Canon IPF 5000 vs Epson 7890.

[scrinch]

I am presently using a Canon IPF 5000 and am thinking of moving to a Epson 7890.  I am a pro but sell at art/craft shows and must admit most of my income comes from smaller prints,  but I also do canvas gallery wraps so like the idea of the larger image size.

I am not much on technical stuff so am wondering peoples take on whether there will be any significant savings in ink cost between the Canon 130ml carts vs. the 300ml carts for the Epson.

Also what is the opinion about print quality between the two?  Canon uses a 12 colors and blacks vs the Epson 9 carts.  Would I be going backward in color gamut?

Bottom line.... looking for opinions about whether the upgrade is worth $2500.  (figuring the rebate)

[Shark_II]

Your Canon ipf5000 is old technology now, and had its share of problems.  It started shipping in May of 2006.  Newer Canon large format printers have advanced worlds beyond the 5000.

Also, if you like the output of the 5000, why are you not considering the larger (and newer) Canon models?  They are comparatively inexpensive to both purchase and run and have great output.  And if ink costs are your prime consideration, read these forums to get an idea of how much ink is wasted with each brand in clog cleaning.  That will also be an eye-opener (and the reason I stopped using Epson by the way).

Tom

[mstevensphoto]

I hate getting answers outside of the question I asked, but I feel compelled to give you one. I've just upgraded to the newest line of Canon's (8300 for me) and it's brilliant. Here are my reasons for recommending one of the new ipf's
1. the customer support from canon is fabulous. I had a software issue and they sent a tech to my office to fix it. absolutely thrilled with the hands-on and friendly support.
2. I believe you'll be seeing a significant rebate on the canon 6300 here in april/may
3. I'm at altitude and since switching to canon clogs and paper waste are a thing of the past
4. in looking closely at both lines the results are really the same at the hands of any pro. But the sales and support staff made the decision easy
5. In looking at all of the options at the Imaging USA tradeshow I was significantly impressed by the output of any of the newest model printers.
6. unless you're running a large commercial operation it's my belief that your ink cost/waste should be minimal in the face of your sale prices. Charge appropriately for your work and the cost of goods takes care of itself. I often have to stop myself from spending 9 hours searching for a $7 savings when I could just go work for 9 hours and make substantially more. waste not want not and all, but your ink cost should really be a part of your pricing scheme.

Mark

[johnATshadesofpaper]

Hey Scrinch check your Private Messages

[Bill Koenig]

If you want to print on canvas, go with a 44 inch printer, 24" just isn't big enough for canvas after you leave 3" per side for stretching.

[johnATshadesofpaper]

scrinch check your messages for $500 savings

[Sven W]

I thought this was a forum for users, helping each other. Not a marketplace for selling printers.

/Sven

[johnATshadesofpaper]

I am sorry Sven, Iam new to the forum and I didnt mean to ruin the forum, i will not post any more things like that

[nemophoto]

The choice should really be the iPF6300 vs. the 7890.

My clear choice is Canon. I used Epson printers for about 15 years from the early, humongous 3000. A couple years ago I bought the iPF6100 and have never looked back at the Epson large format printers.

[Robcat]

I know the size match is the 6300, but for a few $$ more you can go to the 8300 and 44". As noted, with a 24" roll and leaving minimum 2" for the gallery wrap on either side, you have a 20" image max. Smaller if you're using 1 1/2 or 2" stretchers. I got the 8300 last fall and have been completely happy with the IQ and operation. There have been many posts on this forum by people who said they went with a 24" and wished they had bigger, but none by people who got a 44" and said they were sorry they spent the money and would've been just as happy with smaller.

[narikin]

I have both Canon and Epson wide formats.  The Canons are not as well made as Epson (lots of plastic) and I really have the feeling they wont last as long term, but its just a feeling, who knows, it may well out live the Epson.

1: Canons do not clog. Epson's do. This is the main reason why I own an 8300 as well as my Epson's.
2: Canon has less mature software than Epson, but are catching up fast and have some features Epson lack.
3: Epson has far wider user base which means ink carts can be found on eBay, and save a lot of $.
4: More ink channels (12vs 8 or whatever) means more cost when it comes to buying carts, and almost no real world gamut difference.
5: Canon support good, but I've had some frustrating issue still awaiting resolution
6: Epson support good, but I've had some frustrating issue still awaiting resolution...
7: Both make superb prints hard to tell apart, once machines are properly adjusted
8: Epson has straight paper path better for thick awkward materials, but... its of no use to me personally.
9: Canon media seems a little cheaper than Epson for same thing.
10: Canons do not clog.

[Gemmtech]

Canons do clog, but you only find out when you have to replace a head.

[Shark_II]

Canons do clog, but you only find out when you have to replace a head.

True, but even considering the price of a new head, Canons still save a LOT of money over the life of the printer.  You save in ink costs from day one.  You also save a tremendous amount of time not worrying about or clearing clogs, which is more valuable yet.  You also save in materials... no tossing out prints or making re-prints when you find banding caused by clogs.

And Epson heads also need replacing when they wear out.  Which necessitates an expensive service call on top of a head purchase instead of just opening the top and dropping in a new user-replaceable head.

Tom

[scrinch]

Thanks to all for the input.  It seems that Canon came in the favorite for most in these opinions.  But having considered all things, especially price I have decided to go with the Epson.  The price I am getting on the 7890 shaves a full 30% off the price that I could find the Canon 6300 for.  I can't even physically fit a 8300 in my studio so that was out of the question as well as the price. 

. 

[narikin]

Canons do clog, but you only find out when you have to replace a head.

True and not true:

From the point of view of the user making a print, Canon Heads effectively do not clog.

You do not loose prints and expensive paper or waste ink. or get frustrated, or need to do nozzle checks. They simply make the print, without lines or dropped nozzles. end of story.

Yes, they eventually need a new head, which is about as difficult as replacing an ink cart.
Yes, those heads cost $, but I lost far more $ on wasted Hahnemuhle/Canson paper with clogged Epsons, let alone time, ink, frustration, than 10 Canons head would ever cost.

[narikin]

Thanks to all for the input.  It seems that Canon came in the favorite for most in these opinions.  But having considered all things, especially price I have decided to go with the Epson.  The price I am getting on the 7890 shaves a full 30% off the price that I could find the Canon 6300 for.  I can't even physically fit a 8300 in my studio so that was out of the question as well as the price.

surprised - the Canons are usually much cheaper. did you factor in the extra inks canon gives you and their much larger starter carts? My 8300 cost $1800, after rebates etc, and that included ~$2000 full set 300ml ink carts, at best discounted price. Put another way: they paid me $200 to take a printer, if I bought a 300ml set of inks.

anyway, if you have ordered already - best of luck. The Epson's are great machines, apart from the clogging.

[scrinch]

Man, that is a deal!  A $5995 printer for $1800 with $2000.00 worth of ink. I have already ordered the 7890, but where do you get a deal like that?  (for future reference)  I got the 7890 shipped to my door for $1995 figuring in the rebate and I though I had done well !!

Maybe Canon has changed from the IPF 5000.  It never clogged I will admit, but it ran through LOTS of ink on startup and doing maintenance cleanings. I admit I did not use it often as I only ran Pano's on it and as I mentioned the majority of my sales are in smaller prints.  I have used Epson 1280's and 1400 for years for smaller prints and they do periodically clog but not often when they are used everyday for hours on end .

[ftbt]

A $5995 printer for $1800 with $2000.00 worth of ink.

My hunch is that those deals are pretty much over. I bought my 8300 in November (on Black Friday) from LexJet in Florida. The net cost to me with the rebate was about $2,300.00 (plus they threw in a free iPad). However, Canon was back-ordered on them, I didn't actually get the printer until January! Just for fun, I checked with LexJet and they are currently offering the printer for $3299.00 + $10.00 for delivery. Excellent printer, by the way ... you just need a lot of room for it.

[Shark_II]

Maybe Canon has changed from the IPF 5000.  

Are you serious?

The ipf5000 was introduced in 2006 [edited incorrect date of 1996].  Please tell me what HASN'T changed since then?  The x000 printers were replaced with the x100 printers, that were replaced with the x300 series, and now the x300 series are getting to the point where they will be replaced.  The inkset has gone through different iterations too.

In computer terms that means you would still be using two cans with a string stretched between for communicating and asking if anyone has invented the telephone yet.

Tom

[Pete Berry]

Are you serious?

The ipf5000 was introduced in 1996.  Please tell me what HASN'T changed since then?  The x000 printers were replaced with the x100 printers, that were replaced with the x300 series, and now the x300 series are getting to the point where they will be replaced.  The inkset has gone through different iterations too.

In computer terms that means you would still be using two cans with a string stretched between for communicating and asking if anyone has invented the telephone yet.

Tom

That would be 2006, Tom! I've had my 5000 going on four years, with head failures near the end of the first year replaced under warranty with the much better PF-03's, and I upgraded to the four x100 series grayscale inks at the same time. Figure a mile or more of roll paper has gone through, and countless boxes of cut sheet with nary a whimper since.

Canon's support has been exemplary, BTW, with a single call to a knowledgable service rep leading to overnight head replacement mailings, and a rare time or two with defective cart chips - new ones overnighted also.

And when Old Faithful is ready for that long ice-floe ride to printer Valhalla, a 6300 (or 8300?!) will replace it.

Pete