Epson or Canon???????/

[goodegg]

IF you wanna print a high quality picture to put it on to your T-shirts or cups. What would you go for?
Need an expert for this.

1. Epson 1280 printer --- 2880dpi x 720dpi

2. Canon Photo Printer S820 --- 2400 x 1200dpi

Time, speed, quality, and cost concerned.

 

[thortyboy]

neither
epson has some pretty unreliable drivers
cannons use alot of ink

spend a few more bucks and get an hp. in the long run 40 bucks won't kill you. (if it's even that much money)

 

[Dexion]

errr.. HP uses Canon ink head technology. So I don't think there is any difference from them both in Ink consumption. Infact, the HPs often ship their ink cartridges half full (and since its not translucent) you don't know that.

Canon has the best cost efficient ratio, with the most affordable ink prices. If you take out their ink cartridges, they are separate containers that store the independent colors. This would allow a much better usage of the ink instead of replacing a unified color cartirdge that has emptied one of the colors. Canon has a huge advantage, thanks to the independent translucent ink cartridges and mostly liquid inside with only a small portion of the tank with sponge(storing more ink).


2400 x 1200 dpi is definately higher than 2880 x 720. Just do the math

Canon : 28800000 Dots per square inch
Epson: 2073600 dots per square inch.

Another benefit that the Canon has over the Epson is Ink head. Its replaceable. If you look down this forum you'll notice that there are a few weary HP and Epson customers that cry frankitically, simply because the ink head doesn't print anymore. The problem is that the ink head isn't replaceable and requires a manufacturer warranty or repair servicing for the entire unit. Canon has a simple solution that allows you to buy the actual ink head combination, just drop in and replace. Its like replacing a new printer.

Personally I own a S520. All-purpose printer that replaced my old ink head malfunctioned Epson 740. The printer is beautiful with the quality despite not being a photo printer. On photo printer, its very good quality at decent speeds. The printer prints at 12 ppm Black and white and around 50 secs for a full photo quality picture. I would suggest going for the s750 or the s900, and skipping the s820 since theres no real benefits of it over the S750. The extra photo color cartridges really don't show much of a color advantage over the s520.

 

[Peter]

Canon's printers have separate ink tanks for each of the six colors. That brings ink cost down a lot, way less than half of anyone else's. Besides, the 820 has a truly brilliant photo print quality with quite UV resistant ink, and an easily replaceable print head with thousands of jets for really good speed.
Epson's printers use expensive piezo technology in their heads, which tends to clog up when not used regularly, and which neither is easily serviced nor cheaply replaced ... if a Canon has a clogged nozzle, take the print head out, let it soak on a wet paper towel for an hour, and you're back in business.

Build quality - I have yet to see a Canon die from mechanical wear ... doesn't ever happen. Even the extreme low cost models aren't as flimsy as you might expect at $50 - they're simple, but not cheaply built.
regards, Peter

 

[LED]

IF you wanna print a high quality picture to put it on to your T-shirts or cups. What would you go for?
1. Epson 1280 printer --- 2880dpi x 720dpi

2. Canon Photo Printer S820 --- 2400 x 1200dpi

Time, speed, quality, and cost concerned.

Answer=2. Canon Photo Printer S820 --- 2400 x 1200dpi

 

[Homebrew]

I would recommend a Canon as well, although I own a HP and prefer it over the Canon's.

First, the HP users cannot be complaining of clogging and consequently replacing the printer..HP print heads are on the cartridge unlike Epson,
don't know where you got that from.
Second HP does not ship ALL its carts half full as you insinuated, only the included carts that come with the printer when you buy it new. This is common among most printer manufacturers.

The HP (900 series anyway) IMO is superior in build quality and speed to the Canon's but I would not recommend them unless you are
comfortable with cartridge refilling, otherwise the cost can get high. The newer HP 5550's and like models are refillable and use 7 colors, better
print quality than the Canon's (subjective). I believe they are archival inks also.

Advantages of the Canon are great print quality and cheap consumables, slightly better for casual home printers on a budget that don't want to fuss with refilling carts.

 

[Peter]

If you could look at the piles of prematurely died HPs and the complete lack of pileable Canons, although I've been selling many more Canons than HPs over the years, you wouldn't say that. Especially the 900 series HPs, the final incarnation of the ever faster and ever flimsier legacy that started out with the original DeskJet, is quite bad.

That said, the S8x0 and 900/9000 printers are extremely well built, on a recent mechanical basis that was engineered for that print speed. Separate inks you get nowhere else, and you don't get to throw a perfectly good print head away every time one of the inks runs dry either. Consumables cost is dramatically lower than with any other printer, and you won't be able to destroy it with any amount of use either.

Casual home users can aim much lower and use an S300 for $80 or so. No more separate inks on that one, but almost the same print quality, and still solidly built hardware.

regards, Peter