Best Printer, Epson 2200 or Canon i9100

[robfo0]

Hi everyone,

I have a 10D and am looking to get a new semi-large format printer (13x19). I have narrowed it down to the Epson 2200 or Canon i9100. I know the main differences and strengths of the 2; Epson is slower, but new pigment inks boast longevity, Canon is wayyy faster with similar or equal quality.

My question is: Has anyone actually compared prints from them both side by side? I am really interested in the appearance of "pixels" in the print. I don't like when I can see a lot of "dots" in gradiation and shadow areas. Can anyone comment on either or both of the printer's performance in this category?

Thanks,

Rob

[Motorsports Photo]

Based on all the troubles I have had with Epson and their wacky policies, the Canon MUST be better!

-Pete

[iwatkins]

Rob,

I have the i9100 after also looking at the Epson output.

To be totally honest, I couldn't really see any difference in the prints produced except that the tonal range across a big bit of blue sky was very very marginally smoother on the Canon. That didn't sell it to me, the speed of printing did in the end.

I'm not really bothered if a print fades after a few years (if it does at all), I'll just reprint it :)

Cheers

Ian

[CyberDyneSystems]

Epsons drive me nuts.

My own personal expeirence as well as a small hand full of freinds has been 100% failure in under one year.

100% failure out of 5 deifferent printers owned by 4 different people in under 1 year

I know many love them.
I know that the prints DO look fantastic.
I know SOMEONE has to have had an Epson longer than a few months.

But my god they suck!

[iwatkins]

Seeing CDS is putting the boot in (:)) I'll also say that Epson drivers/software have driven me mad since the day they made their first printer.

But there again, not as bad as HP for drivers/software.

Best advice ? Try them both out if you can.

Cheers

Ian

[Motorsports Photo]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Epsons drive me nuts.

My own personal expeirence as well as a small hand full of freinds has been 100% failure in under one year.

Hey Cyberdyne,

You can add me to your statistics, but change it to 100% failure within 3 months (On ALL the Epson 2000P's I've had)

If it wasnt for print life I would have chucked them out the door a long time ago.

-SP

[w10d]

Have to say that I nearly bought the Canon last spring when my 10 month old 2100 (European 2200) broke and I went through 2 months of returns before Epson finally agreed to replace it.... and still haven't sent the free paper and carts they promised.

The only thing worse than their build quality is their tech support >:(

HOWEVER, the print example I saw from the Canon just didn't match up to what I had been getting from the Epson, and there was no way I was going to reprint all my portfolios just to keep everything matching. (To be fair to the Canon - print samples from manufacturers and dealers are often not as good quality as you can get yourself, so maybe I was being harsh on the printer).

Whatever you decide - if you go for the Epson, take out the extra on-site warranty
;)

[rfdesq]

I've had my i9100 since July and have absolutely no complaints. Turn it on, print, and turn it off. I use Canon paper and I am very pleased with the output.

Robert

[iesrick]

Take a look at prices for the Epson cartridges vs the Canon ones too! I don't know how long each brand lasts in actual use, but you owe it to yourself to weigh out your actual output cost as well. I was floored at the Epson prices of over $50 per cartridge/color

[John_T]

Think I'm saying this for the tenth time around here, the Canon BJCi9100 hands down. I've had mine since June and still marvel at it's output.

...and every thing I've ever had from Epson has driven me nuts in one way or another, especially their drivers.

[robertwgross]

iesrick wrote:
Take a look at prices for the Epson cartridges vs the Canon ones too! I don't know how long each brand lasts in actual use, but you owe it to yourself to weigh out your actual output cost as well. I was floored at the Epson prices of over $50 per cartridge/color

There are many online shops that sell Epson ink cartridges for a reasonable price. I pay less than $25 for a color cartridge for my Epson 1270.

For a rough estimate, I figure my Epson paper costs me most of $1 per square foot, and my Epson ink costs me about the same.

---Bob Gross---

[robfo0]

Thanks guys for all the replies, i guess the choice is pretty obvious.

