I have both a Canon Pro-100 and Pro-1000. I loved the Pro-100 but needed pigment ink to be able to sell archival prints. I now use the Pro-100 for promotional stuff, cards, etc, anything that doesn't require longevity. With the Pro-1000 I discovered, that apart from nifty 17" prints, the majority of my fine art prints are 13" and I do the initial proofing on letter paper because that size allows me to evaluate the nuances between paper types. I also print regularly on 5x7 paper with no problems. I LOVE to print so I print several times a week to minimize the cleaning cycles. Even with letter and 13" prints, the ink seems to last forever so I just buy a cartridge or two every month so that when it's time, they are on hand, and I can change as many as possible at the same time, also minimizing ink loss to cleaning. In summary, the Pro-1000 requires regular use and thoughtfulness regarding ink management, a small price to pay for the benefits of gallery quality fine art prints for my clients. By contrast, the Pro-100 delivers beautiful prints too, just not marketable as archival, and doesn't complain when I go weeks at a time before I wake it up.
I have both the Canon 4100 and the Epson 4900 (17" roll and sheet feed printer). I've converted the Epson for purely BW use, using Jon Cone's Piezography inks (which does produce beautiful BW prints. But it still needs routine cleanings that waste inks. Although some say the latest Epson printers have solved the ink-clogging issues, anecdotally, others say they still have the issue. The Canon does not. I will likely add a Canon 17" or 13" printer mostly for proofing and occassional smaller prints. While the 17" printers would work for many prints if I could routninely print, say 17X22, the fact is that when you do full bleed prints you run into issues. I also like to have paper borders around my prints, so when I mat the prints a half inch or so of the base paper color is exposed. In retrospect, I probably would have been fine with the Canon 2100 (24" printer) and just sent out the oversized prints.
I happily use the Epson ET8500 with quality papers. Most of my work is creating cards for friends and occasional sales. I also use it for printing on transparent vellum for subsequent gold leaf gilding, and those are smaller artworks. The vellum is a tad tricky, but I figured it out. Not having to deal with cartridges is heavenly. The printer is also a reasonable size in my office. Should I have a need for a larger print, I send my files to a professional printer whom I have worked with for years.
10,000 thanks for your clear and careful articulation of the pros and cons! I was considering getting a new 17" Canon and, after your run-down, I might just get a new 13" Canon.
And liked that they have a suction paper feed . Wondering if you are Les have had any experience with sending the smaller size paper thru the Pro1000? Particularly the Bizan or Shiramine post card size papers.
A few notes: Yes we have sent small sizes through the 1000 but realize that it will not do borderless on non-standard paper sizes. We also follow the feed and paper type recommendations for the Awagami papers to the letter. In other words we use the rear feed when the ICC profile calls for it based on paper type. Lastly, the paper rollers on the feed need to be kept clean via alcohol. Les can elaborate on that as that is the only time we experience any sort of feed problem, if the rollers are not clean. They tend to loose grip as more and more paper is fed through them.
Thanks Bob, I’m considering getting the Canon 1100 to replace my Epson P900 and Epson 4800 . The 4800 was a work horse for years . I use the 220ml ink cartridges and the ImagePrint RIP so I never had to waste ink changing from PhotoBlack to MattBlack ( they made a PhattBlack cartridge that solved the problem but isn’t available any more) That’s when I got the P900.
It makes excellent prints , good print software but has a terrible paper feed. A particular problem with some of the Awagami paper. I saw the Canon17” printer at one of your workshops and
We have no recent experience with the Epson P900 printer. There are many people that love them. If you are having feed issues make sure there's not a maintenance problem like cleaning the rollers. We've loved what a workhorse the Pro-1000's have been and have no complaints. I have no direct evidence the P900 is any worse or better though.
