Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: sstein on March 20, 2007, 11:17:01 am
-
I work in a print/design shop of a university. We are currently printing on a 4-color Encad NoveJet proE 42" wide format printer. We've had it for YEARS and are ready to replace it. We mostly print scientific posters for conferences, and some signage and photographs. We also print through a RIP from both Windows and Macs.
After extensive research, I've narrowed my choices down to the HP 5500ps and the Canon iPF 8000. I've seen both (well, the iPF 9000 60") in action, and I like them both. One thing that stands out right away is the price of these machines: ~$11,000 for the HP, and ~$6,000 for the Canon. For my very limited budget ($12,000) that's a big difference. I know both companies "say" that we can print directly to each printer, but sometimes our files get very large and I would like to install a new RIP to handle the new printer...I think because we've been using a RIP, we'd really miss one if we did away with it.
So-- do I go with tried and true-- HP, or do I go with a new machine-- the Canon?
If I go with the Canon, I can buy the machine, RIP server and software, and still have money left over to buy extra inks and print heads. If I go with the HP, I would be able to buy maybe the RIP software and hope I still have money in my budget by the end of the FY to buy the server and some inks.
What would you do??? Any advice is appreciated!
Sue
-
I work in a print/design shop of a university. We are currently printing on a 4-color Encad NoveJet proE 42" wide format printer. We've had it for YEARS and are ready to replace it. We mostly print scientific posters for conferences, and some signage and photographs. We also print through a RIP from both Windows and Macs.
After extensive research, I've narrowed my choices down to the HP 5500ps and the Canon iPF 8000. I've seen both (well, the iPF 9000 60") in action, and I like them both. One thing that stands out right away is the price of these machines: ~$11,000 for the HP, and ~$6,000 for the Canon. For my very limited budget ($12,000) that's a big difference. I know both companies "say" that we can print directly to each printer, but sometimes our files get very large and I would like to install a new RIP to handle the new printer...I think because we've been using a RIP, we'd really miss one if we did away with it.
So-- do I go with tried and true-- HP, or do I go with a new machine-- the Canon?
If I go with the Canon, I can buy the machine, RIP server and software, and still have money left over to buy extra inks and print heads. If I go with the HP, I would be able to buy maybe the RIP software and hope I still have money in my budget by the end of the FY to buy the server and some inks.
What would you do??? Any advice is appreciated!
Sue
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
actually I think you can get an ipf8000 for around 3500 until the end of the month
-
actually I think you can get an ipf8000 for around 3500 until the end of the month
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK-- so $3500-- Is that a good thing or a bad thing??? It really makes me wonder! Is Canon being extremely aggresive and trying to get themselves firmly in the WFP business, or are there problems w/the iPF8000?
-
OK-- so $3500-- Is that a good thing or a bad thing??? It really makes me wonder! Is Canon being extremely aggresive and trying to get themselves firmly in the WFP business, or are there problems w/the iPF8000?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i think they are just trying to get a foot hold..
C
-
Why comparing the HP 5500ps witht the Canon ? sorry but as far as I know they are pretty different. And the comparable printer to the 8000 would more likely be the Z3100.
Christopher
-
HP5500? Definitely compare apples to apples (sort of), and the Z3100 would be a better choice right now.
-
Well, to be honest with you, I had not considered the Z3100. I see on the HP site that it is considered a photo printer. We print on 7mil satin papers. I guess it will print OK on that type? I see, like the iPF 8000, that it also has 12 ink colors. But, how fast does it print? I need speed, too.
The price definitely makes me want to look into it more.
-
Well, to be honest with you, I had not considered the Z3100. I see on the HP site that it is considered a photo printer. We print on 7mil satin papers. I guess it will print OK on that type? I see, like the iPF 8000, that it also has 12 ink colors. But, how fast does it print? I need speed, too.
The price definitely makes me want to look into it more.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All of the Canon wide format printers are easily twice as fast as the other guys, if that makes a difference. Don't compare 12 inks versus an Epson 8 ink system, as they are very similar in gamut.
-
All of the Canon wide format printers are easily twice as fast as the other guys, if that makes a difference. Don't compare 12 inks versus an Epson 8 ink system, as they are very similar in gamut.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I need speed. Some days I will have 8-10 40" x 56" posters to print and laminate, because people are going to a scientific conference.
I also need to keep my costs down. My department here at our university is considered a "service center" meaning that people come to us with their files, we print them and then charge them for the posters. We aim to keep our prices VERY affordable (vs. outside printers, like Kinko's) We currently charge $4/running foot for posters coming off our 42" Encad NovaJet ProE. That's just barely above breaking even, but that's expected. I will be increasing my rates come July 1, but I don't want to price myself too high. I can't buy a printer that uses very expensive inks, and goes through them quickly.
