Revised on Tuesday, Nov 18, to reflect additonal information from the Epson 7900 manual. Additional comments below reflect additional information and insights based on the manual, as well as to clarify other points.
I received four PM messages in the last week requesting that I post my opinion of the Epson 7900 based on seeing it at the Print Academy. These comments are based on those very limited observations, and I have attempted to compare to the Z3100 based upon owning one. Since the Z3200 is almost identical to the Z3100 in many areas, that is a fair basis for comparison. I also apologize for the length of this posting, so yes, Jeff, this may be another War and Peace posting. But I am responding to requests for a detailed review of the 7900.
There was another review of the Z3200 posted recently, and it just comments on the features of that printer in isolation without any comparison. That is not very useful. What we all need is a direct comparison of the two printers. That's why I started this thread, and what I attempt to accomplish below. Again, note the caveat this is based on superficial observations from seeing the 7900 in action for only one day.
I have tried to be objective in the evaluation based on what I saw at the Academy, and placed any additional observations beneath that evaluation in each category.
PRINT QUALITY IN TERMS OF COLOR AND DETAIL:
The prints from the 7900 were, as we would all expect, absolutely outstanding in color and overall quality.
The only way I could judge the two printers would be to have them both printing identical photos from the same source, and be able to lay the prints side-by-side. In isolation, if I was to examine prints from each printer at this type of trade show event, and do so in complete isolation from the other printer, I'm sure that to my eye they would both look very good. Maybe others, who spend more time around large format printers, would notice something that I did not.
Michael Reichmann still has a Z3100 in his possession, so hopefully he will offer comments in his review that compare that the two printers in terms of color, detail and print quality.
MECHANICAL BUILD QUALITY:
I didn't open any covers or really have a chance to "kick the tires" of the 7900. Nonetheless, the 7900 appeared to have more metal and was much more solid in construction. The Z3100 is light weight in construction by comparison. The 7900 gives you an impression of a solid and professional product, as compared with the plastic of the Z3100.
The 7900 also appeared to be much quieter than the Z3100 when printing, but that is a very subjective observation on my part and made in a noisy room that could mask any such operational noise.
With regards to mechanical quality, the 7900 clearly is the "winner" IMHO and based on very limited observations.
Several other operational and mechanical issues, that weren't addressed at the Print Academy or I didn't see demonstrated, but that any potential buyer of either printer should be aware of:
(1) I understand that the 7900 uses a vacuum, and my view is that this is a superior design as compared with HP, given the large number of reported problems reported with the Z3100 related to marks from star wheels and rollers. I am not an engineer, but my amateur observation is that Epson doesn't have to rely on such mechanical devices to the same degree by using a vacuum. (This is not a small issue. See comments at the bottom.) The bottom line is that Epson vacuum approach does not have the same type of serious problems regarding marks and damage to paper based on their existing printers that use a vacuum as compared with the Z3100. We don't know if that will also be the case with the 7900.
(2) The 7900 has a new system for holding rolls that does not use spindles. I did not see a demonstration of that system. If it works it could be a strong selling point. Personally, I'm tired of pulling rolls off of the overly tight HP spindles. For that reason, I tend to invest in 5 or 6 spindles, and this new Epson system would save that additional cost. See below for loading of rolls.
(3) Both printers now periodically check the print heads to avoid clogs. It should be noted that the HP system is not fool-proof. About every six to eight months I have to physically remove the printheads and manually clean them to avoid ink marks on paper, but that process takes less than an hour. (See this forum for postings on how to do that.) Presumably the Epson avoids this, since I don't believe the printheads are removable or can be accessed by the user.
