Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200  (Read 77574 times)

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #100 on: November 02, 2008, 05:36:26 pm »

Quote from: JimGoshorn
I did find it interesting that Epson didn't make a point of mentioning that paper as well in the recommended list since that is one of their proudest accomplishments.

Well, considering the 79/9900's main market, the proofing industry, I suspect that Epson marketing is thinking more along those lines than fine art printing.
Logged

tony wyeth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #101 on: November 03, 2008, 12:14:44 pm »

It sounds as though the7900 9900 will prove to be excelent photo/fine art printers,but what steps in the preparation of files for printing are really necssary to take advantage of the larger colour space and smoother graduations from these printers. I hear that we need to process raw files in the ProPhoto colour space to 16bit tiff and therfore to use Mac OS 10.5 or higher to print from to take advantage of the highest quality printing?
I work on a PC platform,I print principally for pro marine photographers(yatching).They are working fast in a harsh environment with large numbers of photos, hence, jpeg from Canon Ds1&D1.You do not want to change cards with lots of salt water flying about, hence they tend to use the compressed files of jpeg.
Do I need to move to a Mac? Do I need to persuade the photographers to always work in raw?
I would also like to hear how they handel cut sheets?
Thanks again for every ones input so fare.

« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 12:31:41 pm by tony wyeth »
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #102 on: November 03, 2008, 03:37:32 pm »


You should consider using Pro Photo RGB in 16 bit, yes...but the jury is out about NEEDING the full 16 bit print pipeline to take advantage of the new Epsons, Lightroom and Photoshop can both handle the 16 bit to final printer profile in 20 bit/channel precision before sending the final 8 bit/channel to the printer, so that's not a major roadblock. No "need" to switch to Mac for that...

As far as shooting jpeg, well, DOH, that's obviously a sub-optimal workflow if you care about image quality, but that's a different debate and has nothing to do with the new printers...yes, you won't get get optimized images for fine art printing if you start life with a JPEG...
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #103 on: November 03, 2008, 04:32:03 pm »

I just took delivery of an early production 7900 today. It's now assembled, but inks not yet loaded, software not installed and so forth. Also, no manual, so I'm flying a bit blind.

I expect to have it up and running in the next couple of days and then to start doing some serious testing. It's sitting right next to a 7800 which I've been using happily for the past 18 months, so I expect to do some interesting side by side comparisons.

Unfortunately Epson took back their 11880, and Canon "borrowed" the 6100 which they loaned to me and never returned it, so my comparisons will be with the 7800 and the older Z3100.

Michael

Logged

BruceHouston

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 308
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #104 on: November 03, 2008, 07:00:35 pm »

Quote from: Wayne Fox
Sorry George, I must have missed that question.

I am in agreement with Jeff here ... I have not had an an issue with bronzing since the 9800 printer was introduced, and my 11880 printer has no issues with it.  Perhaps he is correct in thinking you were referring to gloss differential?

I am not aware of how the GO on HP printers work, but I do know it can be use to control both bronzing and gloss differential.  I was sent an ipf5000 printer by Canon shortly before they were introduced and bronzing was a major problem on some papers.  They also sent me an ipf6100 when they were introduced, and the new black inks have addressed that problem quite well.  Whether HP is using it to control both problems or just gloss differential I do not know.

The ability to see gloss differential is a function of ink and paper, as well as the image itself and the viewing conditions.  For gloss differential to become visible with the 11880 on Epson Luster it seems to require a nearly pure white area, which is bordered by a very dark area ... even then it is not obvious.  A soft light source makes it more visible, small direct spot type lighting makes it pretty much non visible.

I also feel that once you mat and frame the image under glass, gloss differential becomes pretty irrelevant.   To see gloss differential on a stationary print, you have to move around and look for it.  You can't see it from straight on which is how the print is typically viewed ... especially by someone examining it closely.  You have to get the right angle of light reflecting off of the print.  If it is in your hand and you are moving it around there is a higher likelihood for you to spot the problem.  Also the type of light counts ... with a big soft light (like the banks of color corrected fluorescents in my print room) it can be more apparent - if you are looking for it.  Take that same print to a location where it is under pretty direct light such as spots ... much less likely to see it. Finally, under glass on a wall the reflections of the glass also comes in to play.  So I'm with Jeff on this one as well.

I guess what I'm saying is if you put everything in perspective, it seems to require a perfect storm of circumstances for gloss differential to become an issue for a well done print on a wall under glass.  I pay no attention to gloss differential in preparing my prints on the 11880.  Of course, there are very little areas of almost 0 ink in most of my work.

However, tonight I happen to be printing a new version of an old image. I've attached a small version so you can see what I was looking at.  The sun is 255,255,255 - blown might one way to describe it.  While it isn't next to a real dark area, there is enough of an ink load to make gloss differential viewable.  There are also quite a few highlights in the water which are blown.   So I tried a few things just for fun.  I had a test print on Epson Premium Luster, and final prints done on Epson Exhibition Fiber paper.  In my print room, which is lit by 2 banks of 4 foot color corrected fluorescents under a heavy diffuser (very soft), it was a struggle to see Gloss differential on the Luster print anywhere - it took a fair amount of tilting and shifting to get an angle that would show any.  With the Exhibition fiber I could move the print around  and the gloss differential was more apparent ... not objectionable but visible.  Laying the print on a table I could move around and see the gloss differential, but it took quite a bit of angle.  I then placed a mat and glass over the print, and it was more difficult - yes I can see it if I tried, but in no way would I feel this an issue if selling the print.

I took the prints upstairs to my kitchen which is lit by ceiling can lights that contain small reflector bulbs - small very directional lights.  I really couldn't see any gloss differential on the Luster, and had to look really hard and move the paper around just right to get an angle where I could see it on the exhibition fiber - barely.  Laying that print on the counter under the mat and glass I could not see any gloss differential.

Not sure if any of this is useful or not.  I do know that I tested the z3100 for 2 weeks ... specifically for the appeal of the GO, and felt it's output wasn't much better than the 9800 I was using at the time.  I would never even consider giving up my 11880 and whatever minute gloss differential it exhibits to gain that feature from a z3100. (nor would i give it up for any other feature of the z3100 for that matter, including the on board spectro).

[attachment=9366:LaJollaBird_500WEB.jpg]

(PS .. just a quick plug for LR 2.0 and ACR 5.0 .. I have processed this image, from the original Kodak DCS back,  on several occasions over many years, and have always fought banding and other issues.  My RAW processing skills have improved over the years, but this image has always been challenging ... until now.  For the first time I finally have an image I like, thanks to these new tools from Adobe with the new local adjustments.)

Wow; gorgeous image, Wayne!
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #105 on: November 04, 2008, 01:32:08 am »

Quote from: michael
I just took delivery of an early production 7900 today. It's now assembled, but inks not yet loaded, software not installed and so forth. Also, no manual, so I'm flying a bit blind.

I expect to have it up and running in the next couple of days and then to start doing some serious testing. It's sitting right next to a 7800 which I've been using happily for the past 18 months, so I expect to do some interesting side by side comparisons.

Unfortunately Epson took back their 11880, and Canon "borrowed" the 6100 which they loaned to me and never returned it, so my comparisons will be with the 7800 and the older Z3100.

Michael

Sounds like fun.  Look forward to hearing what you think.
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #106 on: November 04, 2008, 01:47:06 pm »

Quote from: BruceHouston
Wow; gorgeous image, Wayne!

Thanks.
Logged

alan a

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #107 on: November 05, 2008, 04:00:50 pm »

Quote from: michael
I just took delivery of an early production 7900 today. It's now assembled, but inks not yet loaded, software not installed and so forth. Also, no manual, so I'm flying a bit blind.

I expect to have it up and running in the next couple of days and then to start doing some serious testing. It's sitting right next to a 7800 which I've been using happily for the past 18 months, so I expect to do some interesting side by side comparisons.

Unfortunately Epson took back their 11880, and Canon "borrowed" the 6100 which they loaned to me and never returned it, so my comparisons will be with the 7800 and the older Z3100.

Michael
Michael --

Can you tell us with the dimensions of the printer itself, without the stand?  The specific question is the size of the printer with regards to getting it through narrow doors.  The printer is then installed on the stand once it is inside.  Some of us without wide access doors are forced to bring the printer inside separately, and install it on the stand once it is in the house.

Epson provides the height with the stand, but not the height of the printer itself without the stand.  Thus my question.

(If the height is less than the depth, one option is to tip the printer on its side as it is carried in through the narrow door way in a century-old house.  That's what I have done in the past.)

Also, what is the depth if any removable pieces, like paper guides, are not included.  The Epson figure for the depth (26") might include pieces that can be detached.

Thanks very much!

I'm looking forward to reading your review.  

P.S.  It was your review, many years ago, of the 1Ds MkI, that prompted me to switch to digital.  In that review you compared the camera to the Pentax 645.  You told your critics to run their own tests if they thought you were wrong.  At the time I was shooting a Pentax 67II.  I rented a 1Ds, ran my own tests as you recommended, and as a result of those tests, sold all my film gear on ebay one week later.  I still credit your review for my complete switch to digital, and have always had high respect for your views and reviews ever since that time.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 05:04:23 pm by alan a »
Logged

martinog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
    • http://www.artesheila.com/foto.html
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #108 on: November 05, 2008, 05:18:04 pm »

Quote from: alan a
Michael --

Can you tell us with the dimensions of the printer itself, without the stand?  The specific question is the size of the printer with regards to getting it through narrow doors.  The printer is then installed on the stand once it is inside.  Some of us without wide access doors are forced to bring the printer inside separately, and install it on the stand once it is in the house.

Epson provides the height with the stand, but not the height of the printer itself without the stand.  Thus my question.

(If the height is less than the depth, one option is to tip the printer on its side as it is carried in through the narrow door way in a century-old house.  That's what I have done in the past.)

Also, what is the depth if any removable pieces, like paper guides, are not included.  The Epson figure for the depth (26") might include pieces that can be detached.

Thanks very much!

I'm looking forward to reading your review.  

P.S.  It was your review, many years ago, of the 1Ds MkI, that prompted me to switch to digital.  In that review you compared the camera to the Pentax 645.  You told your critics to run their own tests if they thought you were wrong.  At the time I was shooting a Pentax 67II.  I rented a 1Ds, ran my own tests as you recommended, and as a result of those tests, sold all my film gear on ebay one week later.  I still credit your review for my complete switch to digital, and have always had high respect for your views and reviews ever since that time.


This was my same question to Jeff. I ended up buying a 7880 as the 7900 was too big for my small doorway.
Here is his answer

It ain't tiny...

Without the base;
Length about 53.5"
Depth about 24.5"
Height about 26.5"
(27" more or less if you count the rubber feet on the base–which can slide into a tabletop)

And this thing is built heavy. Since they went to 360 nozzles/inch the head track is much beefier (which is why I don't see the head design fitting into a small carriage printer any time real soon)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 05:20:57 pm by martinog »
Logged

alan a

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #109 on: November 16, 2008, 11:36:04 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 03:37:55 pm by alan a »
Logged

neil snape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
    • http://www.neilsnape.com
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #110 on: November 17, 2008, 01:37:19 am »

Very good report on neutral observations.
One little detail, not significant , but the Z has an easy to use cut off after the print, or manual cut when you want. You can do this at the printer, of course but can set it to a per job setting in the driver.
You can also set it to cut off and place the image on any size to print and cut only the imageable area plus some margin.

A note on the Z and gloss diff. On the optimised papers GD is essentially eliminated. On some third party papers , there is still a significant amount underlying the GE. So it is an altered GD, not eliminated but diminished. I saw this last week on a Z3200 and Ilford Silk.

A direct comparison of side by side prints would be the best. I did just that last week with an Epson 3800 and HP 9180 on Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Baryta. In terms of GD of course all Epson K3 or better are not a problem, and far superior to HP. Yet in image quality, there are a lot of subjective things that one has to see. For example in expanses of sand, the HP prints a grain, whereas the Epson becomes quite smooth without grain at all. Which is more correct?
No real answer , just have to see this for yourselves.

I do appreciate your report. We have come a long way, and this high of print quality is a milestone. The media selection is now almost on par with the printers , so it has become very easy to get a great print without much learning.


The new Epson with the spectro will be up to the challenge of prepress with a rip like GMG, but that is not the market of this forum. If the new x900 printers combined with the spectro can indeed send out a CGATs file then even with the non rip version profiles can be built for rgb.

