jimmya wrote:
I'm considering replacing my Canon printer (fairly new). Reason? Well I spent about $120 or so on the printer about 1 year ago and have already spent more than that on ink. I don't print many photos but the ink just goes away... cleaning I suppose.
Who here has/had experience with Epson? I know they are a good brand but I've never used them. What kind of experience do you have to share.
Thanks folks.
I've used Epsons since 2000 or so. They are great. But you have to USE them to keep them in shape. Let them sit idle for more than a week or so, and you risk a head clog or pigmented ink settling out in the ink lines.
I put Epsons in a pro lab back in 2003. We had a 44" model, the 9600, and a 17" model, the 4000, I think. Both were phenomenal. They used the early Ultrachrome inks, which are pigmented. Epson is now on something like the fourth or fifth generation of those inks. They have also worked long and hard on the clogging issues. Their newer printers are MUCH better than old ones. But the old ones were okay, so long as you kept them busy. We beat one up 20 hours a day, six days a week for two years before it needed service, just a waste ink tank replacement and a head alignment. It needed a new head after four years. By then, we had a 9800. Eventually, we had a couple of those and a 9880.
Epson ink is EXPENSIVE but WORTH IT. Output back then cost us $1.10 per square foot, including just paper and ink. That was with substantial volume discounts on the giant ink cartridges used in those printers.
The larger the printer you buy, the less expensive the ink becomes, because it is sold in larger cartridges. BUT, again, you have to be able to USE the printer! Ink should not be kept in a printer longer than six months, because the pigments settle out.
Epson makes a few dye ink printers that have very good image permanence — perhaps 100 years. The pigmented inks last about twice that long in Wilhelm's tests.
While you can buy third party continuous inking systems and bulk inks, they tend to shorten printer life, and the inks are not the same as OEM inks. So the prints are less fade-resistant and the third party ink may require custom printer/ink/paper profiles for good image quality. I won't use them.
One thing I've noticed, as you have, is that the less expensive printers come with a price — tiny ink cartridges that are expensive to replace. I always buy the extra capacity cartridges, so the ink is a little less costly that way.
Be sure you get a true PHOTO printer if you are serious about printing photos. Epson photo printers have at least six inks. If I were buying for myself today, I'd get a SureColor P400, P600, or P800, which uses eight inks and a gloss optimizer.
I've said it here before... Inkjet printing should be considered HIGH END. The best inkjet prints will last five times longer than the best silver halide paper prints you get from a typical photo lab. The best inkjet processes have color gamuts that FAR exceed what silver halide paper can reproduce. And you can print on all sorts of high end, archivally permanent substrates, suitable for display in museums.
https://epson.com