One more questions though! Ive been doing some reading and found that the new Canon i960 (smaller format printer) has 2 pico-liter droplets, as opposed to the i9100's 4 pico-liter droplets. Now, they both have the same resolution (so the stats say), but has anyone seen the output from the i960? Is there much difference? I'm guessing that before long there will be a larger format canon printer with 2 pico-liter droplet size. (and I'm assuming that, in this case, smaller is better :) ).

Just wondering if I should maybe hold out a little longer.

Thanks again!

[magicpixel]

I've been running a 2100 for 15 months now - was lucky to get one of the first in Australia. The performance of the printer has been outstanding, not one glitch, exceptional prints. That's not to say it's perfect, but it's pretty darn good.

My biz is selling prints of my own images, to be honest there's no way I'd feel comfortable doing that with dye based prints - no matter how you slice it, they just aren't stable enough. I've had display prints made with the 2100 under punishing lighting for over a year now and they are still spot on.

If your intention is to print for yourself, family and friends it's a different ballgame. Any number of printers including the Canon would be ideal for that kind of thing.. but if money (both purchase and running costs) wasn't an issue, I'd still be recommending the 2200 over the 9100 any day :)

As for holding out for smaller drop sizes etc... personally I can't see the point - the current crop of printers are good to go.

[GenDEM]

FWIW Epson is the defacto standard for high quality prints. This is accepted wisom. The high quality black and white inks, replacement cartidges, and ink longevity tests are all done with Epson ink and papers.

I'm not affiliated at all, but after a few months of looking into printers, Epson seems to be the leader in highest quality desktop printing. Also if you've got money to burn look into the Epson 4000 that is about to be released.

[toglenn]

I opted for the Epson 2200 after hearing so much complaining about Canon's print fading.

Have not done much printing because I'm waiting for a custom profile to be completed. It's taken longer than I thought so I might invest in a MonacoEZcolor Bundle and make my own profiles.

Epson ink cartridges sell for $8.95 to $9.95 on line, $71.64 for a set of 7 including shipping and handling.

Not all papers work with the 2200 and some people complain of bronzing on glossy stock. I have used a clear spray on the gloss paper and the bronzing is not visible.

[TKHerman]

I had an Epson 1270 for about three years -- never had a single problem. I then upgraded to the 2200 earlier this summer. It is AWESOME!!! Not a single glitch.

I've done some rather detailed costing analysis on the Epson 2200 -- for a typical 8.5x11 sheet (averaged across 25 sheets including a variety of 8x10's, 5x7's, 4x6's, 3.5x5's and wallets) on Professional Semigloss paper it comes out to be about $1.30 per sheet for both paper and ink. This calculation is based upon ink and paper prices from Buy.com.

I've never tried or even seen a print from the Canon but I can say that I do love my Epson!!!

[w10d]

toglenn wrote:
Epson ink cartridges sell for $8.95 to $9.95 on line, $71.64 for a set of 7 including shipping and handling.

Not all papers work with the 2200 and some people complain of bronzing on glossy stock.

So it costs more for a set of 7 ?? - I use up about 3 light magenta carts compared to any other colour (which makes me glad it has seperate colour carts!)

I mostly print on Archival Matte, using Semi-Gloss for somethings. I do see bronzing on that, but not severe enough to stop me using it. One tip with the Matte; always use the Matte Black ink, Photo black is no where near deep enough on Matte paper.

[jmamer]

I've had a 2200 for about a year. It's given me no problems under fairly light usage. Print quality is amazing. My best results have been with matte and semi-gloss epson papers. No driver problems with Windows XP.

I can get replacement ink cartridges for about $10-$15 US each.
j

[toglenn]

w10d wrote:
toglenn wrote:
Epson ink cartridges sell for $8.95 to $9.95 on line, $71.64 for a set of 7 including shipping and handling.

Not all papers work with the 2200 and some people complain of bronzing on glossy stock.

So it costs more for a set of 7 ?? - I use up about 3 light magenta carts compared to any other colour (which makes me glad it has seperate colour carts!)

I mostly print on Archival Matte, using Semi-Gloss for somethings. I do see bronzing on that, but not severe enough to stop me using it. One tip with the Matte; always use the Matte Black ink, Photo black is no where near deep enough on Matte paper.

I said the total price INCLUDES SHIPPING!!!