(4) Both printers now allow for changing from mat black to photo black inks without flushing all inks. Based on the information on the Epson web site, Epson does have those two inks share one channel, so there is a small loss of that specific ink when making the change. But it is a very small amount of ink. The Epson reps asked me why I bought the Z3100, and I listed the previous problem of swapping the inks as a primary issue, but Epson has now solved that. Both printers appear to use a similar system to monitor the prints system and avoid cots
LOADING OF SHEETS AND ROLLS:
I watched as they loaded the sheets. It appeared to me that the 7900 loaded the sheets correctly the first time, every time.
If you plan on using sheets, this must be a significant factor in your decision. The sheet loading of the Z3100 never lines up correctly the first time. If you print on sheets as well as rolls, the operation of the HP Z series will be a source of frustration as you load and then must restraighten the skew of the sheet. By contrast, the Epson appeared to just plain do it -- to load the sheets with a minumum of hassle and fuss. That is what we should expect, and what we should demand, of an expensive professional printer. The HP Z series flunks that test.
The 7900 had another great feature. It held on to the sheets, preventing them from dropping into the basket. It literally held on to them as they were hanging vertically. When I asked the rep about that, he said it does the same with rolls -- only cuts when you tell it to. (I assume it can be set to automatically cut though.) I liked this feature. If you are printing on expensive sheets, you'd rather take them off the printer yourself, and stop from hitting a basket. With the Z3100 you have to stand there to be present at the right moment to catch the print. Not so with the 7900.
(A later edit -- as Neil notes below, you can tell the Z3100 to only cut the print off the roll when so directed. But it will still drop an expensive sheet into the basket. The 7900 literally hangs on to the print until you tell the printer to release it. For fragile media this is a nice feature.)
The 7900 is clearly the winner when it comes to hassle-free feeding of sheets.
Based on reading the manual, the 7900 can be loaded with rolls entirely by standing in front of the printer. Rolls on the Z3100 are loaded in the rear, and the printer is designed to be loaded while standing behind the printer. It can also be loaded from the front, but you have to lean all the way over the printer. If you are in cramped quarters and must shove either printer up against a wall, then the 7900 offers a signficant advantage in terms of loading rolls easily from the top and the front of the printer.
SPEED OF PRINTING:
I literally timed the prints, which was possible because the instructors had the print dialogues on the overhead projector. From the moment they started printing, to when the print finished, was three minutes. This was to print an image on 17 x 22 paper. I'm not sure that the setting was in terms of print quality and dpi, but this is significantly faster than the Z3100.
The 7900 is clearly the speed champ and winner in that category.
SOFTWARE, DRIVERS AND TECH SUPPORT:
The 7900 appears to have a number of new settings in the driver regarding thickness of paper and ink. Jeff can better respond to any questions in that regard. My impression is that the 7900 has the same degree of flexibility as the Z3100 software and drivers with regards to dialing in different settings for thick paper and the amount of ink that is laid down. The Epson rep said that that the 7900 also senses the thickness of paper automatically for the platen gap, and that is not something that the Z3100 can do.
I did not see the next point demonstrated at the Print Academy, and it is based on reading the Epson manual for the 7900. Both the 7900 and the Z3100 allow the user to create custom papers. HP allows the user to change the settings for paper thicknessmore/less ink, lock those in and name those settings for one paper. Epson allows the same, as well as including even more variables that can be modified for up to ten custom papers.
Finally, the Z3100 includes data on printing jobs, paper and ink use, etc. Based on the info on the Epson web site, Epson will provide the same information, in a more detailed format, on a web site that a user will eventually have to pay to access. An Epson rep said that Epson is thinking about charging $99 per year for that after an initial free trial period. With HP it is free. With Epson you get more info, but must pay a nominal annual fee. $99 is not a deal breaker IMHO. If Epson charges more than $200 for that service then it might be a significant issue for some people.
Conclusion -- It is a tie with both having roughly the same features.
What I can't measure is the stability of Epson drivers versus HP drivers. We will only be able to judge when people buy and start using the 7900 in large numbers. On the other hand, based on the postings in the forum for the last two years, Epson appears to have more reliable Windows drivers and software, or at least fewer complaints posted here as compared with HP, and fewer issues with tech support. Any printer can be crippled by problems with drivers. If you have them, with either manufacturer, then it is a critical and overriding factor. See my comment at the end of this posting regarding my own personal experience with HP.
GLOSS DIFFERENTIAL:
The papers used at the Print Academy were Epson Luster, Epson Exhibition Fiber, and the Epson Ultra Smooth mat paper. To the degree that any GD was present it was more on the Luster prints, as is to be expected. On Luster, there were several color prints of Antarctica, as well as several black and white prints. I assume the ice prints were from Jeff, and I'd like to thank him for providing those prints for our observation.
Again, as noted above, a side by side comparison using the same photo file as used on the Z3100 was not possible. Nonetheless, I have seen many examples of GD on an older generation Epson 4000 with Luster, as well as on the Z3100 when Gloss Enhancer (GE) is not used, versus when GE is used, again on Epson Luster. So even though a side-by-side comparison was not possible, I am more comfortable at making an attempt at a comparison in the case of GD, but do not feel I can do so on Print Quality in color or printed level of detail.
Jeff Schewe at least needs to give me credit for trying to be as honest as possible in the following assessment. I held the various prints at right angles under a bright and direct solux light. This is a very tough test for any printer -- and is, if anything, an unfair test. No one looks at prints under such conditions normally. I looked at them very critically for any sign of GD.
Only one print of Antarctica showed any noticeable GD. Even then, it only showed up when the light was reflecting right off the print, which is an absurd torture test. And it showed up on only one small part of the print. Again, no one looks at prints under those conditions. Under less extreme angles, it displayed very little GD. Basically none at all. The other Luster print of Antarctica that had whites, blacks and grays had no noticeable GD. At least not any that was discernible. Another print on Luster, of flowers against a white background, showed a very small amount of GD but so small as to normally not be noticed. Ditto with black and white prints on Luster and Exhibition Fiber. Some very small amounts of GD -- but you had to be really looking for it to even notice it.
My conclusion is that the 7900 has largely eliminated GD, at least on Epson Luster and Exhibition Fiber. By comparison, the Z3100 is far worse -- significantly worse -- when GE is not used. It is not even a close call. The prints off the z3100 would simply bomb the above torture test without GE. In fact, the Z3100 shows far greater amounts of GD under far less extreme light angles -- again, when GE is not used.
When Gloss Enhancer is used, GD is simply eliminated on the Z3100.
Where does that leave us? The 7900 suffers from so little GD that it was, to my eye, no longer an issue. Again, that is with Epson Luster. But the 7900 did still have a very small amount of GD; the Z3100 has essentially zero GD when using GE; and I have not seen the 7900 in operation with any papers other than the three used at the Print Academy.
The fact that it is no longer an issue with the 7900 with Luster is quite an achievement on the part of Epson, and they have done it without resorting to the clear GE coating. So Jeff Schewe is right in that regard. Jeff, I am eating a large dish of crow while typing this.
However, I must note that I didn't have an opportunity to judge GD on any other third party paper or gloss paper. Only the three Epson papers. (Note that Neil Snape reported on a comparison of the 7900 and the Z series with regards to GD using third party papers at the very start of this thread, when he saw both printers in action, so you should also read his comments. Neil reported GD with the Epson using third party papers. I'm assuming that this is less than in the past, given what I saw with Epson Luster.)
The 7900 may be the winner in this category.
The 7900 is almost as good with regards to GD as the Z3100 with GE when printing on Epson Luster. The 7900 does not have to rely on clear coating of GE ink to accompish this feat. However, as noted above, there may be papers where the Z3100 is better with regards to GD than the 7900 that I have not seen, thus my use of "may" that the 7900 may be the winner. The 7900 is far superior to the Z3100 when GE is not used by the HP printers.
