Epson 9800/9880 Canon Ipf8000/8100

[Wayne Fox]

That's good to hear about the colour consistency.  I haven't heard of any specific complaints about it but the introduction of the calibration unit in the x100 series makes me think -- is it just a marketing point against the HP aps?  Or is it a needed improvement?  
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No marketing hype.  A very significant improvement in that it allows different printers to be calibrated to the same base point, thus making profiles from 1 printer perform almost equally well on other printers.

HP went a couple of steps further, they calibrate to each individual paper, not just the printer, as well as allowing the printer to profile the paper. Personally I think that was overkill, but then I've been making my own profiles for years and am comfortable with it.

Epson chooses to use a different head technology which allows their printers to be calibrated at manufacturing.  Because there is very little wear on the nozzles, and the printer doesn't have to remap to spare nozzles when one clogs,  this delivers a similar consistency between printers. (I'm not saying this is better, we all know the challenges that clogged heads on Epsons can present.  This is strictly about their approach to deliver consistencyfrom printer to printer)

As far as Canon, I believe it was very important.  A paper manufacturer skilled at making good profiles can produce x100 profiles that will probably deliver as good if not better results than the in-printer profiling of the HP.  At this point, both Epson and Canon (and HP for that matter) are delivering printers that are very consistent.  As long as the paper manufacturers choose to support the x100 series Canons as well as they currently support the Epsons, the need for "in printer" profiling is really not that important because of the new calibration routines. Agreed, some paper manufacturers are terrible or don't care about profiles, and it remains to be seen if the x100 series will get enough market penetration to interest any of them enough to even make profiles.  For those that use a lot of niche papers without profiles available, a simple EyeOne profiling solutioin will deliver the same results as HP's in printer profiling.  Perhaps not quite as easily, but it also works for your monitor, other printers, and even the replacement HP that is most likely in the works now - unless they make you buy it with another eyeOne built in.

I've been using Epsons for many years, and tried the z3100 for about a month.  While is a very good printer, I didn't feel it really offered me anything, but I don't need to do any black switching on my 9800.

I've had a Canon ipf6100 for about 6 weeks now, and while it does present a few challenges from a user perspective, I don't think any are to the point I would discourage anyone from purchasing this printer, especially with the wealth of information from the 5000 wiki and other resources.  As far as print quality, it is very bit as good, and perhaps even slightly better than my 9800.  I have found a few very unique yellows from printing fall aspen trees that the 9800 seems to be unable to print that look great on the 6100.  Interestingly enough, they also look great on my Epson 3800, and I can't find any visible difference in output of the 3800 and the ipf6100 ... almost a perfect match on every print I've tried.

Based on your initial post my recommendation would be based on one question ... how often do you need to switch blacks?  If the answer is never, or hardly ever, then either printer will deliver outstanding results.  Epson perhaps has a slight edge only because I like their paper feed system better than Canons on the larger printers.

If you need both blacks, then I would recommend the 8100.

Now that the official announcement is out, I suppose cost differences may also come into play, as it looks like the Canon is $1,000 more than the Epson. Also looks like you may be able to get one sooner than 3 months, supposedly shipping next month.

[DougMorgan]

Thanks Wayne.    

The answer to the black question is pretty simple -- if I can switch blacks then I can switch to a single printer rather than continuing to run the epson 4000 for photo black along side a larger printer mostly for canvas.    I figure I'm wasting about $50 per month on clogging with the 4000 but it does seem to be increasing with age -- it was more like 25/month for the first year.   I've never had to run a deep cleaning cycle in four years (knock on wood) so it's been a series of the light duty cleanings now and again.   In other words though, I'm spending $600 a year just to keep the 4000 usable and if the canon is $1000 more it's probably about a wash in the long run for the difference in price.  I use roll paper almost exclusively so I don't need a paper tray and getting rid of the 4000 would certainly free up some desk space (like a whole desk).

I've come to the same conclusion regarding the APS idea.    If the 8100's calibration hardware is going to make a real difference I'm probably best of waiting.

Thanks
Doug

[Scott Martin]

Epson chooses to use a different head technology which allows their printers to be calibrated at manufacturing.  Because there is very little wear on the nozzles, and the printer doesn't have to remap to spare nozzles when one clogs,  this delivers a similar consistency between printers. (I'm not saying this is better, we all know the challenges that clogged heads on Epsons can present.  This is strictly about their approach to deliver consistencyfrom printer to printer)[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While Epson's heads are very consistent out of the box from unit to unit, the shortcoming of that approach is that they do change over time. I'm not saying that is a big shortcoming but high volume users have to re-profile every now and then to compensate for these changes.

Like you Wayne I make my own profiles so the built in calibration isn't that big of a deal for me but could be for Doug if he is not. Nonetheless the price differential between the 8100 and 8000 is significant - perhaps more significant than the differences between them.

I suppose cost differences may also come into play, as it looks like the Canon is $1,000 more than the Epson. Also looks like you may be able to get one sooner than 3 months, supposedly shipping next month.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Epson is saying telling people at PhotoPlusExpo right now that the 9880 is 2-3 months away from end users as well. What's worse is they only have ~20 9800s left so they won't have anything to ship for a while when they are gone.

[DougMorgan]

Epilogue:

Thanks everyone for the comments, both here, through email from the folks in Vancouver, and from the canon wiki (a valuable resource for sure!).

After much reading, debating, and agonizing I'm negotiating with the local shop for a 9880.  In the end waiting was costing me money and while I had hoped to wait until the new year business has not been falling off and every order I don't print could be paying for the printer.