Any thoughts?
-
I need speed. Some days I will have 8-10 40" x 56" posters to print and laminate, because people are going to a scientific conference.
I also need to keep my costs down. My department here at our university is considered a "service center" meaning that people come to us with their files, we print them and then charge them for the posters. We aim to keep our prices VERY affordable (vs. outside printers, like Kinko's) We currently charge $4/running foot for posters coming off our 42" Encad NovaJet ProE. That's just barely above breaking even, but that's expected. I will be increasing my rates come July 1, but I don't want to price myself too high. I can't buy a printer that uses very expensive inks, and goes through them quickly.
Any thoughts?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107848\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From everything I hear, both Canon and HP printers are more frugal with ink than the Epson printers. And the IPF8000 can accommodate those absolutely humongous ink carts. Aren't they like 700ml?
-
From everything I hear, both Canon and HP printers are more frugal with ink than the Epson printers. And the IPF8000 can accommodate those absolutely humongous ink carts. Aren't they like 700ml?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107853\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, the Canons run from either 330ml or 700ml cartridges.
I definitely need to be frugal with my inks. Right now I'm paying ~$175 for 500ml of ink (CMYK only). I think the Canon is running ~$280 for 700ml (but I need 12 colors! ouch!)
-
All of the Canon wide format printers are easily twice as fast as the other guys, if that makes a difference. Don't compare 12 inks versus an Epson 8 ink system, as they are very similar in gamut.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
the 8000 is fast er than the Z but it is not twice as fast......... I had an 8000 and now the Z
C
-
the 8000 is fast er than the Z but it is not twice as fast......... I had an 8000 and now the Z
Which do you prefer, and why?
--John
-
Which do you prefer, and why?
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
8000 is a nice, fast, HEAVY machine. I had LOTS of problems with it. In the end canon sent me a brand new unit, which my friend bought from me. I love to print on satin and glossy papers, in those, my opinion is the HP is unmatched in those areas. Don't get me wrong, the canon is a damn good machine. I just feel that HP works harder to make the current machine better by firmware and listening to the customer, I feel canon does not. I think that there are far fewer problems with the Z than people make out.
C
-
I have the 8000 and am still in love with it. While Canon as a support company is asleep, this machine is the most fatastic printer. I am blasting out 39x51 inch canvas prints in under 10 minutes at the lowest detail setting however the quality is excellent. These prints are selling at galleries nationwide at nearly $3000 each.
Aside from the printer jamming while cutting thick canvas (the other printers wont do this either) I have had not a single problem. I cut my canvas by hand.
Truly after printing with an Epson 9600 for quite awhile which took me 55 minutes vs. less than 10 minutes now, the speed of the printer is the biggest advantage.
I am also now printing more photography and I feel like I'm cheating to be able to crank up the detail to the highest setting and zip out glossies and satins of the quality that it will do.
As of now I really haven't needed Canon for anything serious and hopefully it will stay that way... I'm sorry to hear about all the problems with the 5000 series inks and paper feed, but I highly recommend the 8000.
If you are a photographer (printing satin and glossy) and will be printing lower volume with all the detail cranked up where speed/time is not an issue and you need a profiler then I would go for the Z3100. If you already have profiling equipment and you print volume (especially for other artists) and you print on matte media I would go for the IPF8000. The IPF8000 has a larger gamut than the "Z" especially on matte papers. It also has a larger gamut on glossy however the Z will give you a slightly higher Dmax in the blacks (on glossy/satin not matte) and you will have less bronzing and no gloss differencial with the Z. I came to these conclusions by reviewing profiles from each printer on given papers.
I feel that the established large-format print for pay people in the art world who are coming from Epson would do better with the Canon, where the Luminous-Landscape type 22 megapixel photographer people would prefer the HP Z series.
Hope that wasn't too long...
-Jonathan Gentry
(One of the first 8000 owners)
-
As of now I really haven't needed Canon for anything serious and hopefully it will stay that way... I'm sorry to hear about all the problems with the 5000 series but I highly recommend the 8000.
-Jonathan Gentry
(One of the first 8000 owners)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am curious....the ip5000 appears to be one headache after another. Is there that much difference in documentation and quality of workmanship in the ip8000 compared to the ip5000?
Carl Laskin
-
I am curious....the ip5000 appears to be one headache after another. Is there that much difference in documentation and quality of workmanship in the ip8000 compared to the ip5000?
I don't necessarily think the iPF5000 is one headache after another. It was for a few unlucky people (Jim Harrison, Tim Anderson). There is definitely a problem with the roll feed units. They have finally figured out how to handle the roll feed units, but who wants to purchase a printer thinking a service call is likely, because there is a known design defect? The problem is that Canon service is not up to par. It may be OK in general, but if you have a real problem unit like Tim or Jim, you are screwed. You either have to wait forever for service to finally fix your printer, or in the case of Tim, deal with a stonewalling bureaucracy where "the customer is never right". Epson would replace these printers as DOA in a heartbeat. Once you get your unit working, it just keeps on working. Of course, there are the warranty issues...
--John
-
There is absolutely no difference in workmanship, and the documentation on the 8000 is probably no better than the 5000. I can't see someone new to printing buying an 8000 to "play around" with. If you have experience with other printers of it's class you would find it very straight forward to use and personally there has been little I would have looked for in the manual. Set up manual was very good by the way for the physical set up of the machine which I did myself.
The 8000 has less moving parts vs the 5000. There is no paper feed and the roll holder which comes built in works very well. Cut sheets load like a breeze on the 8000 which I have heard is a challenge on the Z.
Actually when you say the 5000 is one headache after another I really wouldn't agree with that. It's just that Canon does not communicate with the customer and that can make you feel very alone.
There is no other 44 inch printer I would consider on the market above the 8000 for volume fine-art printing. This is especially true if you print volumes of work and print on matte finish. Not to down it's photographic work, which it is very good at. The 700ml ink cartridges are a big plus for me.
-Jonathan
I am curious....the ip5000 appears to be one headache after another. Is there that much difference in documentation and quality of workmanship in the ip8000 compared to the ip5000?
Carl Laskin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110500\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I agree with John.
It took a long time to get my printer fixed, but it *was* fixed. And now that it's operating properly, it's a great printer. I can't even fault Canon tech support or the service company. Instead, some very inflexible corporate policies under which they must operate have caused problems. Their hands seem to be tied.
In Tim's case, it appears that no amount of tinkering by field service folks is going to get his printer working properly. The field service people say there is a problem that they cannot fix. Yet Canon refuses to simply ship him a new printer. Instead, they're now claiming that his severe banding is normal and within spec. Once again, Canon USA policy is turning what could have been a fairly routine "replace a DOA lemon" situation (which any of us would accept as being a possibility with any brand of printer) into a nightmare for Tim.
It's this sort of behavior on the part of Canon USA that is causing problems. Not the printer itself which seems to me to be an excellent design capable of fantastic printing.
I would not characterize the iPF5000s as being "one problem after another". For most people, it's pretty much been a matter of set it up and enjoy printing.
To me, all of the things that recommend against this printer are problems with Canon's policies in the US. Canon can correct those problems overnight if they choose to do so.
I think most of us love the printer but we want to see Canon USA make some simple changes to their policies to bring their service, coverage of problems, warranties, and maybe most important: communication into line with the other manufacturers. That's really all it would take to elevate this printer to where it rightfully belongs. Canon's design engineers have a LOT to be proud of.
I still don't see any printer for anywhere near the same price that would give me all of the features and the great prints that the iPF5000 gives me. Canon USA just needs to decide if they want to be competitive with their warranties and service policies or if they'd rather let a fantastic printer get a bad reputation that it does not deserve.
I've said this before and I'll probably say it again:
You can sell the best product in the world. And you can even have the best tech support people available. But if you don't warrant it and support it and the support people properly, it'll make customers mad and earn a bad reputation for the company and the product itself.
Jim H.
-
I agree with John.
I would not characterize the iPF5000s as being "one problem after another". For most people, it's pretty much been a matter of set it up and enjoy printing.
To me, all of the things that recommend against this printer are problems with Canon's policies in the US. Canon can correct those problems overnight if they choose to do so.
I still don't see any printer for anywhere near the same price that would give me all of the features and the great prints that the iPF5000 gives me. Canon USA just needs to decide if they want to be competitive with their warranties and service policies or if they'd rather let a fantastic printer get a bad reputation that it does not deserve.
I've said this before and I'll probably say it again:
You can sell the best product in the world. And you can even have the best tech support people available. But if you don't warrant it and support it and the support people properly, it'll make customers mad and earn a bad reputation for the company and the product itself.
Jim H.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I appreciate all of the comments regarding my "headache analogy" on the ip5000. I was trying to overstate a point in order to make one. I am not a novice printer but am being very careful on my next purchase of a large format unit. I had an Epson 4000 which was great in many ways but I wanted to move on so I sold it. I would like a 24 inch printer and am considering the HP 3100 or Canon 8000 (44 inch is a little big) or wait for Epson's response. Regardless, I appreciate the insights.
Carl
-
I feel that the established large-format print for pay people in the art world who are coming from Epson would do better with the Canon, where the Luminous-Landscape type 22 megapixel photographer people would prefer the HP Z series.
