Mark,
I don't wish to come across as an appologist for Canon (which I am clearly not, given how I've slammed them for how badly they've screwed up some aspects of the introduction of the 5000). But, you've stated a few things as fact, which clearly aren't. I don't know what relationship you may have with Epson, but to set the record straight.....
At this stage the only price Ive seen around the place is about $3690, now Im not sure if that includes the roll fed option
The iPF 5000 has a list price in the US of $1,995. The roll paper attachment is optional at $250. The printer comes standard with a LAN interface card, which is extra cost on the 4800.
A huge difference in engineering quality. (In reference to the replacable head design)
This is a silly statement. It has nothing to do with engineering quality. It has to do with engineering philosophy and design intent. The heads on the Canon printer use a completely different technology than those on the Epson. Good arguments can be made both ways. Unless one has a soilid background in print head engineering the argument is specious.
although you might not do 11,000 prints, this is the Print Volume for the life of the machine
This is not a factual statement. That is the life of the heads, as stated by Canon. Period. How can one say it's the life of the printer itself? The plastic case? The tubes and lines? The transport mechanism? Since this is a brand new machine, only on the market for a few weeks, it seems a bit disingenious of you to make such a catagorical not to mention patently absurd statement.
A simple difference of printing the blue in Perceptual instead of Relative Colormetric is required. This will remove the purple look.
Sorry, maybe this is something that will fool the casual reader, but not anyone who has actually done the comparison. Neither several of the industry's leading printing and colour experts who have seen this first hand.
Finally, though I don't wish to make any accusations, your postings appear to be the fear and doubt mongering that companies do to bad mouth a competitor's new product. I'm not accusing you of this, just observing that your comments have a certain familar odour.
If I'm off base, I appologise. But in that case I would add that instead of knocking another product with misinformation and conjecture, you simply state the advantages that you see in one vs the other.
Otherwise I'd suggest that you take your comments to one of the other web forums where such misinformation and unsubstantiated posturing is permitted.
Thanks,
Michael