For others looking for a large format printer I came to the following conclusion:

HP Z3100:  I'll admit I'm not a big HP fan to begin with but I think the main reason for rejecting this particular model is, to quote another user "I love it when it's working properly".    Being a glass-is-half-empty rather sort of person I would hate it when it is not working properly.

Canon 8000/8100:  Since I use mostly Canon photographic equipment this should have been the obvious choice but alas not.   While I think Canon has fixed some of it's service/support problems south of the border it does not sound like this is the case in the great white north.    There is no local service and if they can't keep the printer at a Canon dealer running happily there is no reason to expect anything better for a guy working out of his basement.   The last I looked there was still no longevity data for the ink set and after many decades in the computer biz I'm sick of being a guinea pig.

Epson:  What can I say, I caved, and decided to stick with the demon I know.  I'm still pissed that Epson won't fix the ink waste in switching blacks and hate the gouging out side of the USA but what can you do.    In looking at my sales for the last three months most of the value is in canvas with the paper split about even between matte and luster.    So the plan is to run the 9880 with matte only and print the PK prints on the 4000 until it dies.   I get very little call for photo-black prints over 17 inches and the 4000 isn't really worth more than the value of the ink carts so it's a workable compromise for the time being.    From every review I've read epson is still the king for image quality though the crown maybe somewhat askew by the newer competition.  I know from experience that the mechanics are near bulletproof.

Thanks again.....
Doug Morgan

[Wayne Fox]

The last I looked there was still no longevity data for the ink set and after many decades in the computer biz I'm sick of being a guinea pig.

Thanks for the update.  I've been curious.

Just a note regarding this, I was concerned about this at one time.  No longer a concern because of a few things.

Canon's longevity testing is even more involved that Wilhelm's including gases and elements Wilhelm does not test for.

While Wilhelm has not published data, data was published I believe last April that showed the Wilhelm data to date, with one test at 95 years and still going on.

This is really more about money than anything with Canon uncomfortable with the price Wilhelm charges for publishing the data.  (This came directly from some pretty top people in Canon USA professional, who has always been a pretty straight shooter with our company - so admittedly who knows if it's true).

Anyway, good luck with the 9880.  I'm loving my 11880 so for ... too bad they can't get this head technology into the 98xx series sooner.  It's amazing.  (but my 6100 is also printing some fantastic prints)

[DougMorgan]

Thanks Wayne:

I did consider the 11880 as that would be an ideal all around solution but the price tag puts it out of reach for now: at the 3x the price of the 9880 I just can't justify it:(   If it would have been a couple grand more (rather than 10) I'd have one on order for sure.    Oh well, maybe next year.

The 9880 is basically a mature product and only a minor upgrade to the 9800 but it will do what I need at the moment and as a business decision it's really the only choice.

With Canon support is more of an issue than print longevity though if they are committed to the ipf's as a competitor to Epson and HP they may just have to pay the piper (whilhelm) as that's currently the only even partially independent  authority.  Canon seems to be supporting the ipf series better in the states (now) but I start loosing money if the printer is down for more than a couple days. There just isn't much of a track record for the 8100 (or 8000) itself and Canon had some serious problems with the whole line that don't appear to be resolved yet in Canada.   As it stands, to me at least, the risks outweigh the potential benefits, namely switching black inks and dumping the 4000.  The other improvements don't really effect the economics, again, for my situation.
Doug

[DougMorgan]

The final posting.....

I've now had the 9880 up and printing for 2 days.   I paid 4861 C$ which I thought seemed to be about average for internet prices.

With four empty rolls of canvas (one 17, two 24 and another 36 inch) and a 36 inch roll (number 5) running through now I guess I'm happy with my decision.   Still pissed that epson didn't really do much to update from the 9800 -- like both blacks on board -- but I bought this basically to print canvas.

A couple of early adopter points --

The 7800/9800 cartridges DONT work.  The new cartridges, except magenta of course, work in both the x800 and X880 models but not the other way around.  A lot of sales people (like mine) don't seem to know this.  So if you are going to run matte make sure you are getting the right cart or you'll sit staring at the printer for several days before you can actually use it, just like I did.   Epson in it's cheapness STILL doesn't include a matte cartridge in the box.

The new cartridges are not readily available so I would make sure of a source if you intend to print.  When I first set up mine there did not appear to be any matte black cartridges anywhere in Canada and everyone in the states was stuffing themselves with turkey.  Excellent planning from both Epson and myself.

There are few canned profiles available for this printer from anyone.   No epson profile for piezo pro canvas and some of epson's better art papers for example.  Radiant white does work very well with epson's piezo pro, thankfully.  Breathing colour with the watercolour profile is ok for some images but too dark for things like night scenes or black and white.  I'm sending off the test patches to them tomorrow and just using the last of my piezo in the meantime.

The only bug I've found is that the printer feeds way too much of a leader if you select manual cut.   Selecting auto cut, loading the roll, then switching to manual cut works fine.   Subsequent prints are fine if you don't cause the paper to re-load.

My printer was loaded with some pre-release firmware so the initial firmware had to be loaded.   Not a bitch, just an observation that I at first overlooked since I assumed the initial release would already be loaded.

Other than the above I'm happy with the printer and it does what it is supposed to do, and very well thank you very much.  Compared to the 4000 the printer is fast and produces noticeably better prints.   It's using about 1.4 ml/foot on canvas for real photographs (not high-key albino-in-a-snowstorm pictures) and can print a 30x72 image on a 36x78 piece of canvas in 38 minutes at the highest resolution (bidirectional).  Note that I seem to be printing a faint border at the far edge of the prints so the time would really be 38 minutes for a 36x78 print.  Still clog free so far.

Thanks for the input.....
Doug