Epson 7900, HP Z3200

[sfblue]

I've read a couple of the threads on the HP Z3200 vs Epson 7900, but am interested in getting updates from owners about a couple things now that they have been out for a while.  I've only seen one review of the Epson 7900 thus far.  A couple of questions:

-How is the HP with thick media now?  I know there were reports of thicker media getting the pizza track wheels on the Z3100 and that the HP Z3200 has somewhat improved.   Any feedback on the 3200 regarding thick media?

-It seems like print quality and gamuts are outstanding on both with relative strengths on both.   Any preference or comments on black and white printing specifically?  

-I know some favor the gloss enhancer of the HP and some favor the formulated-in-the-ink method of the Epson.  Any particular positive or negative experiences with third party papers on either HP or Epson-- seems like they both do great on their respective papers.

-This may seem trivial, but how is ease of use for cut-sheet feeding?  

-Any other comments on overall print quality, ease of use, or anything else I'm not thinking of?   Just want to get some updated comments as people have been printing with these printers for a couple months now.   This is a big purchase for me--  I am coming from an Epson 2400 and 3800 and just want to make sure I think through this before I make the plunge.   (I know I haven't even brought up the spectraphotometer and profiling issue yet-- but I'm looking for any comments that might help me choose and also be comfortable with the cost (and weight and girth)).

One final and semi-related question:  any thoughts on ImagePrint these days?  Do people find Imageprint to be less necessary now vs a few years ago?  

Thanks!

[neil snape]

Media thickness is still the same for the Z printers being 0.8mm about half the max thickness of Epson. With both you can exceed their max capacity  but marks on either side and or head strikes.

Cut sheet loading is and has always been easier on Epson. The new auto clamp roll system on the Epson is also a leader in this respect. Personally I don't have any problems loading the 3200 but could only find the Epson 9900 that much easier.

B+W on both should be very similar in every way. On certain photo media the HP with Gloss Enhancer all but eliminates gloss differential, and on colour it is just slightly ahead of the competition. I use it on eco mode where it only puts GE on the areas needed namely lGrey, lM, lC, and combinations thereof. Epson changed the color maps of the grey inks and GCR used according to users. I assume it is closer to Canon and HP now with high GCR. If so (and from the print samples I have seen) the B+W is going to be close.
The advantage of HP is you can batch print colour and B&W side by side on the same print job with no composite colour in the greyscales as the driver only uses grey inks in equal value rgb. So when the values are say 40 40 40 in that area only grey inks are used. This leads to a more neutral less  problematic grey for varying view lights. Gloss Enhancer is very good but do know it is fragile.

I did a lot of testing on the 3100 and by doing so saw the changes , too many to count. This is simply no longer true of the 3200. It is stable and just works. There were vast improvements made to the included HP profiling, and even more with the APS. Apparently marketing decided to stress the fact the reds were effectively improved ( yet it was a problem on reds on certain media before) but the other improvements didn't show the real reasons why it is a a large step up in the right direction over the old 3100.

I also tested for ImagePrint over the years. I've finally settled on using Qimage on both a MacBook Pro under boot camp or a real PC for any production printing. Being it is just a front end , it only uses the driver without a separate application. I  will never use a rip again , and happy to not have to.

[sfblue]

Media thickness is still the same for the Z printers being 0.8mm about half the max thickness of Epson. With both you can exceed their max capacity  but marks on either side and or head strikes.

Cut sheet loading is and has always been easier on Epson. The new auto clamp roll system on the Epson is also a leader in this respect. Personally I don't have any problems loading the 3200 but could only find the Epson 9900 that much easier.

B+W on both should be very similar in every way. On certain photo media the HP with Gloss Enhancer all but eliminates gloss differential, and on colour it is just slightly ahead of the competition. I use it on eco mode where it only puts GE on the areas needed namely lGrey, lM, lC, and combinations thereof. Epson changed the color maps of the grey inks and GCR used according to users. I assume it is closer to Canon and HP now with high GCR. If so (and from the print samples I have seen) the B+W is going to be close.
The advantage of HP is you can batch print colour and B&W side by side on the same print job with no composite colour in the greyscales as the driver only uses grey inks in equal value rgb. So when the values are say 40 40 40 in that area only grey inks are used. This leads to a more neutral less  problematic grey for varying view lights. Gloss Enhancer is very good but do know it is fragile.

I did a lot of testing on the 3100 and by doing so saw the changes , too many to count. This is simply no longer true of the 3200. It is stable and just works. There were vast improvements made to the included HP profiling, and even more with the APS. Apparently marketing decided to stress the fact the reds were effectively improved ( yet it was a problem on reds on certain media before) but the other improvements didn't show the real reasons why it is a a large step up in the right direction over the old 3100.

I also tested for ImagePrint over the years. I've finally settled on using Qimage on both a MacBook Pro under boot camp or a real PC for any production printing. Being it is just a front end , it only uses the driver without a separate application. I  will never use a rip again , and happy to not have to.

Neil,   thanks so much for the super informative and balanced reply.   That really answers most of my questions.   Btw, excuse my ignorance about TLA's (Three-Lettered Acronyms!), but what is "GCR?"

I'm leaning towards the 7900 just because I'm coming from Epson and it's what I'm already familiar with.   And ease of use and ease of paper handling is important to me.   For me, it's just a big commitment so I am trying to think through it all.

I don't know much about Qimage but will check it out.   I'm also a Mac person and it sounds like you have found a reasonable workflow using Bootcamp.

Thanks again-- really appreciate the information and objectiveness in your reply.

Dan

[neil snape]

Neil,   thanks so much for the super informative and balanced reply.   That really answers most of my questions.   Btw, excuse my ignorance about TLA's (Three-Lettered Acronyms!), but what is "GCR?"

I'm leaning towards the 7900 just because I'm coming from Epson and it's what I'm already familiar with.   And ease of use and ease of paper handling is important to me.   For me, it's just a big commitment so I am trying to think through it all.

I don't know much about Qimage but will check it out.   I'm also a Mac person and it sounds like you have found a reasonable workflow using Bootcamp.

Thanks again-- really appreciate the information and objectiveness in your reply.

Dan

GCR is grey component replacement. Where a lot of colored ink is going down , the saturation is going to reverse at one point or another. By replacing the CMY components of the total ink with grey or black or whatever , you actually increase the print finesse and gain as the inks are not as transparent as one might like. Two separate issues are ink loads and ink going down on the paper. Epson have always had a higher pigment load in the ink droplets, thus a higher concentration of colorant per volume drop is achieved. Yet Canon and HP formulate their inks to work well with thermal heads, and have some good pigment grinds that make up for this.
From what is said here ( I don't yet have a 9900) there is more L light grey going into the unsaturated midtones showing signs of higher GCR there and perhaps with more in the shadows with black or L grey.


I did see an improvement with the 9900 over the 7880 in smooth tones with less contouring in flat or contone midrange colours which is probably due to both use of extended primaries, and a different GCR algorithm.

[jpgentry]

Any reason you're not also evaluating the Canon IPF line?

Just curious if now why not...

-Jonathan

[sfblue]

Any reason you're not also evaluating the Canon IPF line?

Just curious if now why not...

-Jonathan

Jonathan,

Honestly I don't have a great reason other than I'm not that familiar with the Canon line.   I've been an Epson person going back to the old 1270.   I was looking at HP because I have a couple friends who are really happy with the Z3100.   I've also seen a lot of prints from the x800 and x880 epson series as well as the HP's, haven't seen much output from Canon printers.    So-- not a great reason other than lack of direct familiarity and contact.  

It seems like printing has gotten to a point with the big three companies where the output is very very good across the line and it's probably futile to look for comparisons where one printer has clearly superior or inferior print quality consistently.  It sounds like they all have subtle relative strengths and probably each do better on some media than others.   (I'm printing mostly on Epson Luster, Epson  
EF, Harman Gloss FB, Crane Museo Rag.) Maybe the print quality or gloss differential is slightly better or worse on some papers.  

I'm sure I've wasted too much time thinking about this but it's a significant purchase and I just want to make sure I've thought it through.    I guess my leaning towards Epson is because it is what I have been using and getting good results with although it's hard not to have a love/hate relationship with some of the epson printers and the black ink switching.  Then I'm also basing the decision on things unrelated to print quality:  eg ease of paper feeding, large ink tanks, and finally-- MK/PK switching etc.  

thanks,

Dan