I have owned the Epson 3880 and then then the 800.I did lots of research on both the Canon and Epson. There was one blaring thing that stood out that made me go with Epson. Never regretted going with the Epson. My only disappointment with the latest P900 was the size of the ink cartridges had become smaller. I could print so many images with a set. Of all the times that the print stopped because one of the inks ran out and had to replace it, never could spot the area where it happened. I got out of photography back in 2017 and sold off everything. Looking forward to get the P900 later this year. I really miss making prints. Was happy that Epson finally made the change so that you no longer needed to swap MK and PK inks when going from fine art papers to the other type of paper. I also use to have quite a variety of papers. This time will limit to two papers, Epson Hot Press Bright and Baryta II. I also had a target test print for each paper and adjusted black and white points of the image to match what the paper could do.
I’ve owned the Epson P900 since start of this year and couldn’t be happier with my choice. Absolutely stunning prints and I’ve had zero issues with the printer. Plus the ink seems to last forever im on the original inks since February and I’ve done a lot of printing and test prints.
How much printing are you doing? I keep reading that the initial set-up uses all of the ink and you're immediately needing to buy an Ultra Chrome pack for $380 to start printing.
@@dewalt5519 are you taking about epson p900 ? Then no and no. Comes with full ink set on purchase and set up uses nothing. It fills the tubes but you don’t loose any of the ink imo. And you don’t need anything else before you can start print. In 8 months I’ve only have to buy 1 light grey at around £32. I’ve printed about 16 A3+ at at least 40 A4 since I’ve had it. Still have between 10-30% ink in each colour with the grey and blacks being the most used. I’m in UK so it’s possible if you’re in US you don’t get full sized ink sets I’m not sure but I don’t know whatever ink you get it doesn’t get wasted.
When I was researching these two printers, I came across an interesting detail - which may explain the sharpness issue. When you have a photo to print you should ensure it is set to 360 (or 720, 1440, 2880, 5760) DPI for Epson and 300 for Canon (or 600, 1200, 2400, 4800) - as these are the optimal sizes for the print head. If you don’t, the printer then tries it’s own calculation to compensate. For example, if your image DPI is 315 on the Epson it will try convert it to 360, which can result in loss of detail.
@@ShopperPlug The Epson can produce ink droplets as small as 1.5PL, the canon(prograf 1000) can only do 4.0PL. That might explain the finer detail on the Epson(assuming the new canons are similar to the progaf 1000)
My Canon Pro 300 eats ink every time you turn it on. This actually is significant and I believe the Epson does not have as bad a start up cost. I have started to batch up my printing to minimise the number of times I have to turn it on. This is a big pain. I would probably have chosen the Epson if I had known how much ink the Canon would consume just initialising after you turn it on.
The recommendation is to leave the printer on at all times. The additional cost of electricity is very minimal in standby compared with ink used on startup or cleaning cycles.
Even on full-time standby, if you don't print for 4 days, the Canon 300 will do an "ink agitation" before starting a print job. And that chews up a lot of ink! I have taken to printing a thumbnail pic every 2-3 days to avoid the ink agitation. Not a printer for a hobbyist who prints once a week. Must admit the prints are really good though. Wouldn't by the printer again.
Tim, I have had Epson Printers for a number of years and currently use a P600. Because I am not using it constantly and may leave it for several weeks, i constantly get nozzle clogging and it is a big pain to unclog. Wastes a lot of ink and at the moment having trouble with one nozzle that is 5% blocked and doesn't seem to unblock. Are the Newer Epson better now? I have been looking at the Canon Pro 300 because of this reason. It would be a pain to go away from Epson but am disappointed currently. I also seem to have trouble with the Epson printing much darker on paper than my screen and prints are not vibrant. Any suggestions. My usual workflow is lightroom exporting to Epson Print Layout to the P600. Cheers.
Interesting discussion - thank you. I own a 300 which has served me well for 2+ years now. My one complaint on the 300 is the small cartridge size, I would prefer larger, purely for the logistical purposes. Picking the type of black required on the Epsom seems from my perspective is a significant drawback. The major niggle for me on the Canon at setup time was the system automatically defaults to WiFi. I don't use WiFi for printing I prefer wired ethernet. Setting up for wired ethernet was an unnecessary and complex process. Black mark.
