Canon vs. Epson

[pmnapier]

Does anyone have an opinion on the relative photo quality of the Epson R300M printer vs. the Canon iP4000 and iP5000? Primarily for glossy prints.

[Sevent]

I recently looked at the Epson R300 and was impressed by the test prints it produced from a couple of my files. But when I started to do some research I found the first BIG negative was its reported tendency to go through ink like it had the same value as water (its been said that inkjet ink is the most expensive commodity in the world today. To fill your car’s gas tank with printer ink at today’s rates would cost in excess of $100,000).

So I ended up getting a Canon Pixma IP3000. Yes, this is only a 4 color printer, and it doesn’t even have photo black like the more upmarket Canon printers, but the prints are impressive. When I ran the same Epson test files through the Canon I was amazed at how well they compared to the Epson tests. The only real difference that I could see to the naked eye was that the Canon rendered slightly richer colors. Most people I showed the prints to preferred the Canon output.

This seems to be more a function of the ink/paper combination than anything else. I have just tested Office Depot professional photo paper in the Canon, and this looks almost exactly like the Epson output. The only very marginal difference I could detect was that the Epson paper seems very slightly heavier. Again, you have to heft them one after the other to detect this, so it is hardly worth mentioning.

I might add that in all these tests I have to compare the output side by side to be able to tell any differences. When viewed on their own, none of the prints show enough deviation to enable me to pick one out over another. You might be able to see differences under higher magnification, but who actually goes through normal life looking at prints like that?

The only real deviation was when I ran tests using some old el cheapo photo paper I bought for a couple of bucks at a computer show about 5 years ago. The colors here didn’t quite have the same punch as the rest of the prints. But this is probably just more of a confirmation of the great improvements in photo paper quality in the last 2-3 years than a negative against the printers.

Back to ink. I cannot personally vouch for this, but all reviews of the newer Canon printers talk about the excellent longevity of ink carts. On top of that, even at brand name level, the Canon carts cost less than the Epson’s, and let’s face it, this is the area where your costs are really counted. You can even find generic Canon carts on the net for under $2.00, although I cannot comment on the output quality. This will be the next area I will be testing.

Hope this helps a bit.

[Nick]

I bought the IP5000 about two months ago. Never having used an Epson - I can't tell you exactly how it compares.

In layman's terms, the ink appears as if it lasts forever , or at least compared to my previous printer, the HP 960c. I haven't printed many 8x11 photos, but I print 4x6's like nobody's business. The printing is fast - there's no one minute wait for it to pop out of your printer...it's probably closer to 35 seconds or so. I print on Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy, which reportedly isn't as good as their Pro Glossy paper. The prints are vivid, and the colours are just as they appear on camera, no more staurated and no less. The colours are dead on usually - however an exception here whenever I print with anything but Canon photo paper! I'm more or less of a rookie at printing images, so it's most likely user error.

Another thing I find a bonus is a removable and replacable printhead, although I have no idea as to how much it costs, I've heard so much about printhead troubles that it greatly appeals to me that if mine begins to disintergrate, I can go and buy a new one

[Momto4boyz]

I have the Epson Picturemate. I went with this photo printer because it is one of the only ones that says it produces archival quality prints. I went onto the Wilhelm Imaging Research website to look into home photo printers. Under testing they are saying that the photos printed with the Epson Picturemate with last over 100 years in photo safe albums.

The whole reasoning of printing photos is for them to last for years to come. Personally, I think it is a waste of money to print out photos that in a couple years are going to fade and be no good.

Epson Picturemate quality is better than CVS and better than Walmart developing and it only costs me under .29 cents per print!!!

[bnorris99]

Well here is my story about epson and canon photo printers. All the research I did online pointed to Epson, not to mention my big-shot boss Victor is always struttin' around the office bragging about his 3.2 mega pixel camera, his ilford paper and of course his 8-cartridge Epson printer. So I went with the Epson... big mistake. The Epson's quality was less than desirable, no matter what paper I printed on or what size photo I printed. The pictures almost looked as if they were painted. So, I returned my Epson 7800 for a Canon Pixma 5000 (both priced at $179). Wow, what a difference. The canon's pictures are crisp and beautiful, I'm glad I made the switch. No thanks to my boss who even claimed his 3.2 mega pixel camera was better than any 8 mega pixel camera on the market and insists his photography work will win a nobel peace prize this year. Obviously this guy doesnt get out much, stick with canon.

