Suggestions for a 13" wide printer?
-
H
- Thread starter peter k.
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale NIKON D800 (read)
- Started by Acere
-
Want to Buy WTB Konica Hexar RF
- Started by axestrata
-
For Sale Multiple Signed Photographic Books
- Started by tallenpatterson
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
Forum statistics
OP
OP
Ok the old 1430 died, and were leaning to getting a Canon Pixma Pro 100.. couple of more questions.
!) Does it print directly from the cartilage, without feed tubes?
2) With the old 1430 was able to print banners, example just printed a 12.5 x 37" landscape shot, can the cannon Pro 100 do that?
AKA print longer than 19"
Thanks p.
!) Does it print directly from the cartilage, without feed tubes?
2) With the old 1430 was able to print banners, example just printed a 12.5 x 37" landscape shot, can the cannon Pro 100 do that?
AKA print longer than 19"
Thanks p.
I had an Epson 1400. It worked well, but the dye based ink wouldn't work with some substrates and it clogged a bit. My wife has a Canon Pixma Pro 100, and honestly, that's a better printer. It doesn't clog as often, which is nice, and it's been very reliable. The inks aren't cheap and they don't last long, but that's the case with most printers.
I will say though, don't get the cheap inks. They don't last as long and can damage the print heads. I've had several report as empty even though they were half full. I have a cheap desktop printer that I use for shipping labels and general documents that I use the cheap inks in. They're good for that. But you don't want to use them in an expensive printer or one that you print photos from.
The inks cartridges on the Pro 100 go right on the head. Though I've owned two printers with ink that goes through hoses and never had an issue. At least not with the tubes. My Epson P9000 just had a head go bad, which was very costly to replace. It rarely clogs though. My Epson 9880 clogs all the time, but has been through hell and back and the only repair it's needed was a ball bearing replacement.
I will say though, don't get the cheap inks. They don't last as long and can damage the print heads. I've had several report as empty even though they were half full. I have a cheap desktop printer that I use for shipping labels and general documents that I use the cheap inks in. They're good for that. But you don't want to use them in an expensive printer or one that you print photos from.
The inks cartridges on the Pro 100 go right on the head. Though I've owned two printers with ink that goes through hoses and never had an issue. At least not with the tubes. My Epson P9000 just had a head go bad, which was very costly to replace. It rarely clogs though. My Epson 9880 clogs all the time, but has been through hell and back and the only repair it's needed was a ball bearing replacement.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 868
- Format
- 35mm
Here's a quick shot of the ink tank thingie. I don't see any tubes in there. Hope this helps.
Closer view here: https://ds.demare.me/7585-cano1000219-l.jpg
Closer view here: https://ds.demare.me/7585-cano1000219-l.jpg
OP
OP
Thanks all for the replies about the ink, but alas checked with B&H the Canon can only print 13 x 19 while the Epson xp-15000 can print up to 13 x 44"
Yes, I agree, the Pro 100 19 inch limit may be squeezed a little but nothing like 44 inches.
The Pro 100 ink tanks are on the head carriage, no ink tubes.
The Pro 100 ink tanks are on the head carriage, no ink tubes.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,286
- Format
- 35mm RF
I think the actual Canon limit is around 26" but don't quote me on that. I know it is longer than 19" at least on the Pro-10.
Best photo buddy uses a Canon Pro-100 and I use a Pro-10. The Pro-100 ink prints will arguably be less archival than Pro-10 pigment inks because of the nature of ink Vs pigment. Pro-10 can be more "photographic-looking" and Pro-100 can be more punchy-exaggerated. If you want to match an original camera file or a good scan from a slide, staying "natural-looking" you're better off with Pro-10...If you want to blow minds colorfully, the Pro-100 would be my bet.
Pat Carr used a gigantic Canon to print a pair of 30X40-ish for me. Couldn't be better. He also has a gigantic Epson printer but uses that only for aluminum prints (Canon needs to bend paper as it passes through, Epson prints straight). Carr has the usual Epson grief, which is why he doesn't us that machine for paper prints.
https://www.carrimage.net/
Pat Carr used a gigantic Canon to print a pair of 30X40-ish for me. Couldn't be better. He also has a gigantic Epson printer but uses that only for aluminum prints (Canon needs to bend paper as it passes through, Epson prints straight). Carr has the usual Epson grief, which is why he doesn't us that machine for paper prints.
https://www.carrimage.net/
Last edited:
Patrick, how did you set up that Pro-10 to get longer than 19" ? How long?
OP
OP
While your waiting for Patrick's reply, try this:
Thanks Peter...I have a skinny-cropped B&W that needs to be as long as possible from my Pro-10...
Happily inkjet paper is a lot cheaper than wet darkroom paper as well as offering a lot more surfaces/textures...but ink/pigment is very expensive. I won't mind wasting some 30" paper to get that 25" (if it works). HOWEVER proper inkjet pigment/ink (OEM) is wildly expensive, the opposite of inkjet paper economics, so I always dread printing images with heavy black backgrounds.
One of the shocking things about inkjet generally is the amount of pigment/ink it pees in larger prints, especially when there are big areas of a single color, such as black. No problem in wet darkrooms, but of course those consume mass quantities of time and pose sharpness, handling and drying challenges which aren't issues with inkjet. Pro-10 blacks at the least rival blacks from wet darkrooms, especially when tuned for warm pigment setting, which I do a lot.
Last edited:
In another defense of Epson... I moved in May, and had not used my R3000 since well before then. So it had probably been about a year of the R3000 sitting unused, turned off, hauled from one apartment to our new house, and set up yesterday. I networked my office there because I installed a number of things that work a bit better over ethernet (Epson P6000, 2 Fuji Frontier SP-3000s, and now my R3000). Just to sort of test the ethernet switch, I turned on the R3k to see if it registered. Once it was all powered up and showing up on my mac I though ah what the heck lets try it out. I had been doing some scans of recently shot Provia 6x6 chromes that day. I threw in some 5x7 Moab paper and sent a print from Lightroom using a custom profile that I had set up a while back. The printer did have a bit of an issue grabbing the paper at first, but after a 2nd pass through, it started working.
Voila! A beautiful little 4x4 print on matte paper, no head strikes, streaks, bands, or anything. I never even ran a cleaning cycle. I've owned this printer for around 4 years now, and it's always worked like a champ. I know a lot of people got burned with Epson products over the years, but it seems like the the last gen they really have left the common issues behind.
Voila! A beautiful little 4x4 print on matte paper, no head strikes, streaks, bands, or anything. I never even ran a cleaning cycle. I've owned this printer for around 4 years now, and it's always worked like a champ. I know a lot of people got burned with Epson products over the years, but it seems like the the last gen they really have left the common issues behind.
I do hope it's true that Epson printers are finally OK as reported elsewhere. Epson didn't unintentionally burn the thousands who bought, gave up and discarded their machines. I'm amazed that anybody buys them today, but I've read elsewhere of people whose new era Epsons do continue to function after a year or two. I hope Epson has in fact turned that ethical/engineering corner because I don't want to be forced to rely exclusively on Canon.
I should also say that my V700 still works and is about 12 years old. I don't normally use it to scan film anymore, but I've hauled that thing from MN, to NYC, and now to Maine. Multiple apartments (too many in NYC), uhaul trucks down terrible roads, etc. Still I just used it to scan some slides just for reference and it fired right up, and went through about 300 slides in a few days. Re their printers, Epson has also been making them a lot longer than Canon, and thus went through more developmental issues. Forum people like to beat up on them, as forum people tend to do, but in the real world they're almost certainly still the preferred brand for pros and labs worldwide. The competition Canon has brought is good for everyone, and I hope HP isn't out of the game either. But generally dragging a brand for issues that arose on some units more than 2 product generations ago is a bit silly...
I've had to send my Nikon F6 for repair twice, and my Rollei Hy6 has had a few issues that required factory repair (thank goodness they're still around to do it, I bought a 6x6 insert new THIS YEAR and it's in for warranty repair as we speak). But that's the game with high end imaging products. Ask anyone who owns Phase One gear, or Leica, about getting burned. A lot of people who's M9 sensors destroyed themselves all on their own proudly buy M10s. I still give Nikon my money even though the D800-D810 were dogs, even though the D600 spit oil on the sensor, even though the Df had a sh*t AF system. They're still the company that made the D700 and the D850, two near perfect cameras...the road to those models was a rocky one. Canon users are generally happy even though their sensors are the worst in the business and their mirrorless camera is groundbreaking for 3 generations ago.
Show me a hero, people.
I've had to send my Nikon F6 for repair twice, and my Rollei Hy6 has had a few issues that required factory repair (thank goodness they're still around to do it, I bought a 6x6 insert new THIS YEAR and it's in for warranty repair as we speak). But that's the game with high end imaging products. Ask anyone who owns Phase One gear, or Leica, about getting burned. A lot of people who's M9 sensors destroyed themselves all on their own proudly buy M10s. I still give Nikon my money even though the D800-D810 were dogs, even though the D600 spit oil on the sensor, even though the Df had a sh*t AF system. They're still the company that made the D700 and the D850, two near perfect cameras...the road to those models was a rocky one. Canon users are generally happy even though their sensors are the worst in the business and their mirrorless camera is groundbreaking for 3 generations ago.
Show me a hero, people.
I have used both Canon and the early Epson printers. About three years ago I decided to go digital after 50+ years of analog, processing both color and B&W film and paper, and got an Epson P600 printer. I use Precision Color for my aftermarket ink and am very happy with my results. In three years I have never had a clog and have gone 3-4 months between printing at one point and it printed very well without even a nozzle check. Some have had a problem with paper transport but I have had none and it even picks up the OHP film that I use for enlarged B&W negatives. It is a little pricy and I got mine with a very generous rebate from Epson.
I have changed cartridges mid print and you couldn't tell where it left off, and the Precision Color cartridges work great with no problems.
Just an excellent 13x19 printer!
I have changed cartridges mid print and you couldn't tell where it left off, and the Precision Color cartridges work great with no problems.
Just an excellent 13x19 printer!
My Epson 3800 delivered 6000+ prints over maybe 7 years. I was satisfied enough with it enough to replace it with an even better Epson P800 two years ago which has delivered 1760 prints with no problems at all. These print up to 17x23 prints instead of the smaller maximum that the OP desired, but indicate the reliability and performance that Epson can produce. I always use Epson papers and inks.
Good to read these positive Epson experiences.
OP
OP
Thank you for that heads up, Precision already won the aftermarket ink war, even over my precious supplier, but was concerned about the printer sitting unused for a month of more. Thank you for erasing that concern.
But sigh... We've got a neck to neck tie between the Canon Pro 100 and the Epson p600 coming down to the finish line.
P600 takes over the lead when when we consider banner printing, but haven't had a lot of need for that, done 5 or 6 in the last four years, and Precision has pigmented inks for it, and not for the Canon. ...
Canon takes the lead back on cost, and ability to remove print head if it clogs and the ability to clean out he waste ink.
Any thoughts for the winner and why?
BTW: We shoot and print more B&W than color.Thanks for anymore heads up suggestions...
Yeah, the new Epson P series printers are really good about not clogging. Though they do an auto clean every time you turn them on now. That may help. But they don't waste as much ink doing head cleaning as the old ones. Combined with the new orange, green, and violet inks, I'm really impressed with these printers. The color accuracy is astounding! Although, I did have to replace a head on my P9000 after only 2 years. I hope that's just an outlier and not a sign of things to come.
The older Epsons got a bad rap, in my opinion. Yes, they do clog a lot. But they were rock solid otherwise. And clogs could always be dealt with. I still own and use my Epson 9880. It's only needed a few minor repairs in the last decade, and I've probably put several miles worth of paper through that thing.
If you are an occasional printer, like me, sometimes a week or more between sessions, I think the dye ink Canon Pro100 has the advantage over the pigment ink Epsons.
Can anyone chime in on making digital negatives with either the Canon Pro-100 vs Pro-10? Or doing transfers using mod podge or gel media? I don't currently have an inkjet capable of printing decent images, but I've been considering it. I just want to be able to do more than just basic prints.
I own both and print almost exclusively black and white. Please review what I wrote in post #9 of this thread.
Going to Canon's web site https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...-inkjet-printers/professional-inkjet-printers the PRO 100 and Pro 10 shows Windows 7 SP1 / Mac 10.9.x as the newest OS its software is for, (the Pro 1 Win 8, Pro 1000 Win 10).. Expect hiccups on newer OS with these printers. I trashed my Epson XP610 due to software hangups and firmware updated that made it a worse ink guzzler than it initially was and replaced it with a Canon TS9020 which is fine for normal stuff and gets the edge over Epson but it too drinks ink. For photos I will stick with Epson until Canon updates its product line and allows for longer prints.
In my experience, and I haven't tried it with my wife's Pro-100, I had issues finding suitable transparency film for dye based inks. And when I did get them to work, I found they didn't block out the UV light as well as pigment based inks. So if digital negatives is you main reason for getting the printer, I'd try to source a pigment based printer.
I can't comment on the mod podge or gel media, but I did notice that my old Epson 1400, which was a dye based printer, was pretty stable when exposed to water after the ink dried.
OP
OP
Yes... good point and very true... they have not updated the above sight, so we called Canon Support directly... and the Pro 100 has WIn 10 drivers that can be downloaded for Win 10 (32) or (64) bit at:
https://en.canon-me.com/support/con...ype=drivers&language=EN&os=WINDOWS 7 (64-bit)
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |