Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Printers > Photo Inkjet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 8, 2004, 8:05 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1
Default

I've been reading reviews for both models over the past couple of days, but unfortunately, they just leave me even more confused. Too many conflicting statements, and now I'm not sure who or what to believe.

Here's what I do know (I think):

The Canon is superior when it comes to photo and graphics quality.

Epson uses a lot of ink, and ink tanks are not transparent, making it difficult to gauge how much is actually left. The chip inside isn't very accurate, either, causing you to waste ink.

Canon print heads will fail eventually.

Epson print heads will clog if not used often.

And my main concern: Canon ink fades. Badly.

So, I guess I'm wondering if the better photo quality of the Canon is worth it ifmy pictures aregoing to end up fading on me relatively soon. Or have these claims of fading been exaggerated? (Yes, I've seen the pictures posted below, but does this happen to everyone? Surely the printer wouldn't be so popular if it did.)

I'm more interested in printing photos than text, but I'm not a professional photographer, either, so I'm thinking I might happy enough with the R200. I'm also interested in printing out T-shirt transfers, and recall reading somewhere that the Canon handled that quite well.

I've been going back and forth on this for weeks, so any advice or input would be appreciated!
Electra is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 8, 2004, 1:57 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 117
Default

Allow me to touch on a few points.

First off, the R200 is a cheap version of the R300. Nuff said I think. The i960 is a powerhouse photo printer.

"Canon print heads will fail eventually"

The only time I have seen Canon printheads fail (from customers coming in) is if they use third party inks thatgunk up the head.The Canon printheads are geared to last the lifetime of the printer. From what I have seen, they do. UNLESS you use third party inks. (Had a customer in just the other day looking for a new "lifetime"printheadbecause his stopped working properly. What ink was he using?Some third party *edible* ink. I kid you not)


"Canon ink fades. Badly"

This has been around the boards here and there. Not sure if I would tack the "badly" part on it. But look at this realistically. Even if any printer image starts to fade after what? 5 years? 10 years? We can ALWAYS reprint it! Plus, by the time we have to reprint it - say 10 years - do you know what kind of technology will be out by that time?

I think as long as people are saving/archiving there images and not printing out a long lasting image and deleting the original (stupid) the longevity issue is sorta moot in most cases.

Mayhem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2004, 10:28 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
CastleDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 321
Default



Another way to burn out the heads on a Canon is to run the ink totally dry. The ink is used as a coolant for the head and if it tries to run it too many times with a dry cartridge the head can fry.

The use of the ink as a coolant is probably why the heads get fried with some substitute inks.

Oh and Epson also uses the ink as a coolant.

-------------------------------------
I have an Epson R200 and a Canon i860, I use the i860 for 99% of the printing and the R200 for CDs. This is my fifth Canon and I am yet to burn out a head. The Epson is pretty well constructed (comparable to the Canon) but the Canon is so much faster that I can't get myself the downgrade. The print quality is not that much better between the two.
CastleDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2004, 5:27 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

The 2004 Digital Image Maker Assn (DIMA) rated the Epson R300 as the best inkjet photoprinter in the $100 to $200 dollar range. (The I960 is not mentioned). The R200 is the exact same printer without the card readers; the output between the R200 and R300 is identical. This makes the R200 a "sleeper" if you will in the photo inkjet category, and one of the most underrated/overlooked printers in the market. I think reviews have not given this printer its due. Epson didn't exactly tout its resolution (note it has the same 5700X1400[?] resolution as the R300 but the 300's resolution specs are plastered all over the box, it's not stated on the R200...)

Though old this post caught my eye because I bought the Epson R200 over the Canon I960, and because most don't consider the two printers in the same league. People love the I960, and I went to the big box computer store (microcenter) specifically to buy one based on Steve's Review here.

While I was there, I noticed an R200 marked down to 1/2 price, as it was an open-box buy. Although price was (is always) a consideration, I went there with the intent of walking out with a 960. However, the R200 was such a good deal, I couldn't resist comparing the output between the two printers. To my surprise, I actually prefered the output of the Epson over the Canon. To me, the colors on the Epson "popped" more, without being oversaturated. I know, I know, the Canon has the two picoliter drop size. The Epson's is 3 picoliters. But color fidelity is something that will show up in every photo. Drop size? Is that even noticeable to the n'ked eye at normal viewing distance? Sure, as Steve's (as, always, excellent) review illustrates, it's discernable under magnification - but... And up till recently, the best you can do was 4 picoliters, and many still relevant professional photo inkjets (don't quote me, like the Stylus 2200...) produce high-quality photos using this (4 pltr) drop size. So is the smallest picoliter droplet becoming one of those meaningless spec races between rival companies; and another case of diminishing returns? The same can be said of the Epson's better resolution specs over the Canon.

I chose the R200 for the following reasons:

1. I prefered its color rendition to the 960.
2. It was less expensive
3. It has CDR printing capabilities
4. I think there are more paper-size choices for borderless over the Canon
5. Easier installation - no printhead alignment.
6. Thought the build quality was slightly better, despite lower price point.

I own the R200 and am thrilled with it. It's a remarkable value. If - like me, you print from your PC/laptop, so as to tweak photos - always, before you print and aren't at all interested in the card readers, it's the best price/performance inkjet out there. The pictures are truly excellent, stunning in fact. This is one of those instances where reviewers overlook something good (Sorry Steve) and don't really give something its due based on a measure of snobbery. This coupled with Epson's intentional failure to market or push specs for the model - so as not to bastardize more expensive models in its line, results in the, "How can an entry level, sub-one hundred dollar photo printer be in the same league as such-and-such's latest and greatest output?" effect from users and reviewers. But according to the trade association's opinion, the DIMA, it >exceeds< the output quality of more expensive printer!

Ultimately, however, if you're still undecided (after all these months) it's a case of Win/Win. Both are excellent.


NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2004, 11:04 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Inkmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21
Default

First:

Canon printhead uses a Miezo head

All Miezo heads warm technology (Hp , Lexmark, Canon etc)
has a limited lifetime on canon head about 8000 pages.

Second:

Epson Uses Piezo heads cold technology
and has a limited lifetime of around 30 0000 pages.

Third:

All Third party inks are NOT BAD
i agree that many are bad and clogges the heads.
But i uses only Quality WJ ink and has never ever had a clogged head because of the ink.

I sell several Liters each day
and many times to Epson and Canon users with CFS-systems
, so i guess that the WJ third party ink mathes the
OEM ink very good.

And the best of all when using this ink you get
a cartridge price of less than 3 us $
(canon BCI-6** example.

/Inkmaster
Inkmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2004, 11:30 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Nicktrop,

Extremely well said. This has been my issue for a while - the 200 is the same as the 300 and the 300 is higher reviewed than the 200?

Further, as my eloquent friend says - this deal is the sleeper printer - great prints - prints to CD's and now to my printable DVD's (very nice feature) and the price is a joke - I got one on sale for $80 US (converted from $99 Can).

The thing I love is that with that little outlay, I can use it for a year and really, have lost very little so to speak. In six months, if I like a Canon better or something changes in the industry, my kids get a pretty darn fine printer and I upgrade. My first Epson photo printer I bought like 7 years ago was $449 and I bought it the first day it was available. Now for $99 I get a far superior product and have no real investment so to speak. Don't need permission for a $99 printer, had to schmooze the wife for the Epson Photo many years ago.

T
Trevortoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2004, 5:29 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2
Default

I've seen both of these printers in action... used to sell both of them at Best Buy. Personally, I lean more toward the Epson, because I am an Epson fan. The r200 features the same print head as the r300 and even as the rx500 and 600 all in one printers. They all print fantastic pictures (especially when used in conjunction with the Epson Premium paper and my stylus 410).

The Canon also prints gorgeous pictures, but I felt that it didn't quite get all the colors right. I've also had bad experiences in the past with Canon inkjets... however, they do make damn good cameras, so the printers can't be all bad

I know alot of guys that swear by Canon. But I also know some die hard Epson fans (myself included).

Main line is, try out some test pages on each and go from there (you won't be able to actually print on the r200 if you bring in your own camera or media card, so just use the 300... )

have fun!
Rustmonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2005, 2:27 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1
Default

Mayhem wrote:
Quote:
Allow me to touch on a few points.

First off, the R200 is a cheap version of the R300. Nuff said I think. The i960 is a powerhouse photo printer.

"Canon print heads will fail eventually"

The only time I have seen Canon printheads fail (from customers coming in) is if they use third party inks thatgunk up the head.The Canon printheads are geared to last the lifetime of the printer. From what I have seen, they do. UNLESS you use third party inks. (Had a customer in just the other day looking for a new "lifetime"printheadbecause his stopped working properly. What ink was he using?Some third party *edible* ink. I kid you not)


"Canon ink fades. Badly"

This has been around the boards here and there. Not sure if I would tack the "badly" part on it. But look at this realistically. Even if any printer image starts to fade after what? 5 years? 10 years? We can ALWAYS reprint it! Plus, by the time we have to reprint it - say 10 years - do you know what kind of technology will be out by that time?

I think as long as people are saving/archiving there images and not printing out a long lasting image and deleting the original (stupid) the longevity issue is sorta moot in most cases.
Quote:
I can show anyone who is interested my prints from last year, hung in my airconditioned office, away from fumes or sunlight how BAD the prints have faded. I don't know if the florescent lighting have something to do with them fading, but they are pretty much ghost yellow now. They were printed using factory ink and Pro photo papers.
cy7878 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:21 AM.