[CheesePuff]

Canon says its 1 PPM faster for both black and color prints, and it has more features. But the i560 has better reviews and print speeds from the tests done with CNET and ZDNET.

So why is it $10 more and will I still get good text quality (near laser-like) when I get the i860 that I already ordered online?

[Johnnyboysmac]

Having just purchased an I860, and comparing it prior to purchase with the i560, and also epson C84, I'd have to say there's nothing wrong with it.

I also read those reviews over at Cnet and Znet, and frankly would take them with a very large pinch of salt.

Their methodology re testing seemed superficial and subjective at best.

I found user comments here, and at the likes of DPreview (a digital photo review/forum site) much more useful and telling - especially as regards maintainance issues such as clogging heads etc.

I also have seen some Canon supplied prints for the two, and the i860 wins on photos. Don't forget it has the extra black ink cartridge for 4 colour printing, as against 3 in the 560. Both have a separate pigment black for text, which appears equal IMHO. However, the extra colour for photos (performance plus ink saving not having to use all colours to make composite black) swung it to the 860 for me. Plus of course, the model here in OZ is the i865, which means it has the extra 6x4 loader/cartridge, and the adapter for printing direct onto CDR discs etc.

A no brainer between the two IMHO, unless one is particulary cash strapped.

YMMV

Best

Johnboi...

[CheesePuff]

Thanks for your input... is the text (half the reason I purchased this) very good -- better then the C84 Epson?

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by CheesePuff:
Thanks for your input... is the text (half the reason I purchased this) very good -- better then the C84 Epson?

With only having a Canon i950 I can tell you that it is better then any Epson as the heads don't clog all the time.

[dgbatchelor]

I must agree that Canon printers have worked better for me than Epson printers (head clogging)...

[Johnnyboysmac]

Having only owned a Lexmark printer prior to purchase of the Canon, I cannot comment on the Epson re head clogging, however it seems to be an ongoing observed problem for a good number of users, and having experienced similar problems, plus the running costs of the Lexmark, I was somewhat offput to go with the Epson for that reason.

As to print quality between an i560/i860 Canon and the C64/84 Epson, I've only seen some photos with text also printed on them (supplied samples from Epson) and I'd say the Canon still has the edge on text -just. You're really going to need a magnifacation glass to see it IMHO. Bear in mind the C84 prints down to 3 picoliters, and the Canon's 2. Probably splitting hairs I'd say.

Both the Epson and Canons use pigment ink for text/plain paper, and i'd guess the results their to be comparable, however the Epsons' durabrite inks are optimised for plain paper, and hence more durable re lightfastness fading etc. with a quoted life of 70 odd years. If you were doing business stuff, re pie charts, graphs etc, IMHO the epson would have the edge, as all it's inks are pigment based, and hence long life and smudge resistant etc, whereas in that instance the Canon will use pigment black, plus the dye inks, hence colours etc won't likely look as good on plain paper as the Epson.

Conversely, for home photo use, the pigment inks in the Epsons work well on plain paper, or a matt finish, but don't have the glossy paper finish of the dye ink printers at that level, such as the Canon.

IMHO, if it was mainly for business use, i.e. text, graphics, charts etc, and the odd photo, the epson looks to be a very good machine. But there is the question of them being more prone to clogging than other brands when not used regularly.

For my use, where I mainly want printing for web pages, pdf documents etc, and my resume, plus some photos, preferably glossy, or to at least be able to print to a wide variety of media, plus the observed lack of apparent reported problems re clogging, and the cheaper running costs, I went with the Canon, and at this point am well satisfied.

In time, I'm hoping to get a digital SLR, and an A3 photo printer. Despite their poor reputation re clogging, the top epsons have formidable specs re their inks, i.e the forthcoming epson R800 with it's 8 ink system, giving glossy pigment results equal to a dye inkjet photoprinter, but with archival quality.

So in conclusion, I'd simply say pick what best suits your needs, for the present and a little allowance for the future as well.

Hope this helps

Best

Johnboi...

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

Originally posted by Johnnyboysmac:
Both the Epson and Canons use pigment ink for text/plain paper, and i'd guess the results their to be comparable, however the Epsons' durabrite inks are optimised for plain paper, and hence more durable re lightfastness fading etc. with a quoted life of 70 odd years. If you were doing business stuff, re pie charts, graphs etc, IMHO the epson would have the edge, as all it's inks are pigment based, and hence long life and smudge resistant etc, whereas in that instance the Canon will use pigment black, plus the dye inks, hence colours etc won't likely look as good on plain paper as the Epson.

Well I have always thought of this as silly. I mean how long do you need to have a photo quality pie chart last 70 years? Not to mention even if you print a nice photo to keep for yourself do you want that to last 70 years or does it really matter having to reprint another $1 copy 30 years down the road? Nope.

[neilw]

Well I have always thought of this as silly. I mean how long do you need to have a photo quality pie chart last 70 years? Not to mention even if you print a nice photo to keep for yourself do you want that to last 70 years or does it really matter having to reprint another $1 copy 30 years down the road? Nope.

Agree with your first point, not with the second.

While it does seem reasonable to simply plan to reprint photos that fade over time (and I plan exactly that with mine), there is the matter of prints that you give to other people. I have printed a number of photos for other folks, and if *their* prints fade eventually, they're not all that likely to come back to me and get another copy. I've chosen not to worry about it, but there *is* some value in having all your prints be long-lasting.

