for profit by constantly making the printers harder and harder to refill, is actually very technical. Epson print heads are so widely recognized to be prone to clogging. Epson dumps a significant amount of ink into waste ink tank by its famous automatic cleaning cycle in every power on. Epson makes you discard an ink cartridge despite it has good amount of ink remaining in the ink tank. Epson print heads have much lower nozzle density which makes Epson printers slow and lower in resolution and poorer photo quality. Do I need to say more?
I can print a photo using a $80 ip4300 that will be as good, if not better, than the same photo output from an R1800. You can argue R1800's print will last 100 years. Canon also says its ink last 50 years. The fact is these numbers are based on accelerated test method that has been questioned in recent months that the numbers are not very meaningful in real life actual conditions. If you exclude the fade resistance factor when comparing Epson with Canon there is no doubt Canon simply produces better photo prints. You can say that's just my opinion. But if you are have too much money and don't care about buying OEM Epson cartridges then I would say that's your opinion too.mikling said:
I don't want to turn this thread into a fight. As Fotofreek said, It's a forum and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Thanks for responding to the thread. I am sorry if I broke your heart in bashing Epson.
Didn't Epson just successfully stopped importation and sell of all spongeless Epson compatible ink cartridges, which are the critical component in all CISS? Isn't that shooting your own foot by saying CISS as an advantage at the same time side with Epson for exercising its legal right to ban all such ink cartridges? I am having a hard time understanding the logic behind these words.mikling said:
lolopr1
Print Addict
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 173
- Location
- Florida
- Printer Model
- Epson 4800,R3000 & 9600
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope
(1688-1744)
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope
(1688-1744)