[XtremePhoto]

Hi all,

I have to post an opinion in favor of the Epson printers and ultra chrome inks. If you sell your prints and want happy campers...they cannot fade. Dye-based inks fade, granted fast in some conditions than others.

I just replaced my last dye-based printer, a Canon i9100 with two new Epsons (R800 and 7600). Already have an Epson 2200 for over a year and a half, with no problems.

I love the large range of papers you can print on with the Epson printers and the color range is really impressive. There is a number of ultra chrome ink printers for all needs, as well: R800 for up to 8.5" x 11"; 2200 for up to 13" x 19"; and then large format up to 44" wide!

Remember, alot of the sucess in using any printer, especially the better photo printers is due to color management throughout your entire system...Monitor; paper and inks for printer etc. I use custom profiles for all my paper/inks and have never had a problem with any of the Epson printers.

Just my .02! But Epson makes a great printer that produces terrific prints.

[timmyquest]

Epsons drive me nuts.

My own personal expeirence as well as a small hand full of freinds has been 100% failure in under one year.

100% failure out of 5 deifferent printers owned by 4 different people in under 1 year

I know many love them.
I know that the prints DO look fantastic.
I know SOMEONE has to have had an Epson longer than a few months.

But my god they suck!

Same here, after a few months of use they tend to grow a mind of thier own. I dont think i'll ever buy one again.

I have doubt in my mind that their top of the line printers have the same issues that their $75 printers do, but i'm not going to put $500-$600 of my hard earned money on that!

[Webster]

I must agree with those who complain about Epson printers, but before deciding on a dye based printer, be aware that the fading people complain about often becomes noticeable in a matter of months, not years. I have a Canon i9100 and an Epson R800. I sure do like the Canon better, but I could never use it to produce prints for my customers.

When Epson brings out a 4000 style printer based on the R800 technology I'll be standing in line to get one - knowing full well that I'll be cursing them soundly while using it. Right now, putting up with Epson seems to be the price one has to pay to get top quality prints from the desktop.

[Rudix]

For me it was a long and hard decision but in the end I ended up with Canon printers. Yes, they are suppose to fade quicker (according to my 9950 the prints should last 35 years) but that depends. I have 2 prints, one from a canon (little i560) and one from an Epson 2200 that have been in a very bright, sunlit room for about a year now, they even get a bit of direct sunlight and are totally unprotected. I have recently made a third print of the same photo to compare and at this stage I must say there is a bit of fading BUT, as far as my eyes, and other people I have asked, the fading seems to be about the same on the 2 photos.

I personally take all the claims about how long prints will last from the suppliers with a pinch of salt, remember, there is a lot of marketing involved....

I find my current Canon (i9950) produces prints that are more vivid and with a greater tonal range compared to my friends Epson 2200, and we are not even mentioning speed and price of ink !

For the volumes I print I simply cannot afford to have a printer as slow as the Epsons !

For me Canon ruleshttp://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif

[Steven M. Anthony]

I started with the epson stylus 600--lasted 2 years. Only stopped using it because I got the 1270.

I had the 1270 for about 2 years with no problems--it still works (now it's about 5) but now I use my 2200. I've had that for about 2 years, again with no problems.

I get my ink from epson online--about US$10 per color (free shipping).

I also have 2 epson c84s a c82 and the Picturemate. All with no problems.

On the other hand, I bought a canon s400 (maybe?). Barely ever worked right. Clogged continuously. Ink was cheaper, but you had to run the cleaning sequence so frequently they only lasted half as long!

[gcase04]

I have a Canon i9000. It prints great but is kind of an ink hog. Other than that it is problem free.

[roanjohn]

I vote for Canon!!! he he!!! Have the i9900 - and this thing as amazing!!!

Ro1

[defordphoto]

I have not had a single issue with my Epson 2200.

[phili1]

Well I have had my 2200 since inseption with not one problem.

My reasoning in buying over the Canon was the pigmenterd ink. I do Real estate and print house pictures for window display. The prints from my ink jet fade in the window inside of a month but my pigmented ink has no change after three months.

My second reason for buying it is that George Leep a famous nature photographer uses it exclusivly.

The Canon is faster but you can't beat Epson especially if you use paper profiles for lab type prints.