What I see in the pictures from Epson is actually a lot more texture - much like grain. That makes me think it might be due to image processing. The raster image coming down to the print head is definitely not the same between the Canon and the Epson in the video. Perhaps non-native resolution for one or both of the printers as other people commented before; perhaps just settings in the printing program or driver. Anyways, the prints look awesome. I'm looking at getting an Epson P-900 (the bigger brother of P-700). The big Canons (Pro-1?00) have likely the edge in gamut in the red tones, while Epson has it in blue, and fore sure in reasonable ink consumption and not enforcing maintenance and cleaning cycles on the user like Canon printers.
Many thanks for comparing and providing insights of the results. At 18m12s you mention that perhaps profiling would take care of the minor magenta cast of the canon prints. But at least for epson printing b&w with the printer's b&w mode works without a profile. Did I get wrongly?
Tim I am devastated to learn that when the Canon Pro 300 ink waste pads fill up, it’s as cheap to buy a new printer, rather than being able to change the pads. It’s not lost on me that Canon make no mention of this fact in any of the promotional material.
@@anthonygardham4573 replying to my own post: I just bought an A4 consumer model, which ironically has a replacement part for less than NZ$30. So it’s ironic that it’s the “Pro” models that become disposable. Canon must think that everyone who buys one of these can afford to replace it every financial year
I had two Epson sure Color 600 (predecessor of sc700) one after another since 2015, then I had a sure Color 700 for a couple of weeks until I returned it to the shop because it was overheating and eventually broke down. Both 600 and 700 were quite similar in use. In 2022 I bought a Canon PRO 1000 (a bigger brother of 300) and its usability is sooooo much better that I still regret that I have ever started with Epson. The quality of the fine art prints that I make is perfect on both Epson and Canon. I do print a lot, about 50 up to 100 prints a day and as Sure Color 600 is officially described as a semi-professional printer it is indeed simply not made for intensive use. Loading thick paper into the manual tray on sc600 is a nightmare. You need to have an extreme sensitivity for alignment of the paper, you need to have a sixth sense to know whether the printer will take the paper tgis time or not.. Sc600 has a weird two-step loading procedure for manual feed that is very annoying and the manual tray itself is flimsy. Eventually it broke on one of my printers. The printer is noisy and smells a lot like toner when printing many pages in a row. You need to do maintenance quite often if you use thick paper with texture and the cleaning nozzles procedure is gradually killing the key components of the printer, that was the reason why both of them died. In the process of wearing out the ink pads the print quality was gradually decreasing until all the colors became wrong... With Canon it is a completely different story. Loading paper into the manual tray is very simple and doesn’t require any special skill, it is a simple one-step action. The printer is robust but extremely heavy (32 kg) That gives you a feeling of a better build quality. It is quiet and not smelling much. Maintenance is easy and most of it the printer does by itself. Most importantly, because of the 80ml toners, print cost is indeed as mentioned in this video about 50% lower than on sc600. However, after just about over 2 years of intensive use the Canon Pro 1000 leaked a lot of toner from the bottom of the printer. I don’t know how serious the issue is, luckily I have an extended 4 year warranty. Next week it’ll go for repair. Despite this leakage I’m not even considering Epson as my next printer, so much better my experience with Canon was so far.
I am glad someone is PRO CANON!. I have had Epson in the past and the nozzle drying up is a pain in the arse. I am, now, just getting back to printing my photos and I have been trying to compare $$$ with the 3 Brands, HP ie YUCK! then Epson vs Canon. I love my canon and I only have the P200, so the inks are not that expensive as I start on my journey. I want to eventually get the Prograf 1100, (it seems the 1000 is disappearing??) or a floor model, depending on how my journey goes. I work for a Ricoh USA and I fix printers for a living, and sad news is, that all of these brands run their course, and putting parts in them is not worth it vs the cost of just getting a new printer. It's unfortunate, but the industry is that parts basically have an expiration on them, which forces us to just give up and buy another model. Unless you get into production printing, the desktop photo printer, or any other printers used for home or small businesses that don't lease their printers, then us folks are at the mercy of these companies to throw them our $$ every few years for upgraded models. Sort of like the cell phone industry. (or most industries, hahaha)
@@sbod1965 I bought Canon Pro 200 as a temporary replacement for the 1000 and it is a very fine printer, by all means a little brother of the 1000. If I have to be very picky I still prefer the colours and overall print quality on 1000 but those differences are microscopic. The 200 prints faster, at least the fine art reproductions that I do. The 1000 that I sent to repair has never returned but the insurance company reimbursed me in full so I went ahead and bought another pro 1000. I decided not to upgrade to 1100 because the difference in price was 400€ and before the previous 1000 died I have bought 15 ink toners worth 750€ that would be hard to return to the store.
@igor-iofe i totally understand that ie getting another 1000 if you already had the inks. Makes sense. I live penny to penny, and if my photography venture pans out...I will probably upgrade...I can't justify P300 as an upgrade as the price in US is around $900 vs Prograf 1100 is around $1200...plus 13"vs 17"... I do REALLY enjoy my P200 though. Very satisfied. I am still learning the curve. I have some larger prints that just aren't the fine art quality I am looking for...wasted paper and ink...but one doesn't learn if the don't take chances. Bless you for taking time to respond.
I can get a full suite of PRO300 inks for $124.00. Individual ink tanks are about $12.00 each. For my moderate use (1-3 prints a week), the lower replacement cost is easier to manage financially. I believe the Epson P700 ink carts are about $40.00 each (if memory serves me). An entire set is very costly for my budget. Just my $0.02.
@4th_Lensman_of_the_apocalypse Here in the US, the OEM Epson P700 Cartridge costs $38 each. A full set will cost $380. The cost per ml is cheaper, but for the personal volume that I print, the replacement cost ($12/cart, $122/set) is less impactful.
@@dexon555 Scratching my head...how is the P700 Cartridge cheaper per ml? 25ml Epson cartridge $38, where the Canon cartridge is 14.4ml for $12 (or 2 cartridges coming close to one Epson 's 25 oz, - 2 Canon = 28.8 ml for $24. Actually the P700 ink is the most expensive and a stronger case can be made to skip it and go straight to the P900, twice as much ink at 50 oz, but not twice as expensive. Only $6 more at $44, or roughly 15% premium to the P700 ink.
@@larrygray1557 You are right. I did this math a long time ago, when I was trying to decide. The Epson P900 was the better deal per mil of ink compared to the P700. Again though, for my personal use, I made the better choice on lower cost per ink cartridge ($12.99) and now that I have about 300 prints made on the PRO300, the paper handling is far superior to the Epson P600 that it replaced. So far I haven’t had any head strikes, no miss-feeds or paper skew problems. I’m very happy with the performance of the Canon P300. I just want to reiterate, I only print about three prints per week. If you print at a higher volume or size and want to stay with a desktop model, the Canon PRO1100 might be worth looking at.
I'm currently looking at these two printers for printing B&W digital negatives for alternate process photography such as making Vandyke Brown prints and wondered if yourself or someone else at Fotospeed has tried printing digital negatives from them and what was your/their thoughts on the results and which one you or they might recommend.
it seems that the differentiation is in the detail. Everything else you describe seems to be fixable using a custom profile. Did you create profiles for both prior to your test? If so did you recheck to remove the magenta?
Which printer is more reliable? I have an Epson P600. It needed a $600 repair 2+ years ago. It now has a similar problem with paper feeding mechanism. I've been in advertising/design for decades. Epson printers have been known for quality image output, but their reliability has been suspect. My experience confirms this. In the 90s HP was known to be extremely reliable, but then that changed. I would compromise some image quality for reliability. The frustration, time and money of having to deal with an unreliable printer is not worth 1-2% of image quality.
Excellent review! Thank you for that! I wonder if there is a possibility that we have a comparison between Pro-200 and ET-8550. That would also be interesting.
I seem to get better results with the Canon printer using the Canon print software rather than printing directly from Lightroom. Have you noticed any difference between the two printing methods? If so, could this explain the marginal difference in sharpness?
I've got the older Canon Pro 10S and I struggled using the Canon software. After watching Tim demonstrate printing from Lightroom my hit rate improved enormously. I do regularly calibrate my Apple monitor using a Spyder thingy which helps a lot.
In case the premise of the video was not clear - the printing SME examines and compares both sets of photos and gives HIS opinion. He shows us the comparison as well for validation. It is NOT a video where he just shows 2 sets of photos and the comments section is filled with brand fans giving their biased opinion.
It’s as if you can see in real time him realizing the nasty email he is about to receive from his Canon rep. The Epson does appear to be producing a superior print though I wonder if the difference could be made up for with adjusting print settings. That said the bit about the pad that isn’t user serviceable is EXTREMELY disappointing.
A "pro" printer that is no more serviceable than a budget printer isn't really a "pro" printer. Canon need to do better when it comes to handling waste ink.
Why does the channel owner not reply to comments? I mean the entire premise of posting videos like this is to have dialog. Yet first thing in the beginning of the video he asks for people to like and subscribe. WHy subscribe if you don't communicate with your subscribers? One single reply 5 months ago and it was the OP saying he thought he mentioned something in the video. No other replies.
So the epson has better resolution at 1440P? makes no sense when Canon has higher resolution. Those lion hairs should've been more detailed on the canons. Goes to show that the printer's DPI isn't all what it's worth.
Tim, your comment about black switching on the latest P700/P900 is misleading. They have ten channels so there is no black switching as there used to be on the P600/P800 and earlier Epson printers.
I have owned the Epson 3880 and then then the 800.I did lots of research on both the Canon and Epson. There was one blaring thing that stood out that made me go with Epson. Never regretted going with the Epson. My only disappointment with the latest P900 was the size of the ink cartridges had become smaller. I could print so many images with a set. Of all the times that the print stopped because one of the inks ran out and had to replace it, never could spot the area where it happened. I got out of photography back in 2017 and sold off everything. Looking forward to get the P900 later this year. I really miss making prints. Was happy that Epson finally made the change so that you no longer needed to swap MK and PK inks when going from fine art papers to the other type of paper. I also use to have quite a variety of papers. This time will limit to two papers, Epson Hot Press Bright and Baryta II. I also had a target test print for each paper and adjusted black and white points of the image to match what the paper could do.
I’ve owned the Epson P900 since start of this year and couldn’t be happier with my choice.
Absolutely stunning prints and I’ve had zero issues with the printer. Plus the ink seems to last forever im on the original inks since February and I’ve done a lot of printing and test prints.
How much printing are you doing? I keep reading that the initial set-up uses all of the ink and you're immediately needing to buy an Ultra Chrome pack for $380 to start printing.
@@dewalt5519 are you taking about epson p900 ? Then no and no. Comes with full ink set on purchase and set up uses nothing. It fills the tubes but you don’t loose any of the ink imo. And you don’t need anything else before you can start print. In 8 months I’ve only have to buy 1 light grey at around £32. I’ve printed about 16 A3+ at at least 40 A4 since I’ve had it. Still have between 10-30% ink in each colour with the grey and blacks being the most used. I’m in UK so it’s possible if you’re in US you don’t get full sized ink sets I’m not sure but I don’t know whatever ink you get it doesn’t get wasted.
I have the Canon and its amazing good!😊
When I was researching these two printers, I came across an interesting detail - which may explain the sharpness issue. When you have a photo to print you should ensure it is set to 360 (or 720, 1440, 2880, 5760) DPI for Epson and 300 for Canon (or 600, 1200, 2400, 4800) - as these are the optimal sizes for the print head. If you don’t, the printer then tries it’s own calculation to compensate. For example, if your image DPI is 315 on the Epson it will try convert it to 360, which can result in loss of detail.
I agree, canon has a higher DPI than Epson's 5760 x 1440 DPI. I'm confused how Epson has better resolution, something isn't right...
@@ShopperPlugare you sure about that? 4800x2400 vs 5760x1440 is a wash.
@@memcrew1 correct
@@ShopperPlug The Epson can produce ink droplets as small as 1.5PL, the canon(prograf 1000) can only do 4.0PL. That might explain the finer detail on the Epson(assuming the new canons are similar to the progaf 1000)
My Canon Pro 300 eats ink every time you turn it on. This actually is significant and I believe the Epson does not have as bad a start up cost. I have started to batch up my printing to minimise the number of times I have to turn it on. This is a big pain. I would probably have chosen the Epson if I had known how much ink the Canon would consume just initialising after you turn it on.
The recommendation is to leave the printer on at all times. The additional cost of electricity is very minimal in standby compared with ink used on startup or cleaning cycles.
Should be in standby all the time.
Even on full-time standby, if you don't print for 4 days, the Canon 300 will do an "ink agitation" before starting a print job. And that chews up a lot of ink! I have taken to printing a thumbnail pic every 2-3 days to avoid the ink agitation. Not a printer for a hobbyist who prints once a week. Must admit the prints are really good though. Wouldn't by the printer again.
Thank you. Balanced and well presented comparison.
Tim, I have had Epson Printers for a number of years and currently use a P600. Because I am not using it constantly and may leave it for several weeks, i constantly get nozzle clogging and it is a big pain to unclog. Wastes a lot of ink and at the moment having trouble with one nozzle that is 5% blocked and doesn't seem to unblock. Are the Newer Epson better now? I have been looking at the Canon Pro 300 because of this reason. It would be a pain to go away from Epson but am disappointed currently. I also seem to have trouble with the Epson printing much darker on paper than my screen and prints are not vibrant. Any suggestions. My usual workflow is lightroom exporting to Epson Print Layout to the P600.
Cheers.
Interesting discussion - thank you. I own a 300 which has served me well for 2+ years now. My one complaint on the 300 is the small cartridge size, I would prefer larger, purely for the logistical purposes. Picking the type of black required on the Epsom seems from my perspective is a significant drawback. The major niggle for me on the Canon at setup time was the system automatically defaults to WiFi. I don't use WiFi for printing I prefer wired ethernet. Setting up for wired ethernet was an unnecessary and complex process. Black mark.
On the Epson P700/900 the black switching is automatic and does not waste any ink. This was one of the major updates on the latest Epson printers.
What about the gloss optimizer spray on the canon? Isn’t that a big advantage to eliminate gloss differential? Why didn’t you discuss this?
I’d love to see a comparison video between the Epson P900 and the Canon Pro 1000
Me too
Me too!
Or now we can make that the Epson P900 and the Canon Pro 1100
That would be an occasion to look forward to come.🤞(crossed fingers)
What I see in the pictures from Epson is actually a lot more texture - much like grain. That makes me think it might be due to image processing. The raster image coming down to the print head is definitely not the same between the Canon and the Epson in the video. Perhaps non-native resolution for one or both of the printers as other people commented before; perhaps just settings in the printing program or driver. Anyways, the prints look awesome. I'm looking at getting an Epson P-900 (the bigger brother of P-700). The big Canons (Pro-1?00) have likely the edge in gamut in the red tones, while Epson has it in blue, and fore sure in reasonable ink consumption and not enforcing maintenance and cleaning cycles on the user like Canon printers.
Many thanks for comparing and providing insights of the results. At 18m12s you mention that perhaps profiling would take care of the minor magenta cast of the canon prints. But at least for epson printing b&w with the printer's b&w mode works without a profile. Did I get wrongly?
Tim I am devastated to learn that when the Canon Pro 300 ink waste pads fill up, it’s as cheap to buy a new printer, rather than being able to change the pads. It’s not lost on me that Canon make no mention of this fact in any of the promotional material.
Wow....
Yes. That’s just turned me off Canon entirely. And an Epson maintenance kit is so affordable
@@Jim-BobWalton and me also.
@@Jim-BobWalton I totally agree with you. I. In the process of getting an Epson SC P900. I got a full refund on the Canon printer.
@@anthonygardham4573 replying to my own post: I just bought an A4 consumer model, which ironically has a replacement part for less than NZ$30. So it’s ironic that it’s the “Pro” models that become disposable.
Canon must think that everyone who buys one of these can afford to replace it every financial year
A very interesting comparison. Thank you, Tim.
I had two Epson sure Color 600 (predecessor of sc700) one after another since 2015, then I had a sure Color 700 for a couple of weeks until I returned it to the shop because it was overheating and eventually broke down. Both 600 and 700 were quite similar in use. In 2022 I bought a Canon PRO 1000 (a bigger brother of 300) and its usability is sooooo much better that I still regret that I have ever started with Epson. The quality of the fine art prints that I make is perfect on both Epson and Canon. I do print a lot, about 50 up to 100 prints a day and as Sure Color 600 is officially described as a semi-professional printer it is indeed simply not made for intensive use. Loading thick paper into the manual tray on sc600 is a nightmare. You need to have an extreme sensitivity for alignment of the paper, you need to have a sixth sense to know whether the printer will take the paper tgis time or not.. Sc600 has a weird two-step loading procedure for manual feed that is very annoying and the manual tray itself is flimsy. Eventually it broke on one of my printers. The printer is noisy and smells a lot like toner when printing many pages in a row. You need to do maintenance quite often if you use thick paper with texture and the cleaning nozzles procedure is gradually killing the key components of the printer, that was the reason why both of them died. In the process of wearing out the ink pads the print quality was gradually decreasing until all the colors became wrong... With Canon it is a completely different story. Loading paper into the manual tray is very simple and doesn’t require any special skill, it is a simple one-step action. The printer is robust but extremely heavy (32 kg) That gives you a feeling of a better build quality. It is quiet and not smelling much. Maintenance is easy and most of it the printer does by itself. Most importantly, because of the 80ml toners, print cost is indeed as mentioned in this video about 50% lower than on sc600. However, after just about over 2 years of intensive use the Canon Pro 1000 leaked a lot of toner from the bottom of the printer. I don’t know how serious the issue is, luckily I have an extended 4 year warranty. Next week it’ll go for repair. Despite this leakage I’m not even considering Epson as my next printer, so much better my experience with Canon was so far.
I am glad someone is PRO CANON!. I have had Epson in the past and the nozzle drying up is a pain in the arse.
I am, now, just getting back to printing my photos and I have been trying to compare $$$ with the 3 Brands, HP ie YUCK! then Epson vs Canon. I love my canon and I only have the P200, so the inks are not that expensive as I start on my journey. I want to eventually get the Prograf 1100, (it seems the 1000 is disappearing??) or a floor model, depending on how my journey goes.
I work for a Ricoh USA and I fix printers for a living, and sad news is, that all of these brands run their course, and putting parts in them is not worth it vs the cost of just getting a new printer. It's unfortunate, but the industry is that parts basically have an expiration on them, which forces us to just give up and buy another model.
Unless you get into production printing, the desktop photo printer, or any other printers used for home or small businesses that don't lease their printers, then us folks are at the mercy of these companies to throw them our $$ every few years for upgraded models. Sort of like the cell phone industry. (or most industries, hahaha)
@@sbod1965 I bought Canon Pro 200 as a temporary replacement for the 1000 and it is a very fine printer, by all means a little brother of the 1000. If I have to be very picky I still prefer the colours and overall print quality on 1000 but those differences are microscopic. The 200 prints faster, at least the fine art reproductions that I do. The 1000 that I sent to repair has never returned but the insurance company reimbursed me in full so I went ahead and bought another pro 1000. I decided not to upgrade to 1100 because the difference in price was 400€ and before the previous 1000 died I have bought 15 ink toners worth 750€ that would be hard to return to the store.
@igor-iofe i totally understand that ie getting another 1000 if you already had the inks. Makes sense. I live penny to penny, and if my photography venture pans out...I will probably upgrade...I can't justify P300 as an upgrade as the price in US is around $900 vs Prograf 1100 is around $1200...plus 13"vs 17"...
I do REALLY enjoy my P200 though. Very satisfied.
I am still learning the curve. I have some larger prints that just aren't the fine art quality I am looking for...wasted paper and ink...but one doesn't learn if the don't take chances.
Bless you for taking time to respond.
@@sbod1965 thank you! 🙏
I can get a full suite of PRO300 inks for $124.00. Individual ink tanks are about $12.00 each. For my moderate use (1-3 prints a week), the lower replacement cost is easier to manage financially. I believe the Epson P700 ink carts are about $40.00 each (if memory serves me). An entire set is very costly for my budget. Just my $0.02.
@4th_Lensman_of_the_apocalypse Here in the US, the OEM Epson P700 Cartridge costs $38 each. A full set will cost $380. The cost per ml is cheaper, but for the personal volume that I print, the replacement cost ($12/cart, $122/set) is less impactful.
