Video: How to Permanently Resolve Epson Stylus Pro 9900 Issues

[Mark D Segal]

The main problem with these printers (7900/9900 and 7980/9890) is the print head. It clogs, ALOT (Even Jon Cone says "don't consider buying one without an extended warranty"). And it's probably designed that way; the printers are inexpensive and Epson makes a killing on ink and service. It's a racket. A large percentage of Epson customers are frustrated and fed up, some post videos ...............

Sure, there are frustrated and fed-up customers and some post videos - so what? You can take just about any product, put the word "sucks" after it, do a Google search and you will pull up  anger, frustration and horror stories. I even tried "Leica sucks" hoping it would break this rule, but it didn't. The point is, as many know, this kind of "survey" doesn't provide a representative sample of the prevalent reality.

I prefer to learn what the overall reality is with data, not conspiracy theories. For one thing, Epson can't make a killing on service because they don't sell service - third parties do most of it, and service under warranty, such as exchanging defective machines costs them. If you have data proving they make a killing on ink and a large percentage of their customers are fed-up, please show it to us. But data on ink alone is meaningless if they are using the razor-blade model to market their product - i.e. the model where we pay little for the hardware and a lot for the consumables. It comes as a package. The important information for consumers is what the cost of a print is all things considered say between an Epson, a Canon an HP or a whatever.

No company that has a long-term commitment to a market and to a particular technology will design products they intend to be defective. Whether certain performance problems occur as a result of design judgments to achieve an array of objectives that may not be totally compatible with each other is another matter; if their judgment and the judgment of the market don't cohere, they have an existential problem. But they don't. Download and read their latest financial results to March 2015 and related information, as well as for years back. Their business keeps growing year by year, their rates of return to equity are within the normal range (they target about 10%), and they are explicitly committed to their Piezo Electric print head technology which you say "sucks". And people do have choices: they can switch to Canon or HP. Obviously, the market on the whole doesn't agree with you, because based on the perspective you provide they should have been out of the printer business long ago.

Does that mean everything is hunky-Dorey with Epson printers? Of course not. There are issues, but so it is with ANY brand - just different. The latest discussion I had with an independent service outfit here in Canada having deep knowledge of the whole inkjet printing business across all the manufacturers going back to the beginning of it advised me that on a life-cycle, all-in basis the Canon professional printers end-up costing more than their Epson counterparts, especially with heavy usage. OK, that's one (experienced) opinion - but at the least it tells me that cost-wise these technologies are probably all in a similar ball-park. Also, you should be aware that if they use pigment inks they ALL clog - it's just that the manner in which the clogging is handled differs between makes and different customers have their preferences for the different technical approaches - we've been through all this in thread after thread on this website, and much useful information has been exchanged between knowledgeable people - worthwhile reading the background. Anyhow, bottom line, people using professional inkjet printers greater than 17" carriage width have options - so try other makes and see how it goes. That's the benefit of a competitive market.

[Landscapes]

The latest discussion I had with an independent service outfit here in Canada having deep knowledge of the whole inkjet printing business across all the manufacturers going back to the beginning of it advised me that on a life-cycle, all-in basis the Canon professional printers end-up costing more than their Epson counterparts, especially with heavy usage. OK, that's one (experienced) opinion - but at the least it tells me that cost-wise these technologies are probably all in a similar ball-park.

I realize you don't have the detailed info, but I doubt this very much.  About the only problems ever reported by Canon users are printheads, which are easy to replace, or the occasional main board.  With the Epsons, it can be printheads, wipers, dampers, and I even forget the rest.  And never mind the fact that you first have to figure out what the problem is by just throwing parts at it.  It is true that in Canada, the Epsons seem to be a good bit cheaper than the Canons, so if we are going from initial purchase price, perhaps with the Canon you are already down a bit more given the initial higher up front cost.  But once your Epson starts clogging, half of your ink is going down the drain regularly, you're losing media as well with prints that start to show banding when the printhead clogs in the middle of the run, and if you're out of warranty, you never want to have to encounter a printhead replacement.  With the Canon, at least you can be up and running very quickly.  Plus, I do seem to recall reading that the Canon uses less ml of ink per square foot and so there could be savings there of about 20% over the long run.

It is true that perhaps 75% of the people who use an Epson don't encounter a problem, but I am willing to bet that the number isn't much bigger than 80%, which to me is a high failure rate.  And when you are down and not able to print, it almost doesn't matter that your printer might have initially been cheaper to begin with as each day down is costing you money.  Seriously, just about every Epson user says they start each day by printing a nozzle check pattern.  What Canon user does this?  We just go straight to printing!