[Chucko]

I've been very happy with my Canon iP5000. I used to have an ancient Epson Stylus Photo EX. The EX was good, but on those occasions when we used it, it always needed to be unclogged. I've had no such problems with the Canon. And I've been very satisfied with the Canon's output even on cheap no-brand photo paper. Best of all, it seems to be very stingy with ink!

The only downside to the iP5000 is that the Epson inkjets are better supported by 3rd party inks, paper, and software.

[Ray Schnoor]

Well here is my story about epson and canon photo printers. All the research I did online pointed to Epson, not to mention my big-shot boss Victor is always struttin' around the office bragging about his 3.2 mega pixel camera, his ilford paper and of course his 8-cartridge Epson printer. So I went with the Epson... big mistake. The Epson's quality was less than desirable, no matter what paper I printed on or what size photo I printed. The pictures almost looked as if they were painted. So, I returned my Epson 7800 for a Canon Pixma 5000 (both priced at $179). Wow, what a difference. The canon's pictures are crisp and beautiful, I'm glad I made the switch. No thanks to my boss who even claimed his 3.2 mega pixel camera was better than any 8 mega pixel camera on the market and insists his photography work will win a nobel peace prize this year. Obviously this guy doesnt get out much, stick with canon.

Of course the Pixma iP5000 will print better photos than the Epson Stylus CX7800. The Canon is a photo printer and the Epson is not. Epson photo printers have names like "Epson Stylus Photo xxxx". The 7800 is just an "Epson Stylus CX7800".

A better comparison would be between the "Canon Pixma iP5000" and the "Epson Stylus Photo R320" which are both listed at $179.

I'm sure that the Pixma iP5000 prints great photos as do most if not all Canon "photo" printers, but the same can be said about Epson "photo" printers.

[aparmley]

Very good point Ray.

I have a Canon i960 - it produces great prints. However, there are some reasons why I am looking into Epson. 1. archival quality - I have no clue how long Canon photos will, last, but some of my earlier prints (10 months old) are starting to fade. It goes through ink pretty quickly - and if you don't print in a week or so the heads clog and you have to run the "Deep cleaning" mode to fix it - which eats through about 1/4 - 1/2 of all your ink cartridges - that will probably be the same with most any inkjets but . . . ? But some of the newer models with the K3 Ultrachrome inks - multiple blacks for better B&W photography have peaked my interest and the gloss optimizer - not sure about this probably just another cart to buy, right? LOL

I'll be holding off on buying my next printer for some time. I am waiting to see a resolution to the expensive inkjet ink costs. . . as pointed out earlier - this is your real cost, then paper, then the intial cost of the printer. I bought my printer for 90 bucks on rebate, I've spent 1.5 x on paper and probably 3 times that on ink. . . It costs me right at 80 bucks to change all 6 ink cartridges. while its nice that i don't have to change all at the same time - it still adds up. Not sure this helps much. . .

[Anthony]

I can not remember the full details but there was a basic test between Lexmar, HP, Canon and Epson printers on TV this week.

From memory the Lexmark was chepest up to the R800 Epson.

The Epson came out second best in print cost ( worst in cost of ink though at £90 a full set of cartridges ) not so good in colour reproduction as the canon ( a bit to bright/colouful ! ). They also did a basic fade test where the photos were kept under a lamp for 3 weeks solid with part of the image masked off and the Epson came out best here with no fade evident at all compared to the other 3 brands.

Anthony

[JTL]

Keep a watch out for the new yet un-named Canon 10-ink printer that uses pigment-based archival-quality ink. They were demo-ing it at the Canon Camera Expo in September in conjunction with the Canon 5D. The results were astounding...

They didn't give a release date for it...