SPECTRO AND SOFTWARE TO CREATE PAPER PROFILES:
If this feature matters to you, the Z3100 is clearly the winner. I recently compared the profiles made by the Z3100 spectro and APS software to profiles built with Monaco and the 1iSis. The profiles built with the $4000 iSis and Monaco package are slightly superior in some areas, but the APS is remarkably close. For making profiles on roll paper, the Z3100 spectro and APS software to build paper profiles is simply wonderful and very convenient. I candidly shared my own view on that with the Epson reps.
If you use a lot of third party papers, and like to experiment, then the automation of the HP Z series spectro and APS offers a big advantage. If you don't already own a $1000 profiling package, then the Z series includes that for about $600 more than the cost of of the 7900. The package included with the Z series is entirely automated and doesn't require manual reading of patches -- a wonderful feature. If you already own a profiling package, then this might not be an important selling point.
If and when Epson provides profiling software to drive their spectro, then they would be the same in regard to features, but not price. Here's what I would suggest that Epson should consider in order to compete with HP. If Epson includes profiling software with their spectro at $1500, then the price difference compared to the Z series with APS would be about $800. Note that any high quality stand-alone profiling package would cost $800 anyway. Some might therefore decide that spending an additional $800 to the 7900 and spectro is worth it to buy the Epson, in light of the other issues discussed here, assuming that Epson eventually supplies such software with the spectro for $1500. To be clear, that is entirely speculation on my part -- and my own recommendation if Epson wants to compete with HP with regards to this feature. No one from Epson said anything in that regard, one way or the other, about the spectro at the Print Academy.
The Z series wins this category, since they have the spectro and software to build paper profiles. Epson offers a spectro as an accessory, but does not provide software to build paper profiles. Epson states that their spectro is designed for pre-press shops and to be used with RIPs and is apparently not aimed at this market segment for the purpose of printer profiles.
On the hand, I have listed the spectro last because it is last in importance. Including a spectro doesn't change any of the other factors listed above -- print quality, sheet feeding, mechnical construction, the reliability of drivers, or tech support. All other criteria listed above are more important, and it is that argument made by others in this thread that finally persuaded me on that issue. Finally, if you only use a few papers, then the on-board spectro is far less important, since you can have a few custom profiles made. It has also been reported in this forum that Epson supplies excellent profiles for their own papers.
********************
I hope the above report is useful. Again, it is based on only one day of seeing the 7900 in action, and no opportunity to do any head-to-head direct comparisons.
The above attempts to provide an objective summary based on the Epson Print Academy. Here are some personal observations, not based on what I saw on the Print Academy, but based on my own experiences with the Z3100. Other owners of the Z3100 have had a more positive experience. I'm very dissatisfied with the HP windows drivers and software, and tech and customer support. With regard to windows drivers, the problem with PCs is that they vary enormously in terms of hardware and drivers -- so some users have crippling problems (like me) and others have no problems whatsoever. You should read all the comments in the forum for the last year regarding the experience of participants on the forum with regards to HP as compared with Epson. With regard to the star wheels and rollers, HP knows that the star wheels and rollers in the Z3100 were defective, and that is why they designed replacements. Some got them replaced without any hassle. Others weren't so lucky. I was one of those. I was told by HP tech support that to get the replacements I had to mail prints to HP -- using HP paper -- showing that I had a problem. I had to appeal up the HP chain of command, and told them that such a policy was absolutely outrageous. Either HP is the universal printer or it is not, and this should not be based only on HP paper. Also, if the old parts aren't causing a problem, then why did HP make the replacements? Either the parts are defective and should be changed in every printer, or not. By going up the chain of command I got the parts replaced, but that should not have been necessary in the first place.
I'm ready for a change -- and will sell my Z3100. If you live in the DC-Baltimore area and want a Z3100 with the new star wheels and pinch rollers, send me a PM. It is still a great printer especially when sold used for less than half the price of a retail Z3200.
Overall, I was very impressed with the 7900.