Thanks again Bob. I am looking for info on how to clean the rollers as they are not readily accessible . That is the problem as the fibers on the Fine Art Papers stick to the rubber roller and prevent it from having enough traction to grasp the paper. The other issue is when that happens with a smooth Baryta type paper it leaves a skid mark on the edge. Maybe some of your followers who use the P900 have suggestions ? It’s why you call this a “Collective” right? ;-)
I have always heard there was little to differentiate between the two brands. I started years ago with an Epson and have stuck with them. My P900 is lovely and I'm happy. But I have to admit being very curious about the Canon printers. Won't be able to answer that question for myself until the Epson gives out and I hope that's quite a long time.
I meant to add that I use a nightstand with wheels on it someone was getting rid of. I purchased one of them nice unfinished nicely sanded oh, about 24” x48” pieces of wood & cut the length & sits on top of the stand which the printer rest on. Cart Against the wall with about 6” space behind the printer itself. Need to load from the rear, just roll the printer stand out some. Saves a lot of room plus some a drawer & other storage underneath.
Great article. I, too, am a Canon convert. I’ve had an Epson R1900 for years and had to go to 3rd party ink refills because the tanks are so small I was paying a fortune unclogging the print heads. My Canon Image Pro 300 has never failed once in 4 years—and the output (especially black and white on matte paper) is exhibition worthy.
I used to have an Epson R2880 that I used for matte papers and the R1900 that I used for glossy. My problem with the R2880 was less about the ink and more about the paper handling—it always took multiple times fiddling with the sheets to get them to feed. The output was fine on both printers but neither are as trouble free as the Canon 300.
The Epson ET8550 will save any newcomers a lot of money on ink refills. If I had more money than I need, I’d go at least 24” & if they made a 30” or 36” I would do that above the 17” or 24” had I have unlimited funds. I try to print on the Canon Pro100 at least once a week but it is closer to once every two weeks & have gone months without printing when still working full time. Purchased around 2017 or 2018 & wondering how much longer before the unreplacable waste tank tops off. Still, nothing beats the joy of watching the print sliding out of the printer. How does that commercial go, “priceless”
I am a fan of using unconventional printing methods if it fits your art and purpose but... it's still nice to use a printer designed for full-range state-of-the-art archival output for more traditional print goals. Ps. Did you see my post on the guy that uses old color laser printers for his work... certainly interesting.
As the old color laser printer guy, I will say that I still make archival inkjet prints when it suits the project/edition. All the soft skills I’ve learned laser printing carry over, because at the end of the day, printing is printing.
My Epson 3880 is 13 years old and still going strong but hard to get ink easily. If the inks run dry before the printer breaks then I may have to look at 3rd party inks. Then I have to stock up on maintenance cartridges which fill up fairly fast when I have to switch between matte and photo inks. Not to cry in my beer but if Canon made a Prograf 1100 with a roll paper adapter then decision would be simple. Now I am weighing the advantages of an Epson 5370 with the roll adapter and the Canon 1100. It is a pain to flatten roll paper and try and feed it.
I know there are bigger problems in the world but I buy a printer every decade or longer period of time.
Sometimes it's tough if you have special needs. Just out of curiosity how often do you need to print longer than 22" on 17" wide paper?. If that's critical to your needs of course roll paper is a lot more convenient. We personally have never used our Pro-1000/1100 with anything but 17x22 or A2 paper. How long a sheet do you need?
It is not the size of the length .... it is the cutting and uncurling the roll paper. I have about 5 rolls of the old Epson Kozo (no longer available) and Awagami paper. If I want to print then I have to cut the sizes, get the curl out, then feed it carefully making sure the paper will not skew as it goes in. Also I have many boxes of Epson paper so I am hoping that the 3880 lasts another year to print them (and I get the ink) and then decide again. Not a huge problem in the scheme of things. Also hoping to take your printing workshop later in the year.
I had an Epson Pro 3800 17" that worked well for 13 years and was still going strong when I sold it. I upgraded to an Epson SureColor P900 17"- a flawed design. In 3 years, this printer has failed for one reason or another and been replaced over 10 times, a tedious task. I gave up on this printer, and Epson does not acknowledge that the P900 is a dud.
Did they fix it yet? We have no experience with Epson printers since we got rid of our 9600. The canon printers have been very reliable for us so far... the Pro-1000s (and I assume the newer versions) have been absolute workhorses. No complaints.
I started off with an Epson 3880 which served me well for a number of years before the switching mechanism for the black ink change failed. It was a reliable printer to be sure. Rather than repairing it, I bought a Canon Pro-1000 which I'm very happy with. I have no experience with Epson 17 inch printers but the Canon is built like a tank and is also quite heavy. Ikea used to make a small chest on wheels which is the exact size to hold either a 13 or 17 inch wide printer. It also has six drawers that can hold boxes of 13x17 inch paper and below. I've had this one for 14 years now and it helps keep my office uncluttered.
Timely piece for me. Ive been researching these options. I have always had epsons-most recently - 7890 24 inch printer and SCP5000 a 17 inch -the dilemma with epson is repairs, only they do them. Granted the P5000 is a work horse but recently I went through a ton of ink and a maintance box trying to deal with clogged heads. After talking to Epson tech with an approximate diagnosis Epson has a flat rate to do whatever it needs to get it up and running based on the tech call, cost $1540 + tax, more than half the cost of the printer and because the inks are low I would have to have about $500 dollars worth of ink ready for the repair person, it comes with a 90 day warranty [how's your luck these days]. If I were a commerical and not a fine art printer and because its such a rugged machine I would probably repair it. However its good bye epson I am going with the Canon 1100 for $1300, and a major adavntage is Canon's 4 years Care PAk for $189, it covers just about everything accept dropping it down the stairs. The unit does not take roll paper but you can feed a cut 17inch by 120 inch through it. I also make small prints and photo cards which the Canon can handle and the SC5000 can not. That's my 2 cents Thanks JBA
Whoa, how weird that this is your topic today, are you reading my mind? Right before getting this email, I was actively pondering a replacement for my old Epson 3880 (long time Epson girl here, though Canon is all my camera equipment). I am currently researching my options and was thinking do I really need a 17"? In the 10 years I've had the Epson 3880, I have only done a few 17x22"s. Most of what I print is 12"x12" (love a large square). Still I wonder if the 17" is still the way to go with me especially if I want borderless 13x19 (trimmed from 17"x19", not going to borderless borderless with any new printer). Then I thought how nice it would be to save 6" in footprint...as I said, I am right smack dab in the middle of the thought process and the subject of your email.
Not an easy decision but probably easier for you given you've had a 17in (mostly desktop) printer and seen what your actual output sizes are over a long time. It's always a temptation to "go bigger". The other thing remember is cost per print if you print a lot. The 17in cartridges are definitely less expensive per print but tend to make more sense if you print A LOT.
Nice article since I just went thru the "deciding new printer" process. Ended up buying a Canon PRO-200 ... that was before the 200S was introduced [darn it...]. But both the 200 and 200S use the same ink cartridges so I am assuming/hoping that the prints from the 200 are as good as those from the 200S. So far am happy with the 200...
I assure you they are far more the same than different and also almost if not identical in print quality. They are nice printer and operationally the same as the 300/310. Good luck, I am assuming you print mostly glossy-semi-gloss paper. I've not seen first hand the 200 on matte paper but history tells me to go with the pigment ink especially for matte paper. It would be interesting to compare today though.
The 200 was a replacement for the 100 which I had for a long time ... mostly print on Red River papers. Use a selection of them ... some are glossy, some are semi-gloss, and some are on the Polar Matte. But I am an amateur and only give prints to friends .
A question ... have considered signing up for one of the printing workshops but would need to fly in to take it. Any preference between BWI and PHL since you are about half way between??? Note I used to live in South Jersey and drove 95 to DC very often so am semi familiar with the area.
Personally I'd go with whatever is cheaper!!! give us an email for a more in-depth conversation about it as you decide on what workshop you are thinking about etc...
I have both a Canon Pro-100 and Pro-1000. I loved the Pro-100 but needed pigment ink to be able to sell archival prints. I now use the Pro-100 for promotional stuff, cards, etc, anything that doesn't require longevity. With the Pro-1000 I discovered, that apart from nifty 17" prints, the majority of my fine art prints are 13" and I do the initial proofing on letter paper because that size allows me to evaluate the nuances between paper types. I also print regularly on 5x7 paper with no problems. I LOVE to print so I print several times a week to minimize the cleaning cycles. Even with letter and 13" prints, the ink seems to last forever so I just buy a cartridge or two every month so that when it's time, they are on hand, and I can change as many as possible at the same time, also minimizing ink loss to cleaning. In summary, the Pro-1000 requires regular use and thoughtfulness regarding ink management, a small price to pay for the benefits of gallery quality fine art prints for my clients. By contrast, the Pro-100 delivers beautiful prints too, just not marketable as archival, and doesn't complain when I go weeks at a time before I wake it up.
I have both the Canon 4100 and the Epson 4900 (17" roll and sheet feed printer). I've converted the Epson for purely BW use, using Jon Cone's Piezography inks (which does produce beautiful BW prints. But it still needs routine cleanings that waste inks. Although some say the latest Epson printers have solved the ink-clogging issues, anecdotally, others say they still have the issue. The Canon does not. I will likely add a Canon 17" or 13" printer mostly for proofing and occassional smaller prints. While the 17" printers would work for many prints if I could routninely print, say 17X22, the fact is that when you do full bleed prints you run into issues. I also like to have paper borders around my prints, so when I mat the prints a half inch or so of the base paper color is exposed. In retrospect, I probably would have been fine with the Canon 2100 (24" printer) and just sent out the oversized prints.
I happily use the Epson ET8500 with quality papers. Most of my work is creating cards for friends and occasional sales. I also use it for printing on transparent vellum for subsequent gold leaf gilding, and those are smaller artworks. The vellum is a tad tricky, but I figured it out. Not having to deal with cartridges is heavenly. The printer is also a reasonable size in my office. Should I have a need for a larger print, I send my files to a professional printer whom I have worked with for years.
Would love to see some of your results. I am a big fan of a lot of print work created with unconventional materials and printing methods.
10,000 thanks for your clear and careful articulation of the pros and cons! I was considering getting a new 17" Canon and, after your run-down, I might just get a new 13" Canon.
It is certainly not an easy decision and really comes down to volume of prints/month as well as frequency and desire of 17" prints (reality)
And liked that they have a suction paper feed . Wondering if you are Les have had any experience with sending the smaller size paper thru the Pro1000? Particularly the Bizan or Shiramine post card size papers.
A few notes: Yes we have sent small sizes through the 1000 but realize that it will not do borderless on non-standard paper sizes. We also follow the feed and paper type recommendations for the Awagami papers to the letter. In other words we use the rear feed when the ICC profile calls for it based on paper type. Lastly, the paper rollers on the feed need to be kept clean via alcohol. Les can elaborate on that as that is the only time we experience any sort of feed problem, if the rollers are not clean. They tend to loose grip as more and more paper is fed through them.
Thanks Bob, I’m considering getting the Canon 1100 to replace my Epson P900 and Epson 4800 . The 4800 was a work horse for years . I use the 220ml ink cartridges and the ImagePrint RIP so I never had to waste ink changing from PhotoBlack to MattBlack ( they made a PhattBlack cartridge that solved the problem but isn’t available any more) That’s when I got the P900.
It makes excellent prints , good print software but has a terrible paper feed. A particular problem with some of the Awagami paper. I saw the Canon17” printer at one of your workshops and
We have no recent experience with the Epson P900 printer. There are many people that love them. If you are having feed issues make sure there's not a maintenance problem like cleaning the rollers. We've loved what a workhorse the Pro-1000's have been and have no complaints. I have no direct evidence the P900 is any worse or better though.
Thanks again Bob. I am looking for info on how to clean the rollers as they are not readily accessible . That is the problem as the fibers on the Fine Art Papers stick to the rubber roller and prevent it from having enough traction to grasp the paper. The other issue is when that happens with a smooth Baryta type paper it leaves a skid mark on the edge. Maybe some of your followers who use the P900 have suggestions ? It’s why you call this a “Collective” right? ;-)
I have always heard there was little to differentiate between the two brands. I started years ago with an Epson and have stuck with them. My P900 is lovely and I'm happy. But I have to admit being very curious about the Canon printers. Won't be able to answer that question for myself until the Epson gives out and I hope that's quite a long time.
I meant to add that I use a nightstand with wheels on it someone was getting rid of. I purchased one of them nice unfinished nicely sanded oh, about 24” x48” pieces of wood & cut the length & sits on top of the stand which the printer rest on. Cart Against the wall with about 6” space behind the printer itself. Need to load from the rear, just roll the printer stand out some. Saves a lot of room plus some a drawer & other storage underneath.
Great article. I, too, am a Canon convert. I’ve had an Epson R1900 for years and had to go to 3rd party ink refills because the tanks are so small I was paying a fortune unclogging the print heads. My Canon Image Pro 300 has never failed once in 4 years—and the output (especially black and white on matte paper) is exhibition worthy.
I used to have an Epson R2880 that I used for matte papers and the R1900 that I used for glossy. My problem with the R2880 was less about the ink and more about the paper handling—it always took multiple times fiddling with the sheets to get them to feed. The output was fine on both printers but neither are as trouble free as the Canon 300.
Canon seems to build very reliable printers and I agree their ink sets seem to produce great output on all materials but especially matte papers.
The Epson ET8550 will save any newcomers a lot of money on ink refills. If I had more money than I need, I’d go at least 24” & if they made a 30” or 36” I would do that above the 17” or 24” had I have unlimited funds. I try to print on the Canon Pro100 at least once a week but it is closer to once every two weeks & have gone months without printing when still working full time. Purchased around 2017 or 2018 & wondering how much longer before the unreplacable waste tank tops off. Still, nothing beats the joy of watching the print sliding out of the printer. How does that commercial go, “priceless”
I am a fan of using unconventional printing methods if it fits your art and purpose but... it's still nice to use a printer designed for full-range state-of-the-art archival output for more traditional print goals. Ps. Did you see my post on the guy that uses old color laser printers for his work... certainly interesting.
As the old color laser printer guy, I will say that I still make archival inkjet prints when it suits the project/edition. All the soft skills I’ve learned laser printing carry over, because at the end of the day, printing is printing.
My Epson 3880 is 13 years old and still going strong but hard to get ink easily. If the inks run dry before the printer breaks then I may have to look at 3rd party inks. Then I have to stock up on maintenance cartridges which fill up fairly fast when I have to switch between matte and photo inks. Not to cry in my beer but if Canon made a Prograf 1100 with a roll paper adapter then decision would be simple. Now I am weighing the advantages of an Epson 5370 with the roll adapter and the Canon 1100. It is a pain to flatten roll paper and try and feed it.
I know there are bigger problems in the world but I buy a printer every decade or longer period of time.
Sometimes it's tough if you have special needs. Just out of curiosity how often do you need to print longer than 22" on 17" wide paper?. If that's critical to your needs of course roll paper is a lot more convenient. We personally have never used our Pro-1000/1100 with anything but 17x22 or A2 paper. How long a sheet do you need?
It is not the size of the length .... it is the cutting and uncurling the roll paper. I have about 5 rolls of the old Epson Kozo (no longer available) and Awagami paper. If I want to print then I have to cut the sizes, get the curl out, then feed it carefully making sure the paper will not skew as it goes in. Also I have many boxes of Epson paper so I am hoping that the 3880 lasts another year to print them (and I get the ink) and then decide again. Not a huge problem in the scheme of things. Also hoping to take your printing workshop later in the year.
I had an Epson Pro 3800 17" that worked well for 13 years and was still going strong when I sold it. I upgraded to an Epson SureColor P900 17"- a flawed design. In 3 years, this printer has failed for one reason or another and been replaced over 10 times, a tedious task. I gave up on this printer, and Epson does not acknowledge that the P900 is a dud.
