Canon S9000 vs. Epson 1280 (re: economy, print life)

[nigel_craig]

I want to replace an Epson photo 750 with somthing A3+ capable and am

trying to decide between Canon s9000 and Epson Photo 1280. The test

in Amateur Photographer suggested the canon is slightly better (and

faster) and the footprint fits better on my desk. However,i have two

concerns. One is running cost - the canon has individual tanks, but

here in the UK I can get Epson cartridges discounted to c.60% from

the Channel Island mail order companies. The second factor is paper

compatibility; I know that the Epson will work well with a wide range

of non-Epson papers, including textured materials. I really don't

know how the S9000 performs other than with the very limited range of

Canon papers. And finally any differences in expected life of

prints?

[ray]

As far as print lifetime is concerned the Wilhelm Imaging Research is supposed to release the print longevity test for both these printers between now and Feb 2003. See this link:

 

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/upcoming_data.html

[ed_tobin]

I have the Epson 1280 and I am happy with it. My only complaint is that the ink

cartridge has a chip in it so it is not easy to find third party inks. I have used

many brands of paper with out problems.

 

A friend of mine has the s9000 and quality is about the same but he has had

problems using non canon paper. He has found that Ilford smooth pearl paper

works

[paul_nicol]

Contrary to what Ed said I have the 9000 and have used non-canon paper with no problems. It might be that Ed's friend is changing the color profile's thinking he has to for Epson papers and that is what screws up his prints. (I thought the same thing when I first got the printer.) There is a slight color difference from paper to paper but it�s the same for the Epson printers also. The longevity of prints seems to have more to do with the viewing environment and paper than the printer. I have had 2 Epson printers and a friend of mine has the 1270. From my observations it seems the Epson printers are plagued with ink clogging up the print head. (might be drier climates cause the problem) I�ve seen banding in some of my prints of the 9000 at lower print qualities, but none at highest print quality level. You have to keep ANY inkjet print in an album or under glass to get longevity.

[carl smith]

The Image Permanence Institute, or IPI has some information on the 1280. I'll see if I can get it from them.

[rick_falck]

I have the 1280 and have gone through 6 color cartridges. I print mostly landscape photos, and the inks all go down at the same rate for me. In one run I printed 40 10x7.5 photos at 1440 dpi on the Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper. I figure the ink cost around 75 cents a print for this size. I chose the Epson because of the ratings it gets. I also like the broad paper selection for it. However, I have only gotten good colors on Epson papers (Kodak and HP don't work well).

[brian_hinther2]

Wilhelm has posted their results for the Epson 1270 (same ink as the 1280) and the Canon 8200 (same ink as the S9000). Print life for the Epson on Matte Paper-Heavyweight is 24 to 26 years. For the Canon on Photo Paper Pro it's less than one year.

[nigel_craig]

Thanks for all your responses. On the subject of print life, from the Epson 1270 on I think Epson promoted 25 year life on combo of Epson inks and semi-matt paper. I prefer other papers to Epson, eg. ICI Olmec, Permajet, Somerset enhanced (haven't tried new Ilford papers yet), which is probably a Euroecentric selection. I assume the main factor other than what environmental conditions the print is exposed to is the interaction between the ink and the paper surface and the ink properties. Therefore until someone tells me different, I am picking up a hint that the Canon inks are not so long life, except with Canon Photo Pro paper and will therefore lean to Epson 1290S.

[richard_rowe]

I can say this for the Epson we use them where I work and I have a 1270 that has printed over 17,000 8 x 10 prints for our sales force and some of the pictures are 2 1/2 years old and still look fine. I also think the Epson has a better print.