Epson 7900 or Canon IPF6100/6200

[dgberg]

Sorry Nemophoto your numbers do not add up. I have a 7900. I purchased the entire set of 700ml carts for $215.00 each for a total of $2365.00  31 cents per ml.
The $950.00 you quote for the 12 130ml carts is 61 cents per ml. Double the cost of the Epson. In this case it is twice as expensive to get the Canon inks.

Dan Berg
Bergs Canvas Gallery

[Gemmtech]

If money is no object look at the Epson.  If you want the best output and support at the best price go with Canon.  I've had three so far, from 17" to 60" and they have been great.  Also Shades of Paper really is a great place to buy from.

-Jonathan

I don't really understand this statement?  I think it should read, "Whichever printer is the best value for you then you should buy it"  Best support?  I've always found Epson to be 2nd to nobody and I've owned a lot of printers from all 3, Epson, Canon and Hp.  I used to buy the Epsons for the longevity and the Canons for the incredible speed, but that's all changed and now I can use Epsons exclusively.  I love HP lasers, so I'll stay with them for that type of printer.  When we used to track the costs the Epsons were always less expensive overall and now it seems a no-brainer.  

"Best price"  I don't buy anything based upon the "Best Price" of the "Unit" (could be car, printer, furnace etc.) but rather TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) I believe it's a better barometer of "Best Price" than what the cost of the printer is.  It would seem that the Epsons have a TCO less than the Canons and HP.  I'll admit it's been a few years since I have analyzed this.  Anyhow, I decided to buy the 7900, it even seemed like a simple decision to me.

[jpgentry]

The Canon printer is a better value, however I would buy the ipf8100 not the 6100 because it holds the 700ml inks and gives you more options to lower the cost per print.  Canon support is better than Epson at this point.  If you don't have experience with Canon professional support (and are used to their baby printer support) that would be why buying an Epson for support reasons was a "no-brainer" for you.

Epson clogging is still a multi-page thread on this forum for the x900 which I was highly surprised to hear and it's looking like ink waste will sway heavily to the Canon as it always has.  I'm not sure which costs you were tracking but I can assure you an Epson will cost you more in every respect.

Note: Ink prices are far less than the cost of good media (paper) so many people get overly concerned about cost per print, not realizing that the big issue is really ink waste especially when clearing Epson clogs where you could easly pump hundreds of dollars of ink through the nozzels in one long cleaning session.

I don't really understand this statement?  I think it should read, "Whichever printer is the best value for you then you should buy it"  Best support?  I've always found Epson to be 2nd to nobody and I've owned a lot of printers from all 3, Epson, Canon and Hp.  I used to buy the Epsons for the longevity and the Canons for the incredible speed, but that's all changed and now I can use Epsons exclusitvely.  I love HP lasers, so I'll stay with them for that type of printer.  When we used to track the costs the Epsons were always less expensive overall and now it seems a no-brainer.  

"Best price"  I don't buy anything based upon the "Best Price" of the "Unit" (could be car, printer, furnace etc.) but rather TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) I believe it's a better barometer of "Best Price" than what the cost of the printer is.  It would seem that the Epsons have a TCO less than the Canons and HP.  I'll admit it's been a few years since I have analyzed this.  Anyhow, I decided to buy the 7900, it even seemed like a simple decision to me.

[Gemmtech]

The Canon printer is a better value, however I would buy the ipf8100 not the 6100 because it holds the 700ml inks and gives you more options to lower the cost per print.  Canon support is better than Epson at this point.  If you don't have experience with Canon professional support (and are used to their baby printer support) that would be why buying an Epson for support reasons was a "no-brainer" for you.

Epson clogging is still a multi-page thread on this forum for the x900 which I was highly surprised to hear and it's looking like ink waste will sway heavily to the Canon as it always has.  I'm not sure which costs you were tracking but I can assure you an Epson will cost you more in every respect.

Note: Ink prices are far less than the cost of good media (paper) so many people get overly concerned about cost per print, not realizing that the big issue is really ink waste especially when clearing Epson clogs where you could easly pump hundreds of dollars of ink through the nozzels in one long cleaning session.

How is the Canon the better value?  It seems like the ink cost for the 6100 is about 50% more compared to the 7900.  You say you would buy the 8100, isn't that the 44" version?  Canon support is better today?  OK, I must admit I wouldn't know who is better, it's been a long time since I used Epson support and I have needed Canon support (for cameras and smaller printers) and found it lacking.   I'm assuming you know Canon support is superior because your printers have needed lots of support?  That's generally how we know how good support is.  I know Mercedes Benz has a great service department because of my 3 new Benz purchased since 2006 2 of them had their trannys go, 1 at 196 miles (Mercedes bought the car back) and one at 25,000 miles.  The service was great, but the damn cars suck!  Apple, I bought 3 IMACs, all 3 died, the service was TERRIBLE.  Needless to say, I don't buy the Epsons because of their superior support but rather for their superior quality.  

Ink clogging; there's no doubt there's been a lot of well documented issues with ink clogging, nobody can dispute that.  However; I still have a working Epson 1280 that was purchased about 8 years ago and it has never had a clogging problem.  Sure it needs an occasional head cleaning, but it always works.  I think the environment might be an issue, who knows, some people have the problem and others don't.  

Aren't the Canon print heads replaceable?  Isn't that a part of TCO?  So, the ink costs of the 6100 is substantially more and you eventually have to replace (in the Canon) $1,000.00 worth of print heads?  

We tracked the costs of the printers based upon a couple hundred prints using the same paper.  We just got curious and decided to run a bunch of identical prints from both our Canon and Epson printers and we found the Epsons were less expensive to operate.  We print a lot and I mean a lot of prints for clients (we design / build houses / additions / interiors and give them prints of their project designs, the before and after photos) We started out using Epsons, but they were slow as hell and so I started buying Canons because they were about 5 times faster.  Well, what happened was people started calling telling me that their prints were fading and they wanted to keep them for posterity (archive) so we would give them Epson prints.  Naturally Epson started to catch Canon in the speed department and Canon caught Epson in the quality department IMHO and so now we can go back to using Epson exclusively.  

The Epson printer is more expensive, but it wont take us long to recoup the costs in ink because we do print a lot and we probably wont have to replace the print head which on the Canon is $1,000.00 and I have read about many people paying for new print heads, I think it's just the nature of the heat in the Canon and HP heads.

There's also the matter of Karma, some people just have better luck with one brand over the other.  I used Nikon cameras for 30 years and when I started using digital I switched to Canon, nothing but problems, switched back to Nikon and now I'm in "Digital Heaven"     I've always had great luck with Epson, I'd read about color shift and head clogging yet I wouldn't have the same issues.  HP lasers, never an issue, as a matter of fact my friend still uses my old HP 6L from 1998, many of those had the paper handling issues, multiple sheets would come out together and you needed to install a paper separator, if you had the problem, I didn't.  Epson scanners, great!

You probably can't go wrong with either printer, but I'm not sure that the TCO of the Canon is less than that of the Epson.

[Wayne Fox]

The Canon printer is a better value, however I would buy the ipf8100 not the 6100 because it holds the 700ml inks and gives you more options to lower the cost per print.  Canon support is better than Epson at this point.  If you don't have experience with Canon professional support (and are used to their baby printer support) that would be why buying an Epson for support reasons was a "no-brainer" for you.

Epson clogging is still a multi-page thread on this forum for the x900 which I was highly surprised to hear and it's looking like ink waste will sway heavily to the Canon as it always has.  I'm not sure which costs you were tracking but I can assure you an Epson will cost you more in every respect.

Note: Ink prices are far less than the cost of good media (paper) so many people get overly concerned about cost per print, not realizing that the big issue is really ink waste especially when clearing Epson clogs where you could easly pump hundreds of dollars of ink through the nozzels in one long cleaning session.

Well, not everyone has room for an 8100 just to get the 700 ml cartridges.

As with all companies, support varies based on location and problems. Epson support for my 7900 problems was outstanding, couldn't have asked for anything better. (Of course the best support is printers that don't have issues ... this is my 7th Epson since the 9600 and the first that has ever required any support).  I had to replace my ipf5000 with a new ipf6100 to get satisfactory prints ... canon provided no opportunity to resolve the issues with the black inks.

The 7900 clogging issues  are not widespread and most are not affected by it. Wasted ink for my 7900 is pretty much down to zero now, much like the 11880 I've been running for over 18 months. According to information on the canon wiki, it may require as much as 2 to 3 ml of ink per day  to keep clean, that's 60 to 90 ml per month.  And of course no one can accurately predict when the Canon head itself will clog to the point it will need replaced.  You may be one of the unfortunate ones that only get 13 or 14 months out of a head (which eventually fails due to clogs)  and have to drop several hundred to replace the head - or worse both heads.

Both printers consume ink to maintain print heads.  Speaking as one who used an ipf6100 and an 11880 for a year and a half, neither printer consumes a large amount of ink to keep nozzles clear, and there is no obvious answer as to which is better ... neither are a problem.  With the 7900 the only ink waste issue that may be a factor is need to frequently swap between blacks.

Both printers are capable of printing high quality prints.  For those deciding, look at the features, analyze the various factors, and try to weed out all of the unnecessary "stuff", much of which is over hyped or doesn't even apply.

[dgberg]

"If money is no object look at the Epson" -Jonathon
Sometimes the best does cost a little more!

Dan Berg
Bergs Canvas Gallery

[Gemmtech]

Wayne,

Is it true that the 7900 can only handle 1 cut sheet at a time?

[Wayne Fox]

Wayne,

Is it true that the 7900 can only handle 1 cut sheet at a time?

True ....  I don't believe any of the 24" or larger printers offer an option to handle multiple cut sheets.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Wayne,

Is it true that the 7900 can only handle 1 cut sheet at a time?

I know no other wide format inkjet of 24" and above that can handle more sheets at a time.
HP Z3200, Epson 7900, Canon iPF6100.
If you want printing continuity, load a roll.
If you want frugal ink use, low maintenance cost and print longevity, get the HP.
Speed may be found in Canon's iPF9100, HP's Z6100, Epson's 11880, all around 60", no 24" will produce the same square feet per hour.
Ink prices per ml are almost always equal if the same cart content is bought.
The 700-750 ML carts of Canon, Epson, HP (Z6100) are between 25-30 Eurocents a ML.
The 220-260 (Twin pack Z3200)-350 ML carts are now slightly above 30 Eurocents a ML.
It looks like the companies keep a close eye on the competition's price per ML.



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

[Gemmtech]

I know no other wide format inkjet of 24" and above that can handle more sheets at a time.
HP Z3200, Epson 7900, Canon iPF6100.
If you want printing continuity, load a roll.
If you want frugal ink use, low maintenance cost and print longevity, get the HP.
Speed may be found in Canon's iPF9100, HP's Z6100, Epson's 11880, all around 60", no 24" will produce the same square feet per hour.
Ink prices per ml are almost always equal if the same cart content is bought.
The 700-750 ML carts of Canon, Epson, HP (Z6100) are between 25-30 Eurocents a ML.
The 220-260 (Twin pack Z3200)-350 ML carts are now slightly above 30 Eurocents a ML.
It looks like the companies keep a close eye on the competition's price per ML.



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

The same size cartridges aren't always available in the same sized printers, can you get the 700ml cartridges for the Canon 6100?  Are the 700ml cartridges available for the 24" Z3200?

When I first started printing my own photographs I was using Hp and then Epson came out with the Photo EX and they took the lead and basically never looked back.  It's nice to see all 3 brands making great products because competition brings better technology, cheaper, which is nice for all of us.  

Haven't been using HP (except for lasers) for a long time, don't they have the same print head problems as the Canon?  When I say problem, I mean don't they need replaced occasionally?

Does the HP have a lower TCO than the Epson and or Canon printers?  What is the cost per sq.inch?  Print Longevity?  I'll be honest, if I get 50 years, I'm happy.  I believe that in 5-50 years the technology will be so advanced that I can always print another.  I know a lot of you guys/gals her are printing artwork that you are selling and so maybe over 100 years is important?

[Ernst Dinkla]

The same size cartridges aren't always available in the same sized printers, can you get the 700ml cartridges for the Canon 6100?  Are the 700ml cartridges available for the 24" Z3200?

When I first started printing my own photographs I was using Hp and then Epson came out with the Photo EX and they took the lead and basically never looked back.  It's nice to see all 3 brands making great products because competition brings better technology, cheaper, which is nice for all of us.  

Haven't been using HP (except for lasers) for a long time, don't they have the same print head problems as the Canon?  When I say problem, I mean don't they need replaced occasionally?

Does the HP have a lower TCO than the Epson and or Canon printers?  What is the cost per sq.inch?  Print Longevity?  I'll be honest, if I get 50 years, I'm happy.  I believe that in 5-50 years the technology will be so advanced that I can always print another.  I know a lot of you guys/gals her are printing artwork that you are selling and so maybe over 100 years is important?

It is correct that the big carts are not available on all the wide format models but the price difference per ML between the 700 and 220 ML contents isn't so big either.
In practice the difference in wasted ink between cleaning processes may be more important. Whether one needs 500 ML or more cart content with 9, 12, 12, ink models is another matter.

With printers this size one counts per square feet or square meter, 10 ML ink on a square meter is a good average, less than 1 ML a square foot. For 50 years longevity all 3 qualify. In this list there has been few messages on head replacements for the Z3100 and it is in the market for two years now. The 6 heads, two colors each, must be around 60 $. Total 360 $ and they can be replaced one at a time. That's a lot less than the Canon price. No mention of excessive head replacements on the Z3100s in this list. My Z3100 didn't have a head replaced in two years but the volume I print isn't that high. A Canon iPF9000 that I know is now at the 4th set of heads and at a similar number for the ribbon cable that runs to the head. That printer must be running 60 hours a week for two years. Incomparable printer use, I know.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

[Dan Wells]

Wayne,

Is it true that the 7900 can only handle 1 cut sheet at a time?

    I may have some insight on the multiple sheets question, looking at how these machines are designed.
     No 24 inch printer can handle more than one cut sheet at a time (with the exception of the old HP DesignJet 130, which was a completely different design - for one thing, it was a desktop machine instead of a floor-stander). Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever built a floor-standing printer with a sheet feed tray. This may make sense from the viewpoint of allowing the machines to tuck into corners, or it may be a carryover from how plotters were designed (most wide format printers are built on descendants of roll-fed plotter chassis, and a plotter needed a very precise bidirectional paper feed that was much easier to achieve from a roll than a tray).
       Also, as the printer gets larger, a full-size paper tray gets larger, more difficult to make rigid, and more unwieldy. A full-size tray for a 24" printer would have to be three feet long (and would stick out approximately 2 feet from the front of the printer), while one for a 44" printer would be five feet long, and would stick out 3.5 feet or so (it would have to be MASSIVE, and possibly supported on the far end, to avoid sagging or twisting). Even the DesignJet 130 used an undersized paper tray (it was only a 17x22" tray - larger sheets were fed by hand or roll).
     The tray that might make sense (and wouldn't really make the printer any bigger) is a 13x19" tray - especially if the tray were inserted sideways, since the 24 inch carriage is wide enough. Even an 18x24" tray inserted sideways and taking up the full width of the printer wouldn't stick out terribly far, and could make sense. Unlike a full-size 24x36" tray, these undersized versions could be fairly small and light, while allowing convenient use of many sheet papers.  The major reengineering required would be that the printers would have to accommodate two paper paths - while desktop printers do this routinely, wide-format printers have only one feed slot (generally in the upper rear of the printer). All the manufacturers have front-feed mechanisms adapted to a large printer already (Canon and Epson from 17 inch models, HP from the DesignJet 130), but they are not included in the plotter-derived 24 inch printers. Ironically, probably the easiest big printer to add a paper tray to is actually a 44" machine - the Canon iPF 8100 feeds from the bottom front, instead of the top rear - it wouldn't be hard at all to put a 13x19 tray in there as well (but it's less attractive as a feature on a 44" printer)
   

                                                          -Dan

[sfblue]

Wayne,

Is it true that the 7900 can only handle 1 cut sheet at a time?

Yes.   I'm not sure if any of the 24 inch printers can handle more than one cut sheet at a time.   I will say the paper handling for both roll and sheet paper is excellent.   Really easy overall.   Initially, I had brief trouble with Harman FB Gloss in letter-sized and with sheets of canvas as opposed to roll-- but quickly figured those out.  I don't think the HP Z3200 does-- the canon i'm not sure about.  Maybe someone else can answer that.

[Gemmtech]

I wonder if there's a market for cut sheet with these large format printers?  I like reading all the posts, you can tell that ALL of the BIG 3 are now making phenomenal printers.  As I stated, I started with HP, moved to Epson and switched to Canon because they were so much faster and we would always need the prints in a hurry to make an appointment.  Now I'm mostly Epson.  With my personal stuff, speed isn't all that important, but now I want the ability to make 24" prints and the 7900 seemed like the logical choice.  I haven't been victimized by the "Clogging Epson" but there's no doubt a lot of people have.  We replaced a lot of Canon print heads and that gets old as well.

[abiggs]

I have been speaking with product managers from all of these 3 companies about the desire to have some sort of cut sheet cassette, even if it sold at a huge premium. The problem for me is that I am limited by space, and if I can eliminate a printer I would love to do so. I have an Epson 3800, Canon iPF5100, Canon iPF8100 and an HPZ3200 is on its way. Crazy.

Shoot, I would be happy if Epson would freaking have a pro 17 inch printer like the 4880 with enough print heads so that I didn't have to do any sort of switching of black inks. They even got the 7900 and 9900 printers wrong, if you ask me. They should have done what Canon already does: each ink has its own ink line and print head. It isn't rocket science. It is amazing how Epson has so much hubris to think that their customers actually like how the setup is. It is 2009 for God's sake.

Back to the current setup. I suspect more customers would purchase a 24" inch printer if it had some sort of 17" cassette on the front, similar to what the iPF5100 and Epson 4880 have. It would be a way for these guys to sell more expensive printers to people that would have normally bought the 17 inch printer. I think there is a decent market for people who normally print on cut sheets but occasionally need to use wider rolls.

[jpgentry]

My solution to cut sheets is the ipf5100/ipf9100.  Another great option would be the ipf5100/ipf8100 which would cost about the same as just the Epson 9900 by itself.  like using these two printers together because I can share custom profiles between them since they are both linearized (calibrated) to the same paper.

About Canon's ink heads I have had few issues with the heads and they are covered under warranty.  The time I had an issue with the heads Canon sent new heads and new inks no questions asked.  I knew at that point the company was taking things seriously.  I think a search through the threads will show this trend.

I ran Epsons in the past but I am very much against the company at this point because I think they have really taken advantage of their customers through the years.  I think the ink/swapping clogging issues that went on way too long were a business decision on their part.  Now hearing of further ink clogging issues is hard to comprehend as the competition from HP/Canon has put that to rest.

[enduser]

A quote from the CanonWiki forum settled it for us:

ipf5000 turned off and in longterm storage

robertmillar
   robertmillar ipf5000 turned off and in longterm storage

'just another contribution of esoteric information about testing the abilities of this printer.

I used my ipf5000 to print a large project a couple of years ago, a couple of thousand square feet of printing. In the following months I used it sporadically, then I stopped.

I turned off the printer, covered it, and let it sit for 530 days.

I figured that there was a good chance it had made its last print, that after the nonuse, the nozzles would be forever clogged.

Yesterday, I turned the printer on and let it cycle through a cleaning. I updated firmware and driver and PRESTO! . . . it printed out a perfect print.

That is a beautiful thing!
permalink Posted Feb 25, 2009 11:26 am

There's also a quote somewhere on the same forum from someone whose put 40  rolls a month of 24" through a 6100 for well over a year and still on original heads.

[Gemmtech]

My solution to cut sheets is the ipf5100/ipf9100.  Another great option would be the ipf5100/ipf8100 which would cost about the same as just the Epson 9900 by itself.  like using these two printers together because I can share custom profiles between them since they are both linearized (calibrated) to the same paper.

About Canon's ink heads I have had few issues with the heads and they are covered under warranty.  The time I had an issue with the heads Canon sent new heads and new inks no questions asked.  I knew at that point the company was taking things seriously.  I think a search through the threads will show this trend.

I ran Epsons in the past but I am very much against the company at this point because I think they have really taken advantage of their customers through the years.  I think the ink/swapping clogging issues that went on way too long were a business decision on their part.  Now hearing of further ink clogging issues is hard to comprehend as the competition from HP/Canon has put that to rest.

That is certainly a good thought and one I will use.  I use a lot of printers and moving to the large format will cut the costs considerably.  Though it would be nice just to have 1 printer, but it's not possible to use more than 1 cut sheet in these large format machines.

[kuau]

So let me get this straight. On the new epson 7900/9900 though you can have both black inks installed, the printer still needs to purge one black for another wasting ink?

[abiggs]

So let me get this straight. On the new epson 7900/9900 though you can have both black inks installed, the printer still needs to purge one black for another wasting ink?

Yes, but it does this in the style that is similar to the Epson Pro 3800, in that it only purges the ink that is in the inkhead itself.