-Jonathan Gentry
(One of the first 8000 owners)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan, where is this conclusion based on? I don't understand what you're saying here.
-
What don't you understand?
If you print High Volume (usually art for other people) like canvas and fine art media I would lean toward the Canon. If I was an enthusiast (printing for the joy of it) or a photographer who prints mainly on glossy and satin, I would say this would favor the Z if you don't mind the higher up front cost of the profiling system.
When I say "print for pay" I mean people who are printing for others (usually artwork.) I generally don't mean people printing photography. Photography generally speaking has a lower profit margin than fine art (giclee) printing, so most people doing photo prints in high volumes are successful photographers printing their own work. Fine art printing on the other hand can be much more lucrative, with enough profit margin to make it worth doing for others.
Regarding the printers:
The Canon is faster, has 700ml ink carts that are available for about .36 cents per ML, compared to .45 cents per ml for the z3100. It prints on thicker media (1.5mm.) Another side advantage is that it loads cut sheets with ease from the front rather than the back, and you will never get an error (saving time.)
The Z will have advantages like gloss optimizer and less bronzing that photographers will like, but this wouldn't be an issue on matte papers. Also photographers (especially those just getting into printing their own work) will possibly not already have profiling equipment again favoring the Z if you didn't mind the upfront cost.
At this point I see the support issues with Canon as being WAY overblown. Sad considering IMO the Canon is the superior printer on the market at this time. I've now seen very many posts of people who have had issues that have been taken care of right away by Canon support. The positive support incidents far outweighing the negative. And this isn't even a part of the discussion when it comes to the ipf8000/9000 which, according to all I have seen, have been very reliable for the vast majority of owners. I've spoken to vendors of the ipf5000, like Jim at Shades of Paper who say they have moved very large quantities of ipf5000s and of them all he has only seen two ink cart failures which he took care of personally. He said of his many customers with roll feeds he has never heard of one go bad. ITSupplies.com had similar things to say.
-Jonathan
Jonathan, where is this conclusion based on? I don't understand what you're saying here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thanks for you explanation. Canon does look interesting for its higher speed. I use the Epson 9800 --> fine art print studio. The speed of the printer is ok in most cases, but for big exhibitions, the Canon would definitely be a better choice.
jochem
What don't you understand?
If you print High Volume (usually art for other people) like canvas and fine art media I would lean toward the Canon. If I was an enthusiast (printing for the joy of it) or a photographer who prints mainly on glossy and satin, I would say this would favor the Z if you don't mind the higher up front cost of the profiling system.
When I say "print for pay" I mean people who are printing for others (usually artwork.) I generally don't mean people printing photography. Photography generally speaking has a lower profit margin than fine art (giclee) printing, so most people doing photo prints in high volumes are successful photographers printing their own work. Fine art printing on the other hand can be much more lucrative, with enough profit margin to make it worth doing for others.
Regarding the printers:
The Canon is faster, has 700ml ink carts that are available for about .36 cents per ML, compared to .45 cents per ml for the z3100. It prints on thicker media (1.5mm.) Another side advantage is that it loads cut sheets with ease from the front rather than the back, and you will never get an error (saving time.)
The Z will have advantages like gloss optimizer and less bronzing that photographers will like, but this wouldn't be an issue on matte papers. Also photographers (especially those just getting into printing their own work) will possibly not already have profiling equipment again favoring the Z if you didn't mind the upfront cost.
At this point I see the support issues with Canon as being WAY overblown. Sad considering IMO the Canon is the superior printer on the market at this time. I've now seen very many posts of people who have had issues that have been taken care of right away by Canon support. The positive support incidents far outweighing the negative. And this isn't even a part of the discussion when it comes to the ipf8000/9000 which, according to all I have seen, have been very reliable for the vast majority of owners. I've spoken to vendors of the ipf5000, like Jim at Shades of Paper who say they have moved very large quantities of ipf5000s and of them all he has only seen two ink cart failures which he took care of personally. He said of his many customers with roll feeds he has never heard of one go bad. ITSupplies.com had similar things to say.
-Jonathan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Sue,
For the type of work that the printer will used for I would probably go with the HP 5500. Not saying that the Canon isn't suitable, just the opposite, I think it may be a little over-kill with it's 12 inks. If you look through digital printing / imaging trade magazines you will see most print shops use the HP 5000/5500 printer. From what I'm told the HP's are pretty much bulletproof and maintenance free.
Now, with this being said, HP also has the Z2100 8 ink printer. I am buying the 24" version and there is also a 44"version. You should have a look this printer also. It would be suitable for your requirements than the Z3100. Less expensive too!
I too will be using the Z2100 for posters and banners for interior signage.