Epson R300 or Canon IP4000

[Capt Nud]

Merry Christmas!

I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.

I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
need the speed to get these books printed.

Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
matte paper?

Thanks for your help....
don

 

[John McWilliams]

Merry Christmas!

I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies
of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are
full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper.

I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an
issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I
need the speed to get these books printed.

Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on
matte paper?

Thanks for your help....
don

There've been some recent threads on this. Try loading more messages
into your News Client, or use Google News to search.

 

[measekite]

The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.

 

[Safetymom123]

I would look at the Epson C86. It will be faster and does a great job on
photos. It also has the benefits of the ink being waterproof and more
archival.

 

[William Bell]

The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.

And does not use Long last inks and the Print head Rots, you are Joking..

 

[measekite]

The R300 does not use long last inks either.  And that is per the Epson factory rep.  The only long last inks are the durabrite inks and they are not for printing photos.  And that is per Epson.

William Bell wrote:


On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:56:27 GMT, measekite <[email protected]> wrote:



The ip4000 is substantially faster than the Epson R300.



And does not use Long last inks and the Print head Rots, you are Joking..



Capt Nud wrote:



Merry Christmas! I'm looking to get a faster (than my epson 890) printer to print a few copies of my 64 page book for the guys. The book is photo-intensive, both covers are full-bleed. I'm printing it on InkJetArt Duo Brite Matte Deluxe Premium paper. I can't tell from the specs which is faster. Price of the printer is not an issue. Price of inks should be close, with the epson having one extra tank. I need the speed to get these books printed. Has any body used both of these printers? Which one is faster at printing on matte paper? Thanks for your help.... don

 

[SleeperMan]

And does not use Long last inks

That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to last 100
years...
And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such gloss,
so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart and higher
cost.

and the Print head Rots,

Sure, like that noone actually complained about Epson's head
clogging...there were more Epson head clogging than Canon head failures...
At last, he wants speed, and speed is what he'll get with ip4000, while
quality is more or less the same.
It's just Canon needs certain time before first print (clean hed and god
know what else), but after that it prints very fast.

 

[William Bell]

HTML IS NOT ALOWED IN USENET DUMBO..

 

[William Bell]

That maybe true, but he didn't mention anything about ink need to last 100
years...

And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100 years..

And difference is not that big, while Epson's ink doesn't have such gloss,
so it needs gloss optimizer, which just means additional cart and higher
cost.

Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type used..

You do need to read up on these printers as your facts are total wrong.

 

[John McWilliams]

HTML IS NOT ALOWED IN USENET DUMBO..

Nice. And, all caps!


Trimming replies is the norm of seasoned usenetters, unless they're
trolls, newbies, or too important.

 

[SleeperMan]

And can the Canon last 25 years, as I never ever mentioned 100
years..

Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with proper paper
and proper storage.
Epson however claims 100 years...

Not on the R300, yes on the R800 as it depends on the Ink type used..

So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't have
gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability is the same
as canon's...

 

[Safetymom123]

R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.

Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with proper
paper and proper storage.
Epson however claims 100 years...


So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can...if it doesn't have
gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability is the same
as canon's...

 

[SleeperMan]

R300 uses dye ink. R800 uses pigmented inks.

Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon
and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to
last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink, which really didn't
prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to really last that long as they
claim. For this we'll have to wait a few decades...
It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like always...damn!

 

[Safetymom123]

Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200 will
outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge resistant that the Canon
isn't.

For archival information try www.wilhelm-research.com

 

[William Bell]

Yep. Canon claims their photos can last more than 25 years with proper paper
and proper storage.
Epson however claims 100 years...

Not with the R200/300 only the one that use different Inks like the R800.

So, R300 can't print as glossy photos as canon can.

Crap seems that you are a Epson hater and a Dick head at then F off you Little
twerp.


Post when you have had a brain transplant.

..if it doesn't have
gloss optimizer. If it uses pigment color ink, then durability is the same
as canon's...

Bollocks it better than the Canon

 

[William Bell]

Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon
and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to
last longer...Supposely Epson have some special ink, which really didn't
prove itself yet - like none, i guess - to really last that long as they
claim. For this we'll have to wait a few decades...
It's funny, though...as you can never had it all...like always...damn!

F off you Canon lover, why not take it to bed with you..

 

[William Bell]

Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and 2200 will
outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge resistant that the Canon
isn't.

For archival information try www.wilhelm-research.com

The Canon is a bubble jet printer and is not able to use the range of inks
types that a Epson can use due to its method of firing the ink to the paper.

 

[SleeperMan]

F off you Canon lover, why not take it to bed with you..

Nope...not Canon lover, just Epson hater...

 

[SleeperMan]

Not understanding your logic. The pigmented inks in the R800 and
2200 will outlast the Canon. They are also water and smudge
resistant that the Canon isn't.

From my memory only Canon's black is water proof (but not photo black one).
That part is true.
I also know (i did write it) about that famous Epson ink which should be
longer lasting, but - didn't try myself though - i've heard that it ain't
much better than others...just commercial stuff mainly... also a lot of
people refill, and after that this longevity thing is excactly the same.

BTW...if i (that's when i need my next printer) come to any other brand of
printer (this doesn't include Lexmark) which carts are cheap and quality is
great - durability is not a high issue for me, as i can always print a
second photo after 10 or 20 years, and i also don't keep them in sunlight),
i'll gladly but it. Waterproof is again not imporant, since i don't plan to
wash my photos... ))

Why do i hate Epson? looong story...
but, to keep it short, my friend once had Epson - some medium range one -
and after less than one year all output started to look faded, without any
contrast, quality bad... He took it to a service where they said it's all
ok...supposely (as they say) what did i expect from that printer, and if i
wanted better, i should pay at least double etc...
Now, maybe it's not Epson, just service personell in my country...doesn't
really matter...but it shows how (maybe) totally innocent company (any
product) can become the one to blaim for all...because of some idiots in the
service...

But it does have cheap carts, though...(Epson, i mean). i wonder, if the
price is similar to ip4000...?

Finally, (to William mainly)...it's good to defend your printer (i do the
same for mine). At the end, if you don't do that, you'd be stupid for buying
it...right? If you are certain that your product is the best, then you're
certain that you bought just "the right thing" for you...otherwise, you'd
always complain, like "damn, i should of buy that one..."

 

[Bob Headrick]

Aha---that only confirms my claim that in that case durability of Canon
and/or R300 photos is about the same, since Pigmented inks are suppose to
last longer...

Just because two manufacturers both use dye based inks it does not mean
anything about their lightfastness. See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/4x6_permanence_preview.html for examples of
dye-based prints rated from 18 years to 115 years depending on ink and paper
differences.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP