Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Epson vs Canon?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 2:16:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I've been looking into good all-rounders, inkjets, for my home office. In
terms of manufacturers, it seems to come down to a battle between Epson and
Canon. Both have good all-round performers in the middle, middle-low price
bracket. The Epson's seem to have a higher resolution, 5700 as compared to
the Canon's 4800 dpi, but people, in review, seem to like the Canon, I think
it's the I865, or something like that, as compared to Epson's R300? I think
those are the model numbers, although I'm working from memory.

The thing is, last time I bought a printer, about six years ago, Epson were
kings of the inkjet pile, with stylus ruling the roost. Last time I bought
anything by Canon, it was a camera, I have no ideas if their printers are
any good. Can anyone tell me if Canon make good printers, and how they
match up to the Epsons? Thanks.

More about : epson canon

Anonymous
July 6, 2004 2:16:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The Crow wrote:
> I've been looking into good all-rounders, inkjets, for my home office. In
> terms of manufacturers, it seems to come down to a battle between Epson and
> Canon. Both have good all-round performers in the middle, middle-low price
> bracket. The Epson's seem to have a higher resolution, 5700 as compared to
> the Canon's 4800 dpi, but people, in review, seem to like the Canon, I think
> it's the I865, or something like that, as compared to Epson's R300? I think
> those are the model numbers, although I'm working from memory.
>
> The thing is, last time I bought a printer, about six years ago, Epson were
> kings of the inkjet pile, with stylus ruling the roost. Last time I bought
> anything by Canon, it was a camera, I have no ideas if their printers are
> any good. Can anyone tell me if Canon make good printers, and how they
> match up to the Epsons? Thanks.
>

In terms of visibility in catalogs and newspapers and elsewhere, Epson
has sunk something terrible in recent years. Makes me wonder if they're
abandoning home users for the professional market. It all seems Canon
and HP at the moment. And Lexmarks always seem to be thrown in free
when buying a computer. Sorry, that's my take on the situation.

My Canon i850 is the first fully useful and efficient printer I've
ever owned. Canon's "i" line is excellent. Print head snaps out with
a touch of a lever if it ever needs replacement or you have to unclog
it by placing it in a dish of water. Epsons (the whole printer) has to
be sent to a factory. My Canon print head has never clogged. Canon says
they should last the life of the printer. For me that's 16 perfect
months so far. In another year I'd like an even better printer from
Canon, an i960 or beyond.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 5:20:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The Crow wrote:
> I've been looking into good all-rounders, inkjets, for my home
> office. In terms of manufacturers, it seems to come down to a battle
> between Epson and Canon. Both have good all-round performers in the
> middle, middle-low price bracket. The Epson's seem to have a higher
> resolution, 5700 as compared to the Canon's 4800 dpi, but people, in
> review, seem to like the Canon, I think it's the I865, or something
> like that, as compared to Epson's R300? I think those are the model
> numbers, although I'm working from memory.
>
> The thing is, last time I bought a printer, about six years ago,
> Epson were kings of the inkjet pile, with stylus ruling the roost.
> Last time I bought anything by Canon, it was a camera, I have no
> ideas if their printers are any good. Can anyone tell me if Canon
> make good printers, and how they match up to the Epsons? Thanks.

Do Canon make good printers?! No, they don't. They make the BEST printers!
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 6, 2004 7:15:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:40EA9D94.10301@netscape.net...
> The Crow wrote:
> > I've been looking into good all-rounders, inkjets, for my home office.
In
> > terms of manufacturers, it seems to come down to a battle between Epson
and
> > Canon. Both have good all-round performers in the middle, middle-low
price
> > bracket. The Epson's seem to have a higher resolution, 5700 as compared
to
> > the Canon's 4800 dpi, but people, in review, seem to like the Canon, I
think
> > it's the I865, or something like that, as compared to Epson's R300? I
think
> > those are the model numbers, although I'm working from memory.
> >
> > The thing is, last time I bought a printer, about six years ago, Epson
were
> > kings of the inkjet pile, with stylus ruling the roost. Last time I
bought
> > anything by Canon, it was a camera, I have no ideas if their printers
are
> > any good. Can anyone tell me if Canon make good printers, and how they
> > match up to the Epsons? Thanks.
> >
>
> In terms of visibility in catalogs and newspapers and elsewhere, Epson
> has sunk something terrible in recent years. Makes me wonder if they're
> abandoning home users for the professional market. It all seems Canon
> and HP at the moment. And Lexmarks always seem to be thrown in free
> when buying a computer. Sorry, that's my take on the situation.
>
> My Canon i850 is the first fully useful and efficient printer I've
> ever owned. Canon's "i" line is excellent. Print head snaps out with
> a touch of a lever if it ever needs replacement or you have to unclog
> it by placing it in a dish of water. Epsons (the whole printer) has to
> be sent to a factory. My Canon print head has never clogged. Canon says
> they should last the life of the printer. For me that's 16 perfect
> months so far. In another year I'd like an even better printer from
> Canon, an i960 or beyond.
>
> -Taliesyn

I second that. I really like my Canon i850 too. It's easy to refill or
generic cartridges work quite well in it too. It isn't always jamming paper
and envelopes the way my old HPs did. I've had several HPs and I always ran
into mechanical difficulties with them and the cost of their ink cartridges
is outrageous. I've had my Canon almost a year and a half. I could have
bought two or three new printers for what I've saved on ink. I do think it
is a little bit pickier about what paper works best for plain everyday
printing than HP printers are.
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 11:49:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Safetymom123 wrote:
> Epson is the #1 printer in the photography market. It terms of amount of
> printers sold it is HP, Epson, Canon, Lexmark.
>

These figures are noted somewhere?
Are they world figures?... North American? ...

I have a hard time believing Epson would be #2, judging from how little
I see them being marketed or in stores. You can't buy what you can't
see, and people buy what is heavily advertised and at low prices.

I definitely recall not seeing Lexmark in last place. Recall seeing HP
being #1 though.

There was an article in Time magazine last year, I should try to find
it. I recall reading a Lexmark exec stating that they expected one major
player to leave the consumer market - and they weren't one of them.
With HPs and Canons both offering a huge line of printers, and tons
of advertising, that to me points the inky finger at Epson. But
naturally, I can't prove it at this stage. Anyone heard or read any
strong gossip recently on this matter?

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 6:42:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:50:17 -0700, "Traveling" <hotmail@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>The resolution as you mentioned is somewhat meaningless for photo quality
>printing since anything beyond 300 dpi can not been differentiated by the
>human eye in most viewing situations.
>
Actually, that's a misunderstanding of the difference between dpi and
ppi. PPI is what your image is when on the screen and a level of 300
ppi is usually sufficient for printing. But, that image will be best
printed at something like 1440 dpi. The two numbers describe
different things.

--

Hecate
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 6:43:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 22:23:18 GMT, "Safetymom123"
<safetymom123@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Epson is the #1 printer in the photography market. It terms of amount of
>printers sold it is HP, Epson, Canon, Lexmark.
>
And that's why you get more complaints about HP or Epson. I'd love to
see the complaints expressed as a percentage of printers sold. Of
course, no manufacturer is *ever* going to tell you that. ;-)

--

Hecate
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 2:05:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:49:00 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
wrote:

>There was an article in Time magazine last year, I should try to find
>it. I recall reading a Lexmark exec stating that they expected one major
>player to leave the consumer market - and they weren't one of them.
>With HPs and Canons both offering a huge line of printers, and tons
>of advertising, that to me points the inky finger at Epson.

And GOOD RIDDENCE!

Sorry - couldn't help myself. : )
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 11:20:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <40EB3A6C.4080700@netscape.net>, Taliesyn
<taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>Safetymom123 wrote:
>> Epson is the #1 printer in the photography market. It terms of amount of
>> printers sold it is HP, Epson, Canon, Lexmark.
>>
>
>These figures are noted somewhere?
>Are they world figures?... North American? ...
>
>I have a hard time believing Epson would be #2, judging from how little
>I see them being marketed or in stores. You can't buy what you can't
>see, and people buy what is heavily advertised and at low prices.
>
>I definitely recall not seeing Lexmark in last place. Recall seeing HP
>being #1 though.
>
>There was an article in Time magazine last year, I should try to find
>it. I recall reading a Lexmark exec stating that they expected one major
>player to leave the consumer market - and they weren't one of them.
>With HPs and Canons both offering a huge line of printers, and tons
>of advertising, that to me points the inky finger at Epson. But
>naturally, I can't prove it at this stage. Anyone heard or read any
>strong gossip recently on this matter?
>
Lexmark printers are as bad as they have always been and so falling
further behind the others in terms of print quality, particularly photo
print quality. Consequently I would take anything their CEO says with a
very large mountain of sodium chloride - its every bottom of the league
team's dream that those above it will quit, as its the only way they
will ever get a chance to increase their share.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 11:20:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <40EB3A6C.4080700@netscape.net>, Taliesyn
> <taliesyn4@netscape.net> writes
>
>> Safetymom123 wrote:
>>
>>> Epson is the #1 printer in the photography market. It terms of
>>> amount of
>>> printers sold it is HP, Epson, Canon, Lexmark.
>>>
>>
>> These figures are noted somewhere?
>> Are they world figures?... North American? ...
>>
>> I have a hard time believing Epson would be #2, judging from how little
>> I see them being marketed or in stores. You can't buy what you can't
>> see, and people buy what is heavily advertised and at low prices.
>>
>> I definitely recall not seeing Lexmark in last place. Recall seeing HP
>> being #1 though.
>>
>> There was an article in Time magazine last year, I should try to find
>> it. I recall reading a Lexmark exec stating that they expected one major
>> player to leave the consumer market - and they weren't one of them.
>> With HPs and Canons both offering a huge line of printers, and tons
>> of advertising, that to me points the inky finger at Epson. But
>> naturally, I can't prove it at this stage. Anyone heard or read any
>> strong gossip recently on this matter?
>>
> Lexmark printers are as bad as they have always been and so falling
> further behind the others in terms of print quality, particularly photo
> print quality. Consequently I would take anything their CEO says with a
> very large mountain of sodium chloride - its every bottom of the league
> team's dream that those above it will quit, as its the only way they
> will ever get a chance to increase their share.

Lexmarks are not very good at all, agreed. However, they are often given
away as inducements or simply sell for ridiculously low prices. They
move an awful lot of printers. You must remember that a large part of
printer buyers are clueless as to quality. What they often fail to
realize is that later they will be stuck buying Lexmark's very expensive
and small cartridges (depending on model). There are no legal clones as
far as I know. Epsons are far better printers. But the last I heard,
Lexmark had passed Epson in "sales". That's not good news for Epson,
regardless of how good it is.

Beta was also considered a superior recording system to VHS, but it
too lost in the video "popularity" contest.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 4:16:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

For many years, Epson was the driving force to get inkjet printers to
the quality they are today. However, the quality of most of the better
quality printers (Canon, Epson, and some HP) has become so close that
you really are splitting hairs in most cases.

Don't look at the dpi specs as a good measurement. Years ago that was
meaningful information, but today is it more about specsmanship that
quality. Also, keep in mind that what's important is print output and
speed of that output. Some printers become very slow at their highest
resolution, and give very little advantage, if any in terms of print
quality when using that high resolution.

Quite honestly, since the i Canon printers came out the output quality
differences between Epson and Canon are minimal, if any. The Canon is
faster, and overall maintenance is proving to be easier. The Canon
heads have proven to be more reliable than first anticipated, although
time will tell if they last several years.

The main differences between the two printers (Epson versus Canon) is
ink types available. Since Epson uses a piezo head and has been
embraced by artists and photographers, OEM and 3rd party inks are
available in many types, including pigmented, which right now, are still
the most permanent. I have heard some Canon pigmented ink exist but I
am not familiar with them or how they work with the Canon heads. Dye
inks tend to be less permanent in terms of fading, but they are
improving all the time , and some new papers are reaching the market now
which will make dye inks more permanent still.

There are probably more versions of continuous inking systems for the
Epson's, although some are made for the Canons now. Canon usually
charges less for the OEM replacement ink and they do not use a microchip
in the cartridges which can render them unfillable without a resetter
device for the Epson printers.

Both products are good, and if ink type isn't a major issue, look at
cost versus features, and speed of printing (and, of course, print
quality). Most printer companies will send you print samples, which may
help somewhat in your decision.

Art

The Crow wrote:

> I've been looking into good all-rounders, inkjets, for my home office. In
> terms of manufacturers, it seems to come down to a battle between Epson and
> Canon. Both have good all-round performers in the middle, middle-low price
> bracket. The Epson's seem to have a higher resolution, 5700 as compared to
> the Canon's 4800 dpi, but people, in review, seem to like the Canon, I think
> it's the I865, or something like that, as compared to Epson's R300? I think
> those are the model numbers, although I'm working from memory.
>
> The thing is, last time I bought a printer, about six years ago, Epson were
> kings of the inkjet pile, with stylus ruling the roost. Last time I bought
> anything by Canon, it was a camera, I have no ideas if their printers are
> any good. Can anyone tell me if Canon make good printers, and how they
> match up to the Epsons? Thanks.
>
>
Anonymous
July 12, 2004 6:18:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >Beta was also considered a superior recording system to VHS, but it
> >too lost in the video "popularity" contest.
> >
> Sure, but the commercial printer market is a completely different model
> from the early VCR one. Neither VHS nor Betamax were being sold below
> manufacturing cost with a business sustained by consumables (eg. tape
> sales) and the printer market isn't driven by decisions made by ink
> cartridge rental corporations.

It's more than that. VHS actually had a killer technical advantage in
the early days of the 'war'. VHS could record a movie off one's TV
unattended. At that time, Beta could only record one hour per tape.
VHS could do two. Beta had to have a manual tape change during the
movie, VHS could record most movies unattended (usually using a timer).
Beta fixed that, but only later on when the war's outcome had been
already decided.

So for a LOT of people beta was actually vastly poorer. Great picture
or the first half of a movie. Second half was blank.

The comparison would be if one printer company could only do great
3x5 prints while the other could do that as well as bigger prints
that weren't quite as good as the 3x5's.

That said, the "VHS" printer now is as good or better than the
beta one.

Mike
!