• Im in the market for a New Printer But torn between Canon or Epson
  • Both are (very) good, I think more members run Canon these days (but has been Epson).

    Have you specific models / budget in mind?
  • I have a Canon Pro-100, which is a bit of a beast but means I can print A3+ prints. The quality is superb, I always buy Canon ink which isn't too badly priced.
  • Unless you simply do not have the space, I would certainly be looking for A3. I too have a Canon, the Pro-1, it was on a good offer at the time (Charles got one at about the same time I believe). Yes, use genuine inks - though can be expensive. A set of 12 for the Pro-1 are around £240! Don't just look at the price for a set though, take into account the total volume of ink you get in a set of cartridges.

    The first set supplied with the printer never last so long - you have to 'charge' the printer before use and that takes up a fair bit, and some printers do not ship with cartridges filled to capacity. Worth checking this out if buying something with expensive ink, it can change the price comparison between models.

    Canon or Epson comparison is a bit like Canon or Nikon with cameras, both are superb generally but people tend to be very loyal once they make a choice (and not simply because they have invested in lenses although obviously that is relevant).

    Nikon do not make printers, I would like to take a bet that most Nikon users buy Epson rather than buy from the 'enemy'!!
  • We have been using Epson printers for well over 12 years and have found them to be wonderful workhorses, bearing in mind we have printed thousands of photos over the years, supplying our shop with A2/A3/A4 prints and greetings cards as well as for camera club. We have always opted for A2 models as they are far more economical on ink usage than the A3 and smaller.

    Cartridge sizes on the Epson 3880 and the current P800 are 80ml and as a rough example the economics work out cartridge size vs price at roughly 60p per ml, against 92p per ml for the P600/P400 etc. We always use Epson inks and wouldn't ever contemplate going over to a Permajet inkflow system, have heard far too many problems with people who have. Couldn't recommend Epson more highly and we can only speak from experience. And yes, we have Nikon gear!
  • Yes, Jane illustrates the point well. My set of inks costs £245 (inc vat) but works out at 54p per ml. I have 12x38ml cartridges. Printers with fewer and smaller cartridges work out more expensive.

    Another consideration is how many prints you are going to make. Heads can dry out if not in regular use. I do not claim to know an awful lot about this, but did a fair bit of research before buying my............... Canon!

    I find that as long as I leave the printer switched on permanently I can go months without printing with little or no wastage, I use other printers for day to day printing in the office............ all Epson.

    But, with these I use compatible inks that are ridiculously cheap on ebay and are perfectly good in all respects for printing documents, photos are a different matter. I will say though that I have had mo more 'issues' with compatible cartridges than originals, but for accurate photographic prints that will last, it has to be original manufacturers ink.
  • The latest inkjet printers from Epson do not use ink cartridges! They have tanks that can be refilled and you do not have to use Epson inks. The printer model EcoTank ET-14000 is an A3+ capable. Amazon are selling them around £465 see
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Epson-EcoTank-14000-Printer-Refillable/dp/B015CMOVSW
    Amazon is also selling Epson Black 70ml bottle for approx. £7.00.
  • Interesting Ray, though having just read a few reviews of this printer and some others in the range I would not be tempted. Specific references to "this is not a photo printer" and "this printer is designed for the office environment" would put me off (for printing photos), and even with these considerations in mind the overall ratings (from real 'testers' rather than users) seem to vary from 2 stars to 4 (out of 5). Seem to be strangely few reviews too.

    If looking for a good A3 photo printer (from under £200 to £500) the following link (Park Cameras blog) is worth at least looking at as one of your starting points for further research: http://blog.parkcameras.com/2017/04/best-a3-photo-printers-under-500.html
  • Agree with Graham, I would always look for a near-dedicated photo printer and only use manufacturer inks, for reliability, consistency and archival quality. It is especially important if you are thinking of printing in black & white as it is very easy to get colour casts from lesser machines and camera club judges are tuned in to looking for this type of problem.
  • I agree with Jaynes point re a dedicated photo printer. This particularly true for mono and having a range of Blacks and Grey's really helps. The question around OEM ink is more complicated. You can't go wrong with OEM and you certainly can with 3rd party ink. They can ruin your print head for a start. It is however possible to save a lot of money with 3rd party ink under certain circumstances. The really cheap stuff is rubbish and to be avoided at all costs. I would also avoid dye based inks as the longevity is very poor. I use a single manufactures 3rd party pigment inks in my Canon Pro1 which are around half the price of the Canon inks. Permajet will then do profiles for those specific inks on their paper. This works for me and you will have seen some of the results. I am on my third set and the results are consistent. How long they will last is an unknown but pigment inks should be ok. For mono printing the PRO1 has 5 black cartridges and works best for me with "Black and White inks only" selected and printer manages profile.

    With regards to Grahams point on brand loyalty I now have owned cameras from all the major brands and they all have their Pros and Cons. For my work Nikon wins on ISO performance and autofocus performance but I prefer Canon colours, Sony's portability and Panasonic's features. Sony In my view is on the threshold of going solidly into the lead. Ultimately these are all small differences in most circumstances. My only observation is that sensor and autofocus technology has really come on in the last 2-3 years and anything older (with some exceptions) will have some drawbacks and the older the kit gets the more significant these become.
  • Plenty of food for thought there, Charles! Bit concerned about your Sony comments as I have just opted to try the Fuji X system and seeing some of Tissys recent work using Sony I can understand your praise
  • They are all good Tony and as we know the most important thing is the photographer.
  • Tony, there is plenty of good stuff out there, but there is nothing that compares with the buzz currently surrounding Fuji. Fuji is a company that has decades of understanding film, photography and how photographers work. Sony is a company with decades of experience in electronics. A lot of club members have recently invested in the Fuji X system and whilst I wouldn't knock anything else, I would say it is not without good reason.
  • Reassuring, thanks!
  • I have to say whilst Sony are technologically at the fore front with dynamic range, backlit sensors and crazy high frame rates the final output is not quite to my taste and I agree with your point. Cannon Fuji and Nikon have that special sauce in the processing. Interestingly I saw a blind and very comprehensive JPEG head to head and these three came out on top. These however are all small differences and all the major brands are producing great cameras that are cable of publish/international competition grade material.
  • Charles, this is all very true. However, my view is that all cameras that are relatively recent (digital) are capable of producing fantastic images in the the hands, however some are vastly better than others in becoming 'integrated with the photographer' and thus something special. I feel Fuji have this magic for a lot of people in a way that no others achieve. Most of my investment is in Canon, and I don't think long lenses work well on smaller mirrorless cameras, but I think for wide and standard lenses, street etc, nothing has quite the same magic as Fuji X. I get 'excited' by my x-pro2 in a way I never do with my Canon stuff, though wouldn't want to sell my Canon kit. I think that any photographer that feel his kit is just an extension of him or her has got the right kit and that is what matters.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion