Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
"Steve Rothman" <steverothman@seanet.com> wrote in message news:<10f05h8eaafpjc6@corp.supernews.com>...
> Forgive me if this question has been answered before. I'm considering the
> Canon i9900 and wonder what people have concluded about color print
> longevity. I haven't looked at this issue for years, but remember all the
> fuss about Epson inks and claims Epson made a couple of years ago. Any
> reason to believe that Epson color prints will last longer than Canon?
First of all, it would depend on the Epson printer. Some Epson printers
have dye-inks and others have pigment inks. The pigment inks last longer.
Even compared to Epson dye-inks. It's interesting to see Epson's ad
approach promoting their dye-based printers when one considers the heavy
promo for their pigment ink units.
The two most prominent printers currently for photographers would probably
be the epson 2200 and the Canon i9900, which were my two 'finalists' in my
printer purchase a month or so ago (epson was my starting 'default').
For printing on glossy paper (each mfgr's own), the Epson print lasts longer
than the Canon when tested by the same third party (Wilhelm). Numbers are
shown in the chart here:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,105461,pg,3,00.asp
The first entry uses the same inks as the Canon i9900 (although without
the new red and green inks). The epson 2200 is listed.
Epson is rated 50 years while the Canon is 38 years. Epson wins.
I bought the Canon, Canon won. I found that 12 year superiority
only a minor "plus" for Epson (they had some others) while obviously,
I gave Canon more plusses in things that mattered to me.
There's a new review about the i9900 just out (and others like
the one at Steve's digicams) here:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Canon%20i9999/page_1.htm
Mike
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram