Epson x880 vs. x890 vs. x900

[PeterSibbald]

Rather than getting the hard sell from a sales person, I've been trying to do general product research on my own to understand the upgrade changes through the 9000 series in view of purchase on a budget. I'm finding it rather confusing. My production would be relatively low volume so speed is less of an issue that it would be for a production house. What else would I be sacrificing if I went with one of the older models? (BTW, as a frame of reference, currently I have a 3880.)

[langier]

This may be TMI, but here goes....

The x600, 4000, and 3800 printers were the first printers to use the Ulktrachrome inkset. The previous printers used pigments or dyes. These were also designed for dyes, but most didn't use them. The gamut range was closer to the dye prints, and much better than the original pigments from the P2000, 5000, and x500 printers they replaced.

The x800 machines from about 2005 were the Ultrachrome K3 inksets. This gave you PK or MK with LK and LLK. To go from Photo to Matt ink requires time and lots of ink. For b&w, these printers set the standard, IMO.

The x880 machines that replaced these (same inks as your 3880) have the Vivid Magenta and Vivid Light Magenta change for better stability and color and the head was improved to create less clogging. Pretty much the same printer as the previous in look.

I believe the inksets with the exception of the VM and VLM are the same between the these printers and both in 110ml and 220ml.

In each of these and back to at least the 4000, 7600, 9600 all share the same cutting blade, great for paper, not for canvas.

The x890 has pretty much the same inkset as the previous, but new carts in the HDR series, 150ml, 350ml and 700ml. The inkset seems to be the same at the x900 except that the x900 series adds Orange and Green to the mix for expanded color gamut.

Both the x890 and x900 printers have both PK and MK installed and switch dumping a couple of ml of ink in the swap like your 3880.

Both also have the thick-media (canvas) rotary cutter and the spectrometer can be added for profiling, generally used in prepress, 360 nozzle head (x800 & x880 has 180 nozzles), and a spindleless paper system.

I have and use a 7600, 9800 and now 9900. Each is a step-up from the previous. The 7600 is a little workhorse and though slow, has pretty good image quality. The 9800 is double the speed and for b&w is a step up overall. The 9900 is the best of the three. About twice as fast as the 9800, a rotary cutter for canvas, no more spindles, better info on the display, etc.

The 7600 took a little time to set-up and get going. The 9800 was a little easier, the 9900 was the easiest printer of the three for getting connected to my Mac network.

Since the x800 series, each printer comes with a stand and Ethernet standard. These were options before.

On the other hand, the 7600 shared the same ink carts as my 4000. If I needed a cart in a hurry, I just swapped them. Both were pretty easy to set up since they were relatively lightweight and compact. The 4000 had its own channel for MK and no switching between the two. When Epson replace the 4000 with the 4800 and the 4880, no more cart swapping between the 7800/9800 and the 7880/9880 since the larger printers pressurize the carts to keep the ink flowing.

The 9800 was, of course larger and heavier to set up. The behemoth is the 9900. It's longer, taller and a lot heavier than my 9800. It was like taking a coffin down the stairs and took 4 people. The 9800 was manageable with two.

The info on the 9900 tells you to the 1/10th ml the ink consumption per print. This is one hellua printer!

All these printers do take one part in common, the ink waste tank remains the same.

[Tariq]

This may be TMI, but here goes....

The x600, 4000, and 3800 printers were the first printers to use the Ulktrachrome inkset. The previous printers used pigments or dyes. These were also designed for dyes, but most didn't use them. The gamut range was closer to the dye prints, and much better than the original pigments from the P2000, 5000, and x500 printers they replaced.

The x800 machines from about 2005 were the Ultrachrome K3 inksets. This gave you PK or MK with LK and LLK. To go from Photo to Matt ink requires time and lots of ink. For b&w, these printers set the standard, IMO.

The x880 machines that replaced these (same inks as your 3880) have the Vivid Magenta and Vivid Light Magenta change for better stability and color and the head was improved to create less clogging. Pretty much the same printer as the previous in look.

I believe the inksets with the exception of the VM and VLM are the same between the these printers and both in 110ml and 220ml.

In each of these and back to at least the 4000, 7600, 9600 all share the same cutting blade, great for paper, not for canvas.

The x890 has pretty much the same inkset as the previous, but new carts in the HDR series, 150ml, 350ml and 700ml. The inkset seems to be the same at the x900 except that the x900 series adds Orange and Green to the mix for expanded color gamut.

Both the x890 and x900 printers have both PK and MK installed and switch dumping a couple of ml of ink in the swap like your 3880.

Both also have the thick-media (canvas) rotary cutter and the spectrometer can be added for profiling, generally used in prepress, 360 nozzle head (x800 & x880 has 180 nozzles), and a spindleless paper system.

I have and use a 7600, 9800 and now 9900. Each is a step-up from the previous. The 7600 is a little workhorse and though slow, has pretty good image quality. The 9800 is double the speed and for b&w is a step up overall. The 9900 is the best of the three. About twice as fast as the 9800, a rotary cutter for canvas, no more spindles, better info on the display, etc.

The 7600 took a little time to set-up and get going. The 9800 was a little easier, the 9900 was the easiest printer of the three for getting connected to my Mac network.

Since the x800 series, each printer comes with a stand and Ethernet standard. These were options before.

On the other hand, the 7600 shared the same ink carts as my 4000. If I needed a cart in a hurry, I just swapped them. Both were pretty easy to set up since they were relatively lightweight and compact. The 4000 had its own channel for MK and no switching between the two. When Epson replace the 4000 with the 4800 and the 4880, no more cart swapping between the 7800/9800 and the 7880/9880 since the larger printers pressurize the carts to keep the ink flowing.

The 9800 was, of course larger and heavier to set up. The behemoth is the 9900. It's longer, taller and a lot heavier than my 9800. It was like taking a coffin down the stairs and took 4 people. The 9800 was manageable with two.

The info on the 9900 tells you to the 1/10th ml the ink consumption per print. This is one hellua printer!

All these printers do take one part in common, the ink waste tank remains the same.

I think you have things a bit mixed up, at least in the beginning.  The x600 series were the first printers to use the Ultrachrome inks, along with the 4000.  The 3800, and all other x800 models, came later and introduced the next generation "K3" Ultrachrome pigment inks, then came the x880 series adding Vivid Magenta and finally the x900 series with Ultrachrome HDR adding orange and green.  The confusing model might be the also current x890 series which had the same inks as the x880 series but used in the newer x900 chassis.  Pigments were used earlier then this by Epson in an earlier series but they were not called "ultrachrome" and, while having great archival qualities, were severly lacking in aspects such as gamut and black density as compared to the later Ultrachome inks.  

If the original poster has a 3880, I would think anything below the x800 series would noticeably sacrifice color gamut and perhaps smoothness of tone due to the older screening technologies in those models - at least on paper.  In practical use, I have extensively used the 9600 and also the 9800.  There is a difference but depending on what material you print on, it may not be as much as one might think.  Matte black on watercolor papers for instance does not show a huge difference in favor of the x800 series.  Where you gain is with the papers that use photo black (glossy, satin, luster, fiber gloss).  On these, there is much less - and very noticeably so - bronzing and color change under different lighting conditions.  So, further along in time and printer model you go, the benefit is more color gamut, less bronzing, less metermarism and deeper blacks on papers that use photo black.

[PeterSibbald]

      Thanks Larry and Tariq,

      Allow me to try to check my understanding by attempting to summarize:

      If we take as a baseline for comparison, the x880 series (which I have some familiarity with from my 3880):

   

• all are networkable, correct?
• all have vacuum plattens? (unlike 3880 with which I'm constantly battling headstrikes?)
• x890 gains me more speed (approx double?) and some hardware improvements (eg. better cutter, better and more display info, better & more efficient black ink switching, less clogging, optional spectrometer, spindlessness)
• x890 gets me a slight gamut improvement because although it keeps same colours of ink, those inks are upgraded from Ultachrome K3 to HDR
• x900 has same hardware as x890 but 2 addiional HDR inks for yet wider gamut still
• they are all monsters to transport ... are they all about the same size and weight?

Is there a qualitative difference between a fine art print produced with 180 nozzle head versus 360 nozzle head or is that just the technology that allows for a spead increase?

Is the 360 nozzle head any less prone to clogging?

Other than the length of the roll, is there a Epson driver induced limit on the length of paper that can be printed without having a special RIP?

Not currently having a roll paper machine, what is the benefit of spindlessness?

Assuming other variables are stabilized, is there any significant improvement of longevity from the Ultrachrome K3 to HDR pigments?

Is it insanity to be contemplating buying one of these 9xxx series monsters to primarily to print one's own work (as opposed to a production house printing for others)... and will I constantly be throwing out expired ink carts?
     

[Alan Goldhammer]

     
Assuming other variables are stabilized, is there any significant improvement of longevity from the Ultrachrome K3 to HDR pigments?

Not that any current testing demonstrates.  Longevity is equal and you get some marginal improvement in color gamut which may or may not be visible.

Is it insanity to be contemplating buying one of these 9xxx series monsters to primarily to print one's own work (as opposed to a production house printing for others)... and will I constantly be throwing out expired ink carts?
     

You have a 3880.  What do you expect your largest print size to be?  What do you expect your yearly print quantity to be?  I have a 3880 and it meets all my needs in terms of printing.  I only need to take care with certain papers where there is curl upon storage to make sure it is decurled prior to printing.  This avoids head strikes.  The 24 and 48 inch printers are huge.  I have a friend with a 7900 who will print large for me if the need arises but you don't appreciate the size of these until you see one!  The ink containers are much larger than the 3880 so you may encounter stability issues if you only print modestly.  I think you need to answer the questions I posed before making a decision.

[NigelC]

The ink containers are much larger than the 3880 so you may encounter stability issues if you only print modestly.  I think you need to answer the questions I posed before making a decision.

Excuse me for intruding on your discussion, but due to fairly erratic use, some cartridges on my 3800 have not been changed since purchase in April 2008 (apart from taking them out and shaking occasionally. I cannot see any adverse effects from this.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Excuse me for intruding on your discussion, but due to fairly erratic use, some cartridges on my 3800 have not been changed since purchase in April 2008 (apart from taking them out and shaking occasionally. I cannot see any adverse effects from this.

I didn't mean to imply that this was a certainty since I used the word "may".  I've had some cartridges in my 3880 for a year now with no problems. 

[Tariq]

     Thanks Larry and Tariq,

      Allow me to try to check my understanding by attempting to summarize:

      If we take as a baseline for comparison, the x880 series (which I have some familiarity with from my 3880):

  

• all are networkable, correct?
• all have vacuum plattens? (unlike 3880 with which I'm constantly battling headstrikes?)
• x890 gains me more speed (approx double?) and some hardware improvements (eg. better cutter, better and more display info, better & more efficient black ink switching, less clogging, optional spectrometer, spindlessness)
• x890 gets me a slight gamut improvement because although it keeps same colours of ink, those inks are upgraded from Ultachrome K3 to HDR
• x900 has same hardware as x890 but 2 addiional HDR inks for yet wider gamut still
• they are all monsters to transport ... are they all about the same size and weight?

Is there a qualitative difference between a fine art print produced with 180 nozzle head versus 360 nozzle head or is that just the technology that allows for a spead increase?

Is the 360 nozzle head any less prone to clogging?

Other than the length of the roll, is there a Epson driver induced limit on the length of paper that can be printed without having a special RIP?

Not currently having a roll paper machine, what is the benefit of spindlessness?

Assuming other variables are stabilized, is there any significant improvement of longevity from the Ultrachrome K3 to HDR pigments?

Is it insanity to be contemplating buying one of these 9xxx series monsters to primarily to print one's own work (as opposed to a production house printing for others)... and will I constantly be throwing out expired ink carts?
      

Not sure I can answer all these questions as well as others but here are a few points (to the best of my knowledge).

Even the earlier x600 24" and 44" printers have the vacuum platens so you will get that with all the printers that are this size.

I have not used the larger x880 printers myself but Epson claimed head clogging was dramatically reduced due to ink repelling technology used on the heads from this series forward.

Screening technology improvements even with the x880 series and 160 nozzle head made a difference.  I don't know if later heads with more nozzles resulted in noticeably better prints or just a speed increase.

I felt like the build quality of the 9800 was not up to that of the earlier 9600.  Everything seemed cheapened and less robust with the 9800.  The current x900 and the x890 series both use a new chassis that appears much more robust but I have not used it myself.

I believe the length limit might depend on which driver your using, Mac or Windows.  With my 9600, I was limited to something around 80-90 inches so always used a rip when I needed to print longer.

Just a thought, but if your not going to be using the printer that often, you might consider the Canon's.  The Epson's really like to be used often or you are almost guaranteed to run into clogging issues.  Not only are they half the cost of the Epson's but clogged print heads will not slow you down, nor will the clogs result in wasted ink or paper.  Their current pigments also have a higher archival rating then the Epsons.  At this point, they are all so good though.

[Wayne Fox]

     

• x890 gains me more speed (approx double?) and some hardware improvements (eg. better cutter, better and more display info, better & more efficient black ink switching, less clogging, optional spectrometer, spindlessness)
• x890 gets me a slight gamut improvement because although it keeps same colours of ink, those inks are upgraded from Ultachrome K3 to HDR

In the 78/9890 the spindle-less and motorized feeding system are extremely nice features. Black ink switching is a big deal, round trip in the 78/9880 cost in the $50+ range and takes some time.  The new chassis is a dream to use vs the old ones.  You can use 150ml ink cartridges if your production is low. I recommend running the next largest size cartridges in the LK and perhaps LLK channels because they are the most used inks by far.  This in fact may save some money over the 78/9880, I haven't run the numbers on per ml ink cost.

As far as your second statement, the HDR inkset really amounts to orange and green.  for all other colors, all of the epson printers used the same ink - K3 +Vivid Magenta.  In fact, part numbers for the 78/9890 printers and 79/9900 printers for ink are all identical. So either epson has two inksets they are calling the same thing or the slightly improved gamut is the result of improved screening and accuracy of the head ... which is the most likely answer.

[langier]

Tariq I think clarified my complicated original answer. Indeed there were pigment printers before the x600 Ultrachrome printers, great stability (even more than Ultrachrome), but lousy gamut. Some images looked great, others not so good.

Dye prints were what everybody liked for brilliance until they started fading... I believe that's when Epson brought us the original Ultrachrome pigment inksets. Better stability than the dyes, not quite as good as the original pigments and not quite as large of gamut as the dyes, but close enough. Today, IMO, the K3 and HDR sets seem to have even a larger gamut than the dye printers and in many cases, even wider than Lightjet on Fuji Crystal Archive paper without chemicals though it's hard to beat that photo quality on certain images.

Of my 5 Epson printers, 2200 to 9900, the only one with any type of nozzle clogging regularly seems to be the 4000. It sometimes will do it overnight after using, sometimes not for a few weeks, sometimes it takes 3-4 cleaning cycles. I get a clog sometimes on the 9800 but not quite as often.

The spindleless paper system on the 9900 is super, no hitting the light fixtures when I'm wrestling 44 inch paper during loading.

I only do occasional big jobs and the next three-four projects will quality (several hundred canvas prints). However, back in the good-ol'-days, even an 11x17 ribbon CMYK printer ran $25K and the cost per print was out of this world. Same with the SuperMac dye sub state-of-the-art printer a few years later at $17K. Then it was the $50K Iris...

Today, for just a few K, you get a printer generations beyond in quality with a print that will last for decades, if not over a century, that can print on any paper... A luxury? Yes, but having this capability in-house adds to my craft, much like having my darkroom did years ago. If you have the room, simple by the 9900 and be done with it. I started with a 4000 wanted larger and went to the 7600 then needed to do canvas and upgraded once again. IMO and for what I do, having one printer for sheets (4000) and another for larger and canvas seems a good way to go.

As to needing to pull "out of date" carts, I'm using one cart in my Epson 4000 dated 2007 (MK). However, that's not one of the channels that ever seems to clog like some of the channels with 2011 and 2012 dated inks. The thing you need to do after any Epson sits for a few weeks is to pull the cart and gently shake it.

On the 2200 and 9800, clogs are not too regular, even after sitting for weeks when I've been on the road. I've only had the 9900 a couple of weeks and I don't have enough hands-on to known anything about clogging with it.

[mikev1]

I have a friend with a 7900 who will print large for me if the need arises but you don't appreciate the size of these until you see one! 

It's funny the 7900 looks so small to me now.  I have an Epson 9900 and a Canon ipf8300.  Though when I got an HP B9180 I thought that thing was gigantic, now it looks like a paperweight.

To the OP I'd give some serious consideration to the Epson clogging problems.  I print almost daily on the 9900 and clogs are pretty much a fact of life in my world.  Looking at my print log, yesterday was almost a full 3.5 hours  of actual print time, clog only at the start of the day but I routinely get clogs during the course of the day at other times.  I just checked and yes there are clogs again.

I'll also add that I've had horrible service from Epson.  I couple of times now I've been promised a call back and never received one.  There definition of overnighting me a new ink cartridge was about 3 weeks.  I haven't had a chance yet to test out Canon's customer service.

Better yet call the guys at Shades of Paper and ask their opinion.  They might not want to post their customer experiences with reliabilty/service etc here but I bet they will be willing to speak to you over the phone.

[Sven Bernert]

On the 2200 and 9800, clogs are not too regular, even after sitting for weeks when I've been on the road.

Larry, with all the newer printers around, what are your reasons to still operate your 2200 on a regular basis?

I'd never dig my old 2100 out of the basement (due to somewhat limited gamut and high ink cost). But maybe there are valid reasons for doing so. Just curious.

This is bit off topic, sorry to the TO.

Thanks,
Sven

[langier]

The 2200 simply works and my partner has taken it over. She's a technophobe when it comes to computers and after 20 years on a Mac, still won't play with it to figure it out and has problems with taking the point-and-click concept and realizing that the action is the same in multiple programs. Ink is still available at the local Staples, though expensive.

It's been fixed twice and before the last time, was simply going to have her print through the network to my 4000 or simply get a 38x0 epson to replace it.

It's a Luddite approach. I keep pulling further away in tech and suggesting that she upgrade to something less expensive and faster to print, but it's in one ear and out the other, unfortunately. At least I don't have to feed that printer!

I have a few other friends that are still using the 2200. One I've even offered to give them a good price on my 7600 but in their thinking, even as professional photographers of many, many years, think the price on a cart is way too much even though they pay to the nose for the 2200 carts. They can't grasp the fact that the cost per mL on the ink is the real killer of any of these printers and I guess don't realize that the ink even on the x600 and 4000 printers is 40% to 60% less. When you factor in cut sheets vs. cut, the cost per sf is 50% or less than the older printers.

Oh, well, when the ink can't be purchased any more, maybe they'll get it!

[PeterSibbald]

Thank you all for your responses to my original post.