I still prefer the Canons though.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by neilw:
Agree with your first point, not with the second.

While it does seem reasonable to simply plan to reprint photos that fade over time (and I plan exactly that with mine), there is the matter of prints that you give to other people. I have printed a number of photos for other folks, and if *their* prints fade eventually, they're not all that likely to come back to me and get another copy. I've chosen not to worry about it, but there *is* some value in having all your prints be long-lasting.

I still prefer the Canons though.

Well how long do Canon prints last?

[MindFad]

Well, I just got the Canon i860. Damn fine printer. I've already printed out some photographs, and it's superb. Fast! Very quiet! Seeing as I'll probably before 70 years are up, I imagine I won't be around to care if the prints have lasted or not. It's already the best printer I've ever had. (Two shitty Epsons and one free Lexmark later, that is.) Good buy.

[tycheung]

enh, I dunno, if you really want a print that lasts, not sure if you'd print from an inkjet or get a quality print from a lab somewheres...

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by tycheung:
enh, I dunno, if you really want a print that lasts, not sure if you'd print from an inkjet or get a quality print from a lab somewheres...

Ya 80 years isn't long enough. And if it ever did fade you could always print off a new one.

[Hypatia]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Well, I just got the Canon i860. Damn fine printer. I've already printed out some photographs, and it's superb. Fast! Very quiet! Seeing as I'll probably before 70 years are up, I imagine I won't be around to care if the prints have lasted or not. It's already the best printer I've ever had. (Two shitty Epsons and one free Lexmark later, that is.) Good buy.

Totally agree. The i860 is the best printer I ever had. I don't know about the C84, but it blows the Epson C80/82 out of the water on both photos AND text. The standard text quality on plain paper is just beautiful, and the color photos are amazing. Like MindFad says, the thing is fast and quiet, and it's also Airport compatible.

And here's the best news: until July 17 there's a $30 rebate from Canon through amazon.com. (Don't know about other vendors.)

[tooki]

I have an i850 (which is essentially identical to the i560 except that mine doesn't have the front-mounted USB port, but does have the nice metal cover), and it prints photos grandly. It does NOT print photos using only the color inks -- it uses the black as well. The photo black is merely a better match to photo paper than the pigment ink.

No doubt the i860 does even better, but the i560/i850 do use black ink for photos, and in no way have problems with printing true blacks in photos.


As for text quality: the i560, i850 and i860 all use the same ink to print text on plain paper, and have the same resolution. Any differences are more likely due to the paper used in testing: I've found that different papers result in extremely large differences in print quality. The informal tests on ZDnet and whatnot most likely do not standardize on any one "plain paper".

tooki

[mbryda]

Originally posted by tooki:
I have an i850 (which is essentially identical to the i560 except that mine doesn't have the front-mounted USB port, but does have the nice metal cover), and it prints photos grandly. It does NOT print photos using only the color inks -- it uses the black as well. The photo black is merely a better match to photo paper than the pigment ink.

No doubt the i860 does even better, but the i560/i850 do use black ink for photos, and in no way have problems with printing true blacks in photos.

Then you better tell my i560, because it most defintely does NOT use black for printing photos on glossy paper. The pigment bci-3e black will not mix with the dye bci-6 inks. It does use only the color inks. If your printer has only bci-3e for black, it only uses the color inks when printing photos. If it has bci-6 black it will use that.

The i860 (which has bci-3e black and bci-6 black) will use black when printing photos.

If you compare the same print on the i560 and i960 (I have both), you will notice that the blacks from the i560 are not as rich and dark as those from the i960. Shadows also look a little washed out, but you have to look for it. That's because inkjet's composite black is not as dense as the real thing.

There's nothing wrong with the i860 - it's a fine general printer which will do good photos. I got the i560 as I needed a general purpose printer and already have the i960 for photos (decided to save the $40).

[Kelvin]

Originally posted by Johnnyboysmac:
Plus of course, the model here in OZ is the i865, which means it has the extra 6x4 loader/cartridge, and the adapter for printing direct onto CDR discs etc.

A no brainer between the two IMHO, unless one is particulary cash strapped.

YMMV

Best

Johnboi...

Why is it that Canon doesn't offer the adapter for printing onto CDR and DVD discs here in the US? I'd prefer a Canon printer but I want to print directly to DVDs/CDRs and the only company that offers that is Epson. I'm looking at the R200 since it does that type of printing and there are drivers for 10.3.4. It appears Canons printers have less user issues than the Epson from what I can see on Apple's discussion forums unless a lot more people by Epson.

Kelvin

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Kelvin:
Why is it that Canon doesn't offer the adapter for printing onto CDR and DVD discs here in the US? I'd prefer a Canon printer but I want to print directly to DVDs/CDRs and the only company that offers that is Epson. I'm looking at the R200 since it does that type of printing and there are drivers for 10.3.4. It appears Canons printers have less user issues than the Epson from what I can see on Apple's discussion forums unless a lot more people by Epson.

Pattent issues. IIRC, Epson owns the patent in the USA on the mechanism for printing on CD's with an inkjet. So Canon can't legally sell that in the USA. I looked at importing a British model and it was almost 2x the price....