Begin with the print you intend to deliver
A home photo printer should be chosen around an output you can describe: a portfolio sheet, an exhibition print, a small art-fair batch or a recurring customer order. The Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1100 and Epson SureColor P900 are both 17-inch printers, but that shared headline does not settle paper compatibility, borderless dimensions or the cost of a print you would actually sell.
This comparison covers the exact US printer models named above. It uses manufacturer media specifications and attributed sample-print observations. It does not estimate your cost per print or declare a universal color-quality winner from the number of inks.
For a defined paper and a repeatable proofing routine
Consider PRO-1100 when its documented paper path and ink system suit the stock you intend to use and your own proofs confirm the result. Canon describes an 11-color pigment system plus Chroma Optimizer. That is a system description, not a direct quality score against Epson's differently arranged ink set. Canon product information
Make a proof from a file that represents the difficult parts of your work: a dark transition, a color you care about and the surface finish the print needs. Evaluate it with the paper and profile you will use for the finished batch. A persuasive sample printed with another setup does not establish your result.
Digital Camera World's reviewer compared output from the two printers and preferred aspects of the Canon samples, including dark tones. That observation can help identify what to inspect in a proof. It remains one reviewer's comparison and does not replace a matched file, paper, profile and viewing setup for your work. The sample-print comparison
For thicker fine-art sheets or an intended roll workflow
Consider P900 when the media path is the requirement that determines the purchase. Epson describes support for professional sheet media up to 1.5mm thick and optional roll support. Canon lists up to 0.7mm through the PRO-1100 manual feed slot. These limits give you a concrete compatibility question to check with the paper you use. Epson media information · Canon technical information
Thickness is not the only characteristic of a sheet. Confirm the supported stock, feed procedure and any accessory required for the job. An optional roll arrangement is a separate part of the plan; the word “optional” should not disappear when you compare the contents and cost of the packages.
If you do not use thick media or rolls, those capabilities may add little to the decision. The right printer is the one that supports your actual output, not automatically the one whose specification lists the broadest collection of possibilities.
For a borderless size you cannot compromise on
Resolve the exact supported dimension before choosing the Canon for a size-specific job. The research found different maximum borderless dimensions in Canon's technical information and B&H's product copy. We have retained that conflict rather than selecting the larger value because it would be convenient. Canon specification · Retailer description
Epson's documented 17-by-22-inch borderless maximum is useful to check against the intended paper, but it does not imply that every custom size or feed combination works. Verify the current model-specific instructions and make a representative proof before accepting work that depends on a particular edge-to-edge result.
Both devices being described as 17-inch printers is therefore only the start. The combination of width, length, border treatment, stock and feed path is what determines whether the intended print is a supported job.
When to keep using a lab or the printer you own
Delay the purchase if you print rarely and have not defined size, paper or volume. Obtain a representative lab quote or proof and compare that real job with the equipment and consumables a home workflow would require. This research has not compared local lab prices, delivery or service terms, so none is presented as a universal cheaper option.
For home printing, include ink used in the actual workflow, cleaning, media and unsuccessful output when evaluating cost. We do not have a matched consumption dataset for your cadence and therefore do not claim a cost-per-sellable-print winner. A printer that fits a steady production routine may be a different decision from one used for occasional gifts.
If an existing printer already produces the size and look your work needs, keep it until a specific limitation appears. Once the desired output is clear, media compatibility and your own proof provide a firmer basis for choosing than an ink-count headline or a generic promise of professional quality.