All of these are personal opinions though, and if you're satisfied with your Epson experience then that's great.  But when your printer starts to clog, and when cleaning those clogs you start to now have completely blocked channels in the other colors, you don't really care that 80% of the Epson users are happy, you just care that your printer is a lemon.

So I still doubt the above statistic, but of course I have no numbers to back this up and you probably don't either, and even a tech probably doesn't have representative amount of statistics to be able to make a valid conclusion about failure rates and cost analysis.

[Mark D Segal]

OK, mine is a 4900. I do a nozzle check before each printing session. A must. Frequently there are incomplete elements in the check pattern. One or two cleaning cycles of a channel pair uses VERY little ink and in general that solves it. The ink isn't the issue. The big nuisance is the time it takes, but for me it's OK, I'm not a service bureau delivering output to time-sensitive customers. I have chatted in times gone by with a couple of those bureaux, however, here in Toronto who have both Canon and Epson wide format printers (24/44 inch) in their workshops. They say both produce very good prints, but the Epsons are their preferred machines for overall cost and reliability. Again, anecdotal. You're right - we don't have the comprehensive data, absent which conjecture and anecdotal evidence are always hazardous. The clogging business by the way, on the Epson, is intimately connected with the capping/pump/cleaning assembly - I'm talking 4900, I don't know for sure if same applies to 9900, but likely. Again, according to my technical source, it is wear and changing of this component that causes and solves most of these issues respectively, with the need for print head replacement being quite unusual.

[Landscapes]

Thanks for the honest reply and your experience.  The 4900 does seem to be the worst of the bunch from all the postings I've read.  I do think you're right that the printhead is maybe not often the problem, and I have read that it can be the dampers, or other things to do with the ink delivery system.  But I know nothing about this, and since I don't have Epsons, I only read about it without actually trying to absorb any info.

I really do appreciate the honesty about how you have to do a nozzle check, and that time is the biggest issue with this.  I remember when I had my 4000 and 4800, I learned that if I did a nozzle check every two days, it wouldn't have to do a clean cycle.  I also learned that those nozzle clean cycles would use up 10ml of ink, which was incredible and made me almost not want to print cause I knew if I turned it on, it would need to first waste ink.  But I at least liked knowing how much ink was being used.  With my Canon 6100, I lost the ability to track ink used on cleanings.  With the 6400, I can now access this in the great accounting feature, and although it doesn't exactly tell me how much is used for cleaning, it tells me the total ink used, and how much for each job, so I can always do the math.

I still wonder how your source gets the info about the cost of ownership being just as high on the Canon.  I simply don't know where the money is going.  It is true that if a printer is owned for 4 years, with the Canon, you more than likely had to already buy 2 heads.  With the Epson, the printhead can last longer than the Canon, since the Canon is thermal and will burn out, so if you're lucky to have an Epson that doesn't give you trouble and use it regularly, then you might not have to replace anything.  But I really do believe that the Canons are more trouble free by a long shot, and in most cases, all they ever need is a printhead which can be replaced by the user and you're up and running in no time, so at least in the headache department, the Canon has to be much further ahead.

[Mark D Segal]

My experience with clogging is that in order of worst to best it was 4000-4800-4900-3800. The 4900 is MUCH better than the 4000/4800 ever were - at least in my hands. As a Canon user you may not be familiar with  the detail - but in the older models a cleaning cycle meant cleaning all the channels. With a 4900 the cleaning is subdivided into five channel pairs, so you only clean the pair that needs it. This cuts down on the ink usage A LOT. He told me we're talking tenths of a milliliter for one of those pair cleanings - if I recall correctly 2/10ths for a regular clean and 4/10ths for a "powerful" clean of one pair. Seems credible because the maintenance tank lasts a long time.

On the cost side, those Canon print heads, at least in this country - are not cheap - something in the range of 400~500 each. So if you need to replace two, after taxes you're into over 1000 dollars, and my tech tells me it is usually the case that if you need to replace one sooner or later it is the other as well. I think this is one of the factors entering into the cost comparison, but I have no first-hand Canon experience to speak from.

I can't help reverting to the basic point that keeps me using my 4900 - I can't go larger than 17" and in this class of professional printer the print quality is astounding, the printer is very robust and reliable (other than for the inevitable cleanings) and the ease of use is remarkable. I know everyone has their own priorities, but for me these are the determinative factors.

[Landscapes]

The pair cleanings sounds like a major upgrade for sure.  But it still is incredible that you have to print a nozzle check each day before printing just to make sure you don't have any problems.  With a Canon, there is simply no need to do nozzle checks... you just print.  I have replaced printheads before, and it is painful, but just knowing that you can be up and running again without a service call is encouraging.  You do have to print quite a bit before the heads are actually used up under normal wear and tear, but it does seem like they don't last as long as they would on an Epson given the differences in technology.  Switching blacks I think is still a major issue with the Epson.  Its funny how many people say that the 4ml of wasted ink isn't that much because my response to that is that I can print a 16x20 with that same amount of ink!  Depending on your model number, ink is easily 50 to 75 cents per ml, so wasting about $2-$3 just because you need to print on a different paper is inexcusable in this day and age.  I go back and forth between luster paper and matte canvas like there is no tomorrow.

But in the 17 inch arena, the Canon 5100 is just too old, so it looks like the P800 really is the best game in town right now.  But large format, no way would I ever consider an Epson.  I'm happy to have to buy new printheads that I know will fix the problem in a couple of years rather than be stuck with loads of problems throughout my ownership, and then having to second guess what will fix a problem, paying 2k, and still not having it fixed like this poor guy in the video.

[Mark D Segal]

Speaking in respect of the 4900 which I've been using for the past 3.5 years, from my experience there really isn't "loads of problems". It's a great printer - it just needs to be used - frequently. Yes, I find the nozzle checks and cleanings a bother I'd be happier without, but it always end-up working just fine; one must evaluate a product on a multi-dimensional basis and I have to say - this is the only issue I've had with it, possibly because I'm not a service bureau running it continuously. For some people the nozzle checks and cleanings are a deal-breaker, but for (obviously many) others not; it's important not to lose perspective, and to be careful about sweeping generalizations without an adequate factual basis of the long and broad international experience with this class of printers. The long-term commercial success of the company and the technology tells me a lot more about the overall picture than what I learned from that video.

[Bob Rockefeller]

...it's important not to lose perspective, and to be careful about sweeping generalizations without an adequate factual basis of the long and broad international experience with this class of printers.

I certainly agree. But on what factual basis can your report that "it's not a real problem?"

In the end, everyone I've seen report on the matter does so from their own, necessarily limited, experience.

My experience says that my Canon PRO-1 never has caused me a clogging problem while my 3880 does constantly (and is dead from a clog or a head failure as I write). I have a used, but reportedly working, 3880 coming from an eBay purchase that I hope I can get one working printer with a nearly full set of inks out of. It's a gamble, but it's a lot cheaper than a new P800. And for a 17" printer, Epson is the only real game in town since Canon appears to be uninterested in that market segment. If Canon had a modern contender, I would probably have gotten that in place of the PRO-1.

[Mark D Segal]

I certainly agree. But on what factual basis can your report that "it's not a real problem?"

Where did I say that?

[Bob Rockefeller]

Constantly, on thread after thread. Not so much about the 4900, but about every other Epson printer discussed here.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

Must I track down all the quotes?

[Mark D Segal]

You put words into quotation marks as if they came from me. So yes, please show me the references.

[Bob Rockefeller]

You put words into quotation marks as if they came from me. So yes, please show me the references.

If you allow me the benefit of a paraphrase:

About the 3880:
---
So yes, that model was/is stellar.
---

---
If you own a 9900 and all you need to do is change the capping station for a few hundred dollars
---

---
but the Epsons are their preferred machines for overall cost and reliability
---

---
really isn't "loads of problems"
---

---
As a happy former 3800 owner with very few nozzle clogs over three years
---

A constant drum beat. And I'm not the only one here who has noted your avid defense of Epson. They make great printers, but the plug in many people's experience.

My point is not that you don't think there are those with problems, but you challenge them to show broad data of the "problem" while you don't offer such data for the "not problem." It's your anecdotal and their anecdotal. Why should the be challenged and you not?

[Mark D Segal]

OK, you've confirmed that you put words into my mouth.

My views of the clogging situation are what I've stated in this thread, and if you want a capsule summary once and for all of my overall position on this issue:

- from everything I've read, it appears that all pigment inkjet printers clog.
- how manufacturers deal with it differs depending on the technology;
- I do not pretend to know more about the overall situation than any one else. Only the manufacturers have this data; and I'll challenge opinions based on poor data;
- the extent to which users consider Epson's approach to clogs/cleaning a "deal-breaker" in terms of their choice of technology varies from person to person and case to case;
- what I have reported based on my personal experience is based on that experience.

