Cannon vs Epson

[shinn]

Has anyone used the Cannon I9900 for enlarged negatives? I’ve been comparing it and the Epson 2200 and wonder if I really need to spend the extra money. I think the big differences are the type of ink used and droplet size; I’m not concerned about the inks being archival or not as my only purpose will be enlarged negatives and alternative processes no AZO or any other prepared paper.

My goal is to make quality digital negatives and I believe the Epson is a better printer overall but the Cannon also looks viable but I lack the vocabulary and experience to make a true comparison so I’d like to hear others opinions.

Happy days
mark

[Jeremy]

Mark,

I would suggest NOT buying the Canon. I have a Canon S9000 which I believe still uses the same inks as the i9900 (except you have an additional color) and I could not get enough UV density without using black. If you're planning on using black ink then it's not a big deal, but if you're using Mark Nelson's system I say stay away.

If you don't want to spend the money for the Epson 2200 look for an Epson 1280. It is much cheaper (I bought one on ebay for $200 like new in the box, though I am still awaiting shipment) and Mark says there is no quality loss compared to the 2200. There are some people who complain about a graininess with the 2200, but I haven't seen a print made with one to compare to the prints I have made with a 1280 at a workshop.

[shinn]

Thanks Jeremy,

I may be caught up in newer/more expensive is better? Decisions, decisions, decisions...

happy days

[sanking]

Mark,

I would suggest NOT buying the Canon. I have a Canon S9000 which I believe still uses the same inks as the i9900 (except you have an additional color) and I could not get enough UV density without using black. If you're planning on using black ink then it's not a big deal, but if you're using Mark Nelson's system I say stay away.

If you don't want to spend the money for the Epson 2200 look for an Epson 1280. It is much cheaper (I bought one on ebay for $200 like new in the box, though I am still awaiting shipment) and Mark says there is no quality loss compared to the 2200. There are some people who complain about a graininess with the 2200, but I haven't seen a print made with one to compare to the prints I have made with a 1280 at a workshop.

I agree with Jeremy. You will not get enough UV density with the Canon for alternative printing. To test this I actually took my laptop to a local dealer and printed out the color palette in Mark Nelson's PDN system on a Canon i9900 and the resulting densities were woefully inadequate for alternative printing.

A shame, because the i9900 looks to be superior to the 2200 in several aspects, and costs a lot less.

Sandy

[shinn]

Thanks so much guys...I really appericate it and I'll stop spelling canon wrong.

Happy Days

[rubycat]

I really debated for a long time between Epson and Canon.
I had an Epson 880 which was great. I wanted a wide body printer, and ultimately chose the Canon because of speed and color. But I must say I am not finding the Canon to be as wonderful as I thought it would be. I am losing some image quality through the smoothing effect. I prefer the graininess of the Epson, though I didn't realize that would be factor.
And funny enough, comparing prints side by side from the old 4 ink Epson and the 8 ink Canon, there is NO difference in color quality. They are equal... which is rather mystifying.