Agree with Mark. I'm still largely an Epson-based print-maker, personally and professionally, for a bunch of reasons. But I have spent a significant chunk of time with small and large format Canons prior to the current series (Pro-1000, 2000, etc.). In particular I did quite a bit of work with the big x300 and x400 Canon's, and generally liked what I saw of their output. While the new Canons have some changes in their inkset, so do the new Epsons. This has to be accounted for, in part through colour management and perhaps in part through some processing workflow tweaks to account for personal tastes that could be influenced by the new ink capabilities.
New printing technology may give you, as the print-maker, an expanded and/or shifted reproduction envelope within which to work. I.e. the range of tones and colours is not identical from one printer line to the next. But the way your prints look is not determined by the printer unless you're just running on full automatic. Anybody buying a large format printer I would suggest should not just run everything on full auto, unless they don't care about really getting the full quality of results their printer is capable of.
And by quality I don't just mean technical qualities like Dmax, colour gamut, etc. but quality of expressing your imagery according to your vision. In the end, how your prints look is mostly up to you, not the printer.
If demo Canon prints look too saturated, it's likely because as Mark suggests this tends to play well for marketing purposes. The images were made to look that way, either deliberately in post-processing of the digital files, or through the printing controls that were used to produce them. Either way, you would have the complete ability not to make prints that way if you prefer subtlety and nuance instead.
Based on the vendor print drivers (or RIP, if you're using one) and the colour profiles involved, there may be some differences in output. This is how it's always been, there's nothing different about it with the new Canons or the new Epsons. It just means that either you have to take more control over the colour management pipeline to normalize the print rendering if you don't like how it looks "out of the box"; or you have to tweak your print processing workflow a bit more to compensate for how your images are rendered if you choose not to fully control the colour management angle.
All printers give us some challenges, some the same and some different. Some by design (e.g. Canon replaceable heads that have to be budgeted for as an on-going cost of operation; or ink-wasting Epson clogs which also have to be budgeted for) and some by accident (e.g. the flaws with the Epson x900 heads that have triggered many unplanned, expensive head replacements). But for the most part, whether you can produce pleasing prints is not a challenge of one printer over another. It's rather a challenge of how you use the printer.
I'm hoping to get my first detailed, hands-on look at the new Canon LFP's within the next couple of weeks. I'm always skeptical of vendor claims until they're proved in the market, but I do expect to be impressed by what I see. It might not change my continued reliance on Epson because of other print ecosystem matters that favour continuing with Epson. But I have no doubt I could produce great prints with the new Canons in short order if I had one to use. I'm also sure I could produce over-saturated marketing pieces with any printer, if I needed to do that.