And in conclusion, a suggestion for Epson:

I assume the x900s are probably in for an upgrade sooner or later, and I'll speculate incorporating the Surecolor inkset plus a couple of colours. If you can give us 4900 17" carriage/print quality/gamut/robustness/ease of use in a machine that doesn't need to be operated every day and hardly clogs - or cleans more efficiently when it does, you've aced it.

This concludes my participation in this thread. Need to move on to some real work.

[deanwork]

On my 9890 I don't have to do a nozzle check just every day before starting, I have to do a nozzle check between each and every print and that doesn't guarantee I won't get caught in the middle of a print with a stopped nozzle.

The smaller desktop units, where Epson does lead the industry, require a lot less pressure to move the ink through the system, and are much more reliable, for the most part, especially the 3800.

Yes the 3800-3880 series printers do a really good job, and except for the wasted ink in switching back and forth between PK and MK ( a real drag and so unnecessary ) they are a good investment. I'd buy one if I needed it. And I recommend them.

 But I am so sick of hearing this drum beat propaganda from Epson about "how all printers clog, and it's just a matter of how they deal with it"  that is utter nonsense and an insult to professional printmakers.

First of all my HP Z does not clog at all. It comes with a waste tank that never needs to be emptied over many years. What does that tell you?

With my Canon IPF, I never see prints destroyed because of banding when one of the inks decides to stop printing right in the middle of a  big job.  I could talk an hour about these differences but I'll just mention a couple of things. I have never spent a whole day or a whole week with the thermal printers trying to unclog one damn channel so I can somehow manage to finish the clients job who is waiting on it. This has happened for years with my big Epson printers ( since the 10K that was great and well designed).

The concept of just going in there replacing the capping assembly is a big job and not one the average printmaker should even attempt. You can do a lot of damage there if you don't know what you are doing. And, even after paying for all that headache and expense of removing and replacing that damper assembly, good chance you still haven't solved the problem. The problem is the poorly designed ink delivery system with those pressurized carts. Additionally,the inks in the Canon and HP printers are loaded with the cart nozzles facing down, and you drain every bit of ink out of the cart and don't face these lack of pressure issues.

The bottom line is the 9900 and 9890 printers are especially unreliable and everyone knows it. The question is will the new line have the same unreliability? We'll find out soon.

john

[Landscapes]

Additionally,the inks in the Canon and HP printers are loaded with the cart nozzles facing down, and you drain every bit of ink out of the cart and don't face these lack of pressure issues.

The bottom line is the 9900 and 9890 printers are especially unreliable and everyone knows it. The question is will the new line have the same unreliability? We'll find out soon.

john

When I had my 6100, I hated switching out ink carts.  There was always something left.  When the printer stopped mid print, I almost always saw a few bad print lines if it was a color that is used a lot like gray of PM or PC.  So then I'd have to waste a few millilitres of ink by changing the cart before it was really empty.

With the 6400 and the sub ink tanks, I can drain every last drop from each ink cart.  The printer keeps printing since it has the ink, and I have time to pop in a new one.  The old cart is bone dry and I feel good knowing I'm not wasting any ink.

[cybis]

My experience with clogging is that in order of worst to best it was 4000-4800-4900-3800. The 4900 is MUCH better than the 4000/4800 ever were - at least in my hands.

To get a sense of how good the 4900 really is, take a look at this:

http://www.amazon.com/Stylus-Pro-4900-Inkjet-Printer/product-reviews/B004FT0UN4

I don't think I've seen a product on Amazon with worst customer reviews that this EPSON printer. 44 out of 51 reviewers (87%) have rated this Epson product two stars of less, only 2 out of 51 have given it five stars. Wow!

[sngraphics]

They had better do a LOT better with this next generation of LF printers or their reputation is going to be toast.

john

Speaking of next generation!

Has anyone heard anything on the next line of Epson Stylus Pro printers?

I'm having issues that have gotten worse with my 7900 and have tried many options.
If there is anything coming out this year I would prefer spending money on a next gen Epson (hopefully with some of the previous issues resolved) than put it into my current 7900.

It would be greatly appreciated if anyone with any info (and mercy) is willing to share it.

Thank you.