How to decide which printer

<p>I have narrowed my upcoming printer purchase to the Epson r3000 and Canon Pixma Pro-10, and I'm quite frankly to the point where I may have to decide by a coin toss as I think these are pretty similar machines - they are similar price points, both print 13x19 borderless, and can accept roll paper. Both use premier pigment based inks that seem to have reasonably long life. My chief interest is in printing black and white images. I get the sense that the Canon may be cheaper to operate over time, but thats not 100% clear to me. I'm also unsure if the extra inks in the Canon will give a bigger advantage when printing black and white but from what I can tell this is largely a dead heat. While the big brother for each of these printers (Pixma Pro-1 and 3880) are desireable, I simply can't justify the price point for my hobby. For those of you who have made this decision, what tangible or intangible factors helped you make a choice?</p>

<p>realize that the R3000 has *just* superceded by the P600.</p>

<p>The Canon also has large margins on fine art matte papers and a max length of around 27"</p>

<p>Also compare the cost of ink.</p>

The Pixma Pro-10 is cheaper to operate, as it uses slightly less ink but simply isn't as clog prone as the Epsons are.

Fewer cleaning cycles = dramatically less wasted ink and time. I have worked with both:

- print quality is essentially equal so I went with the Canon Pixma Pro-10

 

The issue with margins on fine art papers with the Pro-10 is dependent on the paper type selection in the driver.

 

One limitation I wish was not there on the Canon is that you can't use a roll paper feed. Depending on your printing

volume, having to only use sheets can make a substantial difference if you always use the same paper type.

 

As to paper, mostly I use Various papers from Moab. Moab's profiles are very, very, very good. Good enough that I've

essentially stopped making my own custom profiles.

<p>Did you know that Andy Biggs makes Moab's profiles?</p>

<p>Thanks Howard and Ellis - ink usage and costs had made me lean towards the Canon somewhat. I had just seen notes that the new Epson P600 is due out very soon, is there anything notable about this new device that might make sense to wait a little and see what some of the reviews have to say? I feel like its something of an unknown quantity at this point.</p>

<p>take a read of this...............</p>

<p>http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/epson_sc-p600.html</p>

No Howard, I didn't know that. Good to know.

<p>I just ordered an R3000. The rebate essentially offsets the cost of one full ink set. I have used Epson machines of every size for a long time. The ultrachrome ink is very consistent and works well on many paper types. I prefer the Epson papers. The OEM profiles are excellent but I typically create my own especially following any firmware or software updates.<br>

Be careful when trying to calculate the cost of use. Any $/sq ft cost provided by manufacturers is unlikely to match your own usage. A lot depends on how frequently you actually print which effect how much ink is lost to head cleaning. I don't know if you ever experienced a wet darkroom but the cost of basic chemicals, negatives and papers easily exceeds the cost of running the most wasteful printer in a digital workflow.<br>

I ran an Epson 4000 mostly using sheets (rather than roll paper) and my pure material cost (ink + paper) was ~ $1/sq ft. The capital costs were higher compared to smaller machines like the R3000. <br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p>Thanks all for the perspectives, they help! Still haven't decided but I am leaning towards the Canon. I think the thing that nags at me about the Epson models is the loss of ink that results from switching between matte and glossy papers, seems like Canon has a better approach to this issue. The current rebate for the R3000 is mighty attractive though. I'm not sure that I see enough 'new or improved' features or capability in the P600 to consider that over the R3000, especially with the rebate that is currently being offered.</p>

<p>There is a kind of contradiction here-<br>

Pigment-based inks are likely more permanent, but are more apt to clog if not used very regularly.<br>

There are reports of improvements in fade-resistance in dye-based printers, but....?</p>

 

<p>I'm using the Canon Pro-100 with dye Chromalife inks. Meant to last 100+ years. Plenty long enough and no clogging problems so far (1 year). In fact I have never had to clean or realign the heads at all, so good going to date.</p>