Did they fix it yet? We have no experience with Epson printers since we got rid of our 9600. The canon printers have been very reliable for us so far... the Pro-1000s (and I assume the newer versions) have been absolute workhorses. No complaints.
I started off with an Epson 3880 which served me well for a number of years before the switching mechanism for the black ink change failed. It was a reliable printer to be sure. Rather than repairing it, I bought a Canon Pro-1000 which I'm very happy with. I have no experience with Epson 17 inch printers but the Canon is built like a tank and is also quite heavy. Ikea used to make a small chest on wheels which is the exact size to hold either a 13 or 17 inch wide printer. It also has six drawers that can hold boxes of 13x17 inch paper and below. I've had this one for 14 years now and it helps keep my office uncluttered.
anecdotally I found the Canon Pro-1000 far more reliable and consistent than my Epson 4880s.
Timely piece for me. Ive been researching these options. I have always had epsons-most recently - 7890 24 inch printer and SCP5000 a 17 inch -the dilemma with epson is repairs, only they do them. Granted the P5000 is a work horse but recently I went through a ton of ink and a maintance box trying to deal with clogged heads. After talking to Epson tech with an approximate diagnosis Epson has a flat rate to do whatever it needs to get it up and running based on the tech call, cost $1540 + tax, more than half the cost of the printer and because the inks are low I would have to have about $500 dollars worth of ink ready for the repair person, it comes with a 90 day warranty [how's your luck these days]. If I were a commerical and not a fine art printer and because its such a rugged machine I would probably repair it. However its good bye epson I am going with the Canon 1100 for $1300, and a major adavntage is Canon's 4 years Care PAk for $189, it covers just about everything accept dropping it down the stairs. The unit does not take roll paper but you can feed a cut 17inch by 120 inch through it. I also make small prints and photo cards which the Canon can handle and the SC5000 can not. That's my 2 cents Thanks JBA
Sound logic!
Whoa, how weird that this is your topic today, are you reading my mind? Right before getting this email, I was actively pondering a replacement for my old Epson 3880 (long time Epson girl here, though Canon is all my camera equipment). I am currently researching my options and was thinking do I really need a 17"? In the 10 years I've had the Epson 3880, I have only done a few 17x22"s. Most of what I print is 12"x12" (love a large square). Still I wonder if the 17" is still the way to go with me especially if I want borderless 13x19 (trimmed from 17"x19", not going to borderless borderless with any new printer). Then I thought how nice it would be to save 6" in footprint...as I said, I am right smack dab in the middle of the thought process and the subject of your email.
Not an easy decision but probably easier for you given you've had a 17in (mostly desktop) printer and seen what your actual output sizes are over a long time. It's always a temptation to "go bigger". The other thing remember is cost per print if you print a lot. The 17in cartridges are definitely less expensive per print but tend to make more sense if you print A LOT.
Good luck, would love to hear what you decide!!!
Nice article since I just went thru the "deciding new printer" process. Ended up buying a Canon PRO-200 ... that was before the 200S was introduced [darn it...]. But both the 200 and 200S use the same ink cartridges so I am assuming/hoping that the prints from the 200 are as good as those from the 200S. So far am happy with the 200...
I assure you they are far more the same than different and also almost if not identical in print quality. They are nice printer and operationally the same as the 300/310. Good luck, I am assuming you print mostly glossy-semi-gloss paper. I've not seen first hand the 200 on matte paper but history tells me to go with the pigment ink especially for matte paper. It would be interesting to compare today though.
The 200 was a replacement for the 100 which I had for a long time ... mostly print on Red River papers. Use a selection of them ... some are glossy, some are semi-gloss, and some are on the Polar Matte. But I am an amateur and only give prints to friends .
A question ... have considered signing up for one of the printing workshops but would need to fly in to take it. Any preference between BWI and PHL since you are about half way between??? Note I used to live in South Jersey and drove 95 to DC very often so am semi familiar with the area.
Personally I'd go with whatever is cheaper!!! give us an email for a more in-depth conversation about it as you decide on what workshop you are thinking about etc...