Epson 2100 or Canon i9950

[Neo]

The general impression by many photographers that Epson is THE photo printer came about 5 years ago when Epson ruled the roost. Many people still hold this perception, and indeed Epson printers are still very good. I'm trying to get people to look beyond Epson, and many people whom I showed my Canon prints are very very surprised by the quality of the Canon printers. They held the impression that Canon is only good at producing cheap inkjet printers for the home, so they're plesantly "shocked" when they saw the quality of the recent Canon printers.

At the PC Show, my Epson-crazy friends and I went down to check out the Epson 2100 since it was going for just $999. When we passed by the Canon booth at the door, we're pretty impressed by the Canon i9950, but of course my friends told the Canon guy that the Epson 2100 is the king of A3 printers. The guy seemed prepared for this statement, and he asked my friend to bring his own image to try both printers. The next day, we went back with a couple of our images, and printed the same images on both the i9950 and 2100. The Epson print looked absolutely lifeless and flat, while the Canon print was darn brilliant. In addition, the Epson was so slow it took more than 5 times the duration to churn out the print. My two Epson-fanatic friends were lost for words, but I didn't want to rub it in for them. They were ready to buy the 2100, but the prints really made them look at the Canon i9950 in a brand new light. The Canon guy didn't seem surprised, and in fact he was telling us that he invited every customer who was thinking of the Epson to do the test. The result he said, was always the same surprised look on their faces. He mentioned it saved him a lot of time trying to convince the customers, since the print is worth a thousand words.

My friends didn't buy the i9950 on the spot. They went around asking for explanations from their designer friends for explanation how it could have happened. One of them bought the i9950 from Funan two days ago. :bsmilie:

I don't want to sound like I'm preaching for Canon. That's why I'm asking anyone who's considering between the two printers to try printing for themselves...

 

[yaoxing]

To me, two factors that will influence me are:

1) Print quality in terms of colour and resolution.
2) Durability of print in terms of fastness and resistance to elements such as moisture and whether prints are water-proof, etc.

Other factors such as price of printer and cost of consumables are minor factors. Availability of warranty upgrade to 3 years (Epson has it, but not sure about Canon) is also important as I don't intend to change printers often.

 

[nexus17]

Hi all,

May be you guys should seek Neo suggestion to go try print out your own images at Canon and Epson. Those sales rep will be more than glad to help you with this. You will then be able to clear all your doubts and experience first hand the 'Canon' or 'Epson' feel of printing. Then you decide what you want.

We can all tell you our 'good' stories, you go feel for it yourself.


Cheers

 

[Neo]

Just came back from Montage seminar at Suntec City, organized by the NUS photo society. Did any fellow ClubSnappers attend it? I really enjoyed the segment by Russell Wong... very interesting to hear about his experiences shooting big stars like Jackie Chan and Gong Li! :bsmilie:

Anyway, Canon sponsored the printing for the Montage competition. There are more than 100 prints hanging on the wall at the Suntec Convention Centre level 2 (just above the famous Congress steamboat and laksa stores). It's where the bridge joins Marina Square, and the prints are all printed with the Canon i9950. It'll be there for another 10 days, according to the organizers, so you guys might like to check out the prints. The quality of the entries are quite good, and most of the prints are pretty interesting!

 

[ST1100]

The general impression by many photographers that Epson is THE photo printer came about 5 years ago when Epson ruled the roost. Many people still hold this perception, and indeed Epson printers are still very good. I'm trying to get people to look beyond Epson, and many people whom I showed my Canon prints are very very surprised by the quality of the Canon printers. They held the impression that Canon is only good at producing cheap inkjet printers for the home, so they're plesantly "shocked" when they saw the quality of the recent Canon printers.

At the PC Show, my Epson-crazy friends and I went down to check out the Epson 2100 since it was going for just $999. When we passed by the Canon booth at the door, we're pretty impressed by the Canon i9950, but of course my friends told the Canon guy that the Epson 2100 is the king of A3 printers. The guy seemed prepared for this statement, and he asked my friend to bring his own image to try both printers. The next day, we went back with a couple of our images, and printed the same images on both the i9950 and 2100. The Epson print looked absolutely lifeless and flat, while the Canon print was darn brilliant. In addition, the Epson was so slow it took more than 5 times the duration to churn out the print. My two Epson-fanatic friends were lost for words, but I didn't want to rub it in for them. They were ready to buy the 2100, but the prints really made them look at the Canon i9950 in a brand new light. The Canon guy didn't seem surprised, and in fact he was telling us that he invited every customer who was thinking of the Epson to do the test. The result he said, was always the same surprised look on their faces. He mentioned it saved him a lot of time trying to convince the customers, since the print is worth a thousand words.

My friends didn't buy the i9950 on the spot. They went around asking for explanations from their designer friends for explanation how it could have happened. One of them bought the i9950 from Funan two days ago. :bsmilie:

I don't want to sound like I'm preaching for Canon. That's why I'm asking anyone who's considering between the two printers to try printing for themselves...

Thanx Neo.

i'm using a Canon printer right now, but was thinking of springing for an Epson on the next one. But now have to rethink, thanx to your input. Anyway, my next printer upgrade is still quite a while away.

 

[wind30]

I am very happy that I bought i9950

not that I know anything about print quality. But it is so cheap compared to Epson. Let just hope the prints last anyway I just use paper pro. Will frame/keep in album all my impt prints... so I think should last. From what I read, the fading issue is only when exposed to air or sunlight right??

 

[Neo]

Hi Wind,

You bought the i9950 already? Jealous.... anyone wants my S9000? Now selling for $350 only!

Anyway, fading for any materials (anything from oil-paintings to CDs to inkjet prints) occur due to 4 reasons - humidity, temperature, light (UV) and ozone. That's why the best storage vaults in the world store the precious documents and materials away in dark, cold, dry and humidity-controlled conditions. If you want your precious images to last, store your negatives/slides/CDs and prints (silver halide/dye-inks/pigment-inks) in the conditions listed above as much as possible.

For prints, store in acid-free paper boxes or fume-free plastic sleeves for the best protection.

 

[mondo]

Hi,

Yesterday, there are two peoples came to my place showing the printing result of i9950. It's amazing. You can see the vivid picture at every single details.

but no offence please, you can't compare i9950 with 2100 because i9950 using BCI-6 Series of cartridges which are DYE inks while 2100 use ultrachrome inks which are PIGMENT ink.

Looks you are trying to compare apple and orange here.
To produce photo quality, no matter what printer you use, the dye ink is still the BEST. That's the purpose of the ink for, to produce vivid color.

PIGMENT ink is designed for long lasting purposes. Color wise still can not compete with the DYE ink.

I guess Epson Photo 2100 is still the BEST printer today that uses PIGMENT inks and produce the vivid color picture that close to DYE ink.

Any comments are welcome

Cheers
Mondo

 

[rueyloon]

......That's why the best storage vaults in the world store the precious documents and materials away in dark, cold, dry and humidity-controlled conditions. If you want your precious images to last, store your negatives/slides/CDs and prints (silver halide/dye-inks/pigment-inks) in the conditions listed above as much as possible.

For prints, store in acid-free paper boxes or fume-free plastic sleeves for the best protection.......

if need to store under that conditions, might as well don't print ?

 

[Neo]

Hi Rueyloon,

All materials in the world exhibit deteoriation from its existing state. I'm merely stating some precautions that fellow photographers might want to take to preserve their images. This applies to film and CD-Rs too...

 

[littlefoot]

I think even if the print fades, it should not be too much a problem to reprint the photo so long as the digital file is still available. Perhaps by that time, there will be better printers (or ink). Just a thought

 

[Watcher]

I think even if the print fades, it should not be too much a problem to reprint the photo so long as the digital file is still available. Perhaps by that time, there will be better printers (or ink). Just a thought

If it is only for yourself, you spend the time, papaer and ink again.

But what if it was a present? A sale? To someone overseas? :sweat:

Mind you, the fading under certain condition can be seen within a month or two...

 

[skyline_impreza]

I think even if the print fades, it should not be too much a problem to reprint the photo so long as the digital file is still available. Perhaps by that time, there will be better printers (or ink). Just a thought

Come to think of that, does digital files "fade" too?
I have a few pictures which I took 2 years ago. Somehow I felt that quality of them faded. Eg, the tones of the colours.

Does anyone have similar encounter?

 

[rueyloon]

Come to think of that, does digital files "fade" too?
I have a few pictures which I took 2 years ago. Somehow I felt that quality of them faded. Eg, the tones of the colours.

Does anyone have similar encounter?

well, it is possibiliy your monitor that is degrading, it is impossible for the data to be "degrade" due to time.

 

[jbma]

I'll go for the Epson

 

[skyline_impreza]

well, it is possibiliy your monitor that is degrading, it is impossible for the data to be "degrade" due to time.

Maybe that is the reason. Tks anyway.

 

[Neo]

Digital files will not fade per se, but the media (whether magnetic or optical) may "fade", i.e lose a couple of bytes of data. The media degenerates so some portion of the data may not be readable. However, most algorithm takes this into account and allows the compensation of a small loss by mathematical formula to re-calculate the missing bytes. The real issue is when the storage medium starts deteoriating as a whole, and becomes unreadable. Some CD-Rs are especially prone to such fading... you can search Google for more info...

 

[tim]

Come to think of it :think:
Heard from my friend say that Canon printers spoilt easily. Like spoilt after one year.
Is that so? Does anyone of you got any similar experience?

I heard from friend of my friend who is doing printing with Canon i series printer for business... as bubblejet means heat/boiling of inks to spray/print anyway he is printing so fast and very frequent that the printhead was burnt-out.

The last Canon printer that I owned was BJC 4310..... I would like to own another Canon printer to try-out.... any used i9100 for sale?

 

[nickmak]

Tried Canon... with a continuous ink system it gives colour casts... Mine (Canon S520) home printer gives a pink colour cast while the one in the office gives a red colour cast. The office in S'pore is giving green colour casts! :bsmilie:

I'd go for the Epson, because having 2 Epsons rigged up it still doesn't give any colour casts... dunno why... :think:

 

[Watcher]

I heard from friend of my friend who is doing printing with Canon i series printer for business... as bubblejet means heat/boiling of inks to spray/print anyway he is printing so fast and very frequent that the printhead was burnt-out.

The last Canon printer that I owned was BJC 4310..... I would like to own another Canon printer to try-out.... any used i9100 for sale?

Your friend is more or less right. Why do you think that HP puts their printhead on the carts; you get a new printhead when you throw it away?