PS the new HP APS uses Monaco tables for profile building ( hence the APS profiles are equal to Monaco Profiler profiles), and the internal profiling has been greatly improved to the point that it's questionable if APS is still needed.
Logged

tony wyeth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #111 on: November 17, 2008, 06:02:31 pm »

[quote name='alan a' date='Nov 17 2008, 04:36 AM' post='237515']

In the case of Epson, I think you can only use the Epson media type.  If that is the case, then just using one of the Epson media types that also allows for a thicker mat paper and appropriate ink would do the same thing.  That was my experience with the 4000 several generations and several years ago.  

alan,
I went and spent half a day at a main Epson distributer and played with a 9900, they had only put it together the day before. I was very impressed. I have a 9900 arriving tomorrow .
On Saturday i found the 9900 Users Guide on line, which i have started to read through in preparation. On page 157 Printing with Non-Epson Media, it says that you can register up to 10 types of custom paper,so more good news. There are  a number of media settings that can be made, Paper type,media type, platen gap, paper feed adjustment, drying time, paper suction, roll paper tension. plenty to play with. I hope that is of some help.
   
Logged

alan a

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #112 on: November 17, 2008, 06:34:57 pm »

Quote from: tony wyeth
On Saturday i found the 9900 Users Guide on line, which i have started to read through in preparation. On page 157 Printing with Non-Epson Media, it says that you can register up to 10 types of custom paper,so more good news. There are  a number of media settings that can be made, Paper type,media type, platen gap, paper feed adjustment, drying time, paper suction, roll paper tension. plenty to play with. I hope that is of some help.

All that I've found is a features guide for the 7900 -- not the Users Guide.  Can you provide us for the link for the 9900 Users Guide, and did that web site also have the 7900 guide?  

If the 7900 can do everything that you list for the 9900, then the Epson driver is absolutely the equal to the HP drivers in terms of flexibility, and might even be superior.

Jeff Schewe -- are the 7900 and 9900 identical in the operation of the driver as described by Tony?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2008, 07:07:28 pm by alan a »
Logged

alan a

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #113 on: November 18, 2008, 05:15:03 am »

The 7900 European manual can be found here (thanks Tony):

http://esupport.epson-europe.com/ProductHo...wW0Wo1&tc=5
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #114 on: November 18, 2008, 02:08:20 pm »

Quote from: alan a
Jeff Schewe at least needs to give me credit for trying to be as honest as possible in the following assessment.
-snip-
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.

No, I don't need to give you credit for anything...if anything you actually own me an apology for the way you've attacked my integrity throughout this and other threads and going back in and re-editing what you wrote doesn't un-ring those bells ya know?

Everything I've said (and always say) is what I know for a fact or what I believe to be true. You've implied that since I'm under the employ (for the purposes of the Print Academy) of Epson that some how I'm some sort of Epson puppet or stooge and had stated (although now re-edited) that if I DIDN'T print out any prints on Epson Luster that I was refusing to do so because Epson did still suffer from GD. You were at the Print Academy...was there ANY time in the program to go off-script? Did we waste any time at all during the day? You actually implied that paying attendees should have the right to expect the presenters to jump through the hoops designed to answer YOUR personal questions and failure to do so was some sort of major flaw with the event.

So, no...I'll not give you any special credit for anything other than not misrepresenting the event. Ironically, you never introduced yourself nor asked any questions (that I'm aware of) and never thanked me for spending time late Sat night doing the Luster prints so you could inspect them the next day. That was not part of the program. My personal choice of paper for my images is Exhibition Fiber Paper and Sommerset Velvet. And those are the papers I much prefer to print on. So, I printed those images on Luster to satisfy you rather than printing them out on EFP (which I think looks better than Luster).
Logged

alan a

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #115 on: November 18, 2008, 02:31:52 pm »

I note for the record that my above postings did not discuss what actually occurred at the Epson Print Academy.  I only reported on my impressions of the 7900.  But Schewe has opened the door to the topic of what he said and what occurred at the Epson Print Academy.  

Jeff, you are quite the class act.  I at least have apologized to you.  I also acknowledged that your summary of GD with the 7900 was accurate, and that any suggestions or assertions on my part in that regard were wrong.  

Your assertion that I have not thanked you and expressed my gratitude to you is false.  With regards to thanking you for taking the time to print on luster, I did that right here -- in this forum.  

Consider the below report on what actually happened at the Epson Print Academy.  Despite Schewe's actions at that event, I still provided an honest report, to the best of my ability, as to my impressions of the 7900.  I acknowledged that Jeff was correct on the issue of GD; I apologized to him in that regard; and I thanked him for providing the prints on luster.  

Epson should be quite pleased by the above posting.  Who better to defend Epson, including on GD, than someone who doubted that they had fully dealt with that problem, and who has personal experience with Epson's competition?  I seriously doubt that anyone at Epson objects to my above summary.  Epson is probably delighted.  Only Schewe is objecting.

I did all of that despite what actually occurred at Print Academy, as summarized below.

It should be noted that Schewe began the Print Academy event by calling out my name from his perch on the stage, and trying to publicly single me out.  Jeff, that was poor form and ungracious, even for you.  After you pulled that egregious stunt I was not presupposed to thanking you for anything, at least not at that event.  My impression was that you only wanted to provoke an argument, or single me out even more.  So for the remainder of the day I did not identify myself, nor did I seek you out for a public debate.

Yes, I could have stood up.  I could have debated you. I am not shy.  What would that have gained?  No one else in the audience attended to hear the two of us debate the issues.  They certainly did not attend to hear from me.  

By refusing to be goaded by you, and standing up and debating you, I took the high road.  I behaved in a professional, polite and civil fashion, by asking factual questions from the audience; asking questions to the Epson reps; and looking at your luster prints to arrrive at my own conclusions.

I also paid to attend the event, and your actions were all the more inappropriate for that reason.

So, to anyone attending other Epson events, I counsel you to not post here, and certainly to not criticize Jeff Schewe.  If you do so, he will probably try to single you out as well at a future Epson Print Academy.  Only he will do so from the stage, at an Epson sponsored event.

I have a higher opinion of Epson and the 7900 as a result of attending the Academy.  I was very impressed by the Epson corporate representatives at the event, both for their professional conduct and their knowlege of their products.

I do not hold Epson responsible for Schewe's actions even though he was a paid representative of Epson at that event.

After I returned from the event, and despite what occurred at the Epson event, I still posted a report on the Epson 7900 that everyone can agree is largely favorable.  

Again, I am posting this in response to Jeff Schewe.  I did not open this door or begin the discussion of the topic of what occurred at the Epson Print Academy.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 04:32:46 pm by alan a »
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #116 on: November 18, 2008, 03:15:49 pm »

Quote from: alan a
Your assertion that I have not thanked you and expressed my gratitude to you is false.  With regards to thanking you for taking the time to print on luster, I did that right here -- in this forum.

Care to point me to that post?
Logged

alan a

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #117 on: November 18, 2008, 03:23:04 pm »

Quote from: Schewe
Care to point me to that post?
In the posting on the Epson Print Academy I said this:

"I attended the Academy. It was very good and I strongly recommend it.  There were a number of prints done on luster, and I thank Jeff Schewe and the instructors for doing so."

AND, IN ADDITION, in the posting directly above, reporting on my impressions of the 7900, in the section on GD, I said this:

"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."
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 03:27:44 pm by alan a »
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #118 on: November 18, 2008, 04:44:47 pm »

Geez, Alan.  Enough is enough.  Please go ahead and buy the x900 Epson.  This has been interesting and informative but I think this thread has run its course.

Kudos to Jeff Schewe for patience and going the extra mile.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Comparison of Epson 7900 versus HP Z3200
« Reply #119 on: November 18, 2008, 04:49:10 pm »

Well, in the Print Academy thread, your post on Nov 16 2008, 10:40 PM was then edited again "This post has been edited by alan a: Yesterday, 09:58 AM" so I have no idea what you said originally in that post, which is why I posted what I did  Nov 16 2008, 10:45 PM. If you HAD thanked me in the original post just before, do you think I would have posted that I didn't even know if you attended?

Personally, I don't trust people who go back into previously posted messages and change the content and context of their posts. That's like trying to re-write history. You've written what you've written, then gone back and changed what you've written. That's disingenuous at best...I judge people by what they say WHEN they say it, not afterwards...

As for my singling you out at the Print Academy, hey, I was trying to have fun...that's what I do, I wasn't being mean to you. I tried to explain why I had made prints the nite before on Luster. I can be mean if I want to, believe me, I wasn't being mean.

And again, to my way of thinking you still haven't atoned for the implications and allegations you've made in this and other threads (and then gone back and changed what you originally wrote–which ain't the same at all).

And...I could care less if you ate crow (or any sort other of fowl). The 7900 is a really good printer...it doesn't suffer from the same GD that HP's without glop do (nor the 600 series Epson printers), the spectro for the Epson is designed for the proofing market and photographers would be better served getting a whole color management package rather than the Epson spectro because by nature, the Epson printers don't need to resort to constant profiling that the HPs seem to. And, Epson's Exhibition Fine Art paper ain't a matte black printing paper...see, I answered all of your questions in 100 words or less.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up