@@dexon555 Scratching my head...how is the P700 Cartridge cheaper per ml? 25ml Epson cartridge $38, where the Canon cartridge is 14.4ml for $12 (or 2 cartridges coming close to one Epson 's 25 oz, - 2 Canon = 28.8 ml for $24. Actually the P700 ink is the most expensive and a stronger case can be made to skip it and go straight to the P900, twice as much ink at 50 oz, but not twice as expensive. Only $6 more at $44, or roughly 15% premium to the P700 ink.
@@larrygray1557 You are right. I did this math a long time ago, when I was trying to decide. The Epson P900 was the better deal per mil of ink compared to the P700. Again though, for my personal use, I made the better choice on lower cost per ink cartridge ($12.99) and now that I have about 300 prints made on the PRO300, the paper handling is far superior to the Epson P600 that it replaced. So far I haven’t had any head strikes, no miss-feeds or paper skew problems. I’m very happy with the performance of the Canon P300. I just want to reiterate, I only print about three prints per week. If you print at a higher volume or size and want to stay with a desktop model, the Canon PRO1100 might be worth looking at.
I'm currently looking at these two printers for printing B&W digital negatives for alternate process photography such as making Vandyke Brown prints and wondered if yourself or someone else at Fotospeed has tried printing digital negatives from them and what was your/their thoughts on the results and which one you or they might recommend.
it seems that the differentiation is in the detail. Everything else you describe seems to be fixable using a custom profile. Did you create profiles for both prior to your test? If so did you recheck to remove the magenta?
Would you choose canon pixma ip8750 or Epson xp 15000 ?
Which printer is more reliable? I have an Epson P600. It needed a $600 repair 2+ years ago. It now has a similar problem with paper feeding mechanism. I've been in advertising/design for decades. Epson printers have been known for quality image output, but their reliability has been suspect. My experience confirms this. In the 90s HP was known to be extremely reliable, but then that changed. I would compromise some image quality for reliability. The frustration, time and money of having to deal with an unreliable printer is not worth 1-2% of image quality.
Excellent review! Thank you for that! I wonder if there is a possibility that we have a comparison between Pro-200 and ET-8550. That would also be interesting.
Who's best for best print quality canon pro 300 ya Epson p700 ansr me
I have the 300 and the P900. Canon has VERY visible ink drop pattern... :(
I seem to get better results with the Canon printer using the Canon print software rather than printing directly from Lightroom. Have you noticed any difference between the two printing methods? If so, could this explain the marginal difference in sharpness?
I've got the older Canon Pro 10S and I struggled using the Canon software. After watching Tim demonstrate printing from Lightroom my hit rate improved enormously.
I do regularly calibrate my Apple monitor using a Spyder thingy which helps a lot.
More video of the pictures and less video of you looking at them would be nice for future comparisons.
In case the premise of the video was not clear - the printing SME examines and compares both sets of photos and gives HIS opinion. He shows us the comparison as well for validation. It is NOT a video where he just shows 2 sets of photos and the comments section is filled with brand fans giving their biased opinion.
It’s as if you can see in real time him realizing the nasty email he is about to receive from his Canon rep. The Epson does appear to be producing a superior print though I wonder if the difference could be made up for with adjusting print settings. That said the bit about the pad that isn’t user serviceable is EXTREMELY disappointing.
A "pro" printer that is no more serviceable than a budget printer isn't really a "pro" printer. Canon need to do better when it comes to handling waste ink.
Ok, just flip a coin.
Why does the channel owner not reply to comments? I mean the entire premise of posting videos like this is to have dialog. Yet first thing in the beginning of the video he asks for people to like and subscribe. WHy subscribe if you don't communicate with your subscribers? One single reply 5 months ago and it was the OP saying he thought he mentioned something in the video. No other replies.
So the epson has better resolution at 1440P? makes no sense when Canon has higher resolution. Those lion hairs should've been more detailed on the canons. Goes to show that the printer's DPI isn't all what it's worth.
Tim, your comment about black switching on the latest P700/P900 is misleading. They have ten channels so there is no black switching as there used to be on the P600/P800 and earlier Epson printers.
Thought that is what I said?
The fact that you used (subjective) profiles invalidates the comparisons!