Epson 3800 vs HP 9180

[Kenneth Sky]

Although the Epson 3800 is a 17" printer it seems positioned to compete with the HP 9180 which is 13" ( as is the soon to be released Canon 9500 ). Mention is made in the review of the HP but no comparison of its output. Again the HP has a smaller carriage and carts which may make it more expensive to use but it would be helpful for low volume users to get a sense of how the prints compare in matte & glossy. Thanks.
Ken

[madmanchan]

No comparison is made directly, but I think we can infer it. Michael says output from the 3800 is pretty hard to distinguish from the 5000, which in Michael's view produces the highest quality inkjet prints he's seen. Which means that the 3800 is probably at least as good as the 9180.

Eric

[michael]

When each of the three printers is calibrated and profiled properly it's exceedingly difficult to see any substantial difference in print quality between them.

Yes, there are difference if one looks closely. Slight different gamut, maybe a bit more shadow detail here or there, but ultimately you could mix up a pile of prints, and in a doiuble blind test never be able to tell one from the other with any degree of reliability.

I believe that except for pixel peepers (dot peepers?) the issue now is price, reliability, availability, ink costs, head clogging, size, paper handling and the rest.

By the way, I am currently testing the brand new HP Z3100 (12 ink, 24", built-in spectrophotometer) and this applies to it as well, except that the advantage of the gloss enhancer is clearly visible.

Michael

[Kenneth Sky]

I'm sure for Americans it seems a stretch to compare the 3800 to the 9180 because in the U.S. the Canon 5000 is selling for a price within a few hundred dollars of the 3800 but  here in Canada ( and from what I can tell in other threads, in Europe as well) the Canon 5000 is not in the same ballpark. Its competitor will be the HP Z3100. For the rest us "shmoes" who either don't have the money or space or can't justify the outlay because of lower volumes of output, these two are our choices - at least until the Canon 9500 comes along

[Kenneth Sky]

Thanks, Michael. What you are saying confirms a point made by Vincent in a recent review in photo-i. Namely, that we've already reached the ideal printer output in flagship printers of all major brands but now we need to examine the features, convenience and cost as comparitors.
Ken

[haefnerphoto]

Michael, Concerning the HP3100, what can you say about the speed that it prints?  How does it compare to the competition, especially when utilizing the gloss optimizer?  Also, have you heard any talk of a 17" version.  Thanks, Jim Haefner

[Cedric]

Is the lack of gloss optimizer an issue for glossy prints on the Canon IPF5000? On the HP 9180?


Thanks,
Cedric

When each of the three printers is calibrated and profiled properly it's exceedingly difficult to see any substantial difference in print quality between them.

Yes, there are difference if one looks closely. Slight different gamut, maybe a bit more shadow detail here or there, but ultimately you could mix up a pile of prints, and in a doiuble blind test never be able to tell one from the other with any degree of reliability.

I believe that except for pixel peepers (dot peepers?) the issue now is price, reliability, availability, ink costs, head clogging, size, paper handling and the rest.

By the way, I am currently testing the brand new HP Z3100 (12 ink, 24", built-in spectrophotometer) and this applies to it as well, except that the advantage of the gloss enhancer is clearly visible.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]