Ipf 8300 or epson 9890?

[Jozef Zajaz]

Hi!

Im going to buy one of theese. What is all the advantages and disadvantages? Ink, paper, quality and so on?

Most ppl here in sweden say epson is the best and canon machines is shit?

The 9890 will cost me about 1000-1500 more than the canon. (prices are high here in sweden.)

[Mark D Segal]

Hi!

Im going to buy one of theese. What is all the advantages and disadvantages? Ink, paper, quality and so on?

Most ppl here in sweden say epson is the best and canon machines is shit?

The 9890 will cost me about 1000-1500 more than the canon. (prices are high here in sweden.)

If you are going in for high end equipment like that, do a lot of research on the internet, by reading serious review articles and discussions that already exist for both printers, and deal with a retailer who has these machines set-up, can show you how they work and what they produce, even with your own image files. Don't take seriously people saying a Canon ipf8300 is "shit". Who are these people and what do they really know about it? Have they worked with this printer to come to such a drastic opinion? I personally use an Epson 4900, but I've made profiles for the Canon ipf6300, and seen sample results from it, (its the smaller brother to the ipf8300) and frankly you can hardly tell the difference in print quality. Most of these high-end printers produce excellent output. What matters more is the system and features you prefer, and you only learn that by doing a fair amount of your own reading and hands-on research.

[Light Seeker]

Mark is right. There is a lot of good information on this forum, and elsewhere on the web. A good place to start is with an article that I found very useful when faced with the same decision late last year. . .

http://www.on-sight.com/2010/04/25/canon-x300-printer-review/

Terry.

[bill t.]

Have been extremely pleased with the iPF8300.  It's a huge improvement over the old 9880.  Gamut hugely better, and the overall sharpness of prints on canvas is a revelation.

Superficially one gets the impression of a lot of plastic when looking at the 8300, and I think this leads to a kind of negative meme-scape on the net.

However, it is plastic very well used and the peeks I have taken at the overall mechanism suggest it will be extremely durable over the long haul.  It's metal where metal counts, and the bearing schemes and drive mechanisms are first rate.  I've worked on the designs of many industrial machines, and I'm impressed by this one.  The guys who designed it understood the process of making prints and it shows.

I've been driving it hard over the last few weeks and it hasn't given me a single problem or a single bad print.  Hasn't cost me any time for nozzle issues.  No software issues, no scrapes, and by some miracle I have not had a single dust spot!  I'm even liking the weird low-slung roll position and feed scheme, so nice not to have to lift those 44" rolls up high!

My only legitimate complaint is it finishes prints too fast to take a decent coffee break or a post a decent article on LuLa!  Oops, next print...

[abiggs]

They are both great printers, but I would definitely get the 8300 over the 9890. The 8300's Epson counterpart would more likely be the 9900, not the 9890. I am a happy 8300 (and 9900) user, and I prefer to use the Canon for most print jobs.

[Mark D Segal]

They are both great printers, but I would definitely get the 8300 over the 9890. The 8300's Epson counterpart would more likely be the 9900, not the 9890. I am a happy 8300 (and 9900) user, and I prefer to use the Canon for most print jobs.

Andy, this is interesting. What key factors drive your preference for the 8300?

[abiggs]

A few come to mind:

* wake up time on the 9900 is much longer

* I don't like switching black inks, even though the 9900 does it electronically. It takes time and uses some ink. Epson should have another print head after all of these years.

* I have had some issues with bad ink cartridges from Epson (has happened more than 6 times) and I stress out every time I have to put a new ink cart inside, which usually ends up with a call to Epson to get a replacement. 6 times out of 15 or so changes is unacceptable.

* I really like the Canon Photoshop plugin.

I do like the 9900 for cut sheets over the 8300, and that is what sways me to use my 9900 in that circumstance.

[Mark D Segal]

A few come to mind:

* wake up time on the 9900 is much longer

* I don't like switching black inks, even though the 9900 does it electronically. It takes time and uses some ink. Epson should have another print head after all of these years.

* I have had some issues with bad ink cartridges from Epson (has happened more than 6 times) and I stress out every time I have to put a new ink cart inside, which usually ends up with a call to Epson to get a replacement. 6 times out of 15 or so changes is unacceptable.

* I really like the Canon Photoshop plugin.

I do like the 9900 for cut sheets over the 8300, and that is what sways me to use my 9900 in that circumstance.

These are the kinds of things prospective customers need to know about; beyond print quality is general serviceability and convenience. Your experience with the cartridges is kind of shocking. Never heard of such a high failure rate before. How do you find your 9900 on noise when it's not printing and not sleeping, but in ready mode? And what about nozzle clogs?

[SignBoy]

I have found more complains with the Epson about bad cartridges, and clogging the head. Haven't found any problem with the ipf8300 about bad cartridges and clogging heads.
Thanks,

Greg

[abiggs]

I haven't had any complaints regarding the sound of the 9900 at all. It's a nice and quiet machine by my standards. Nozzle auto cleaning happens more often than I would prefer, and I guess that is another reason why I prefer to go towards the 8300. There was a period of time when I still had my Canon iFP8100 and I used the 9900 most of the time over a few month period. I still had quite a few nozzle cleanings, which takes a while.

If I printed on larger cut sheets most of the time, I am sure that I would prefer the 9900.

[Jozef Zajaz]

A few come to mind:

* wake up time on the 9900 is much longer

* I don't like switching black inks, even though the 9900 does it electronically. It takes time and uses some ink. Epson should have another print head after all of these years.

* I have had some issues with bad ink cartridges from Epson (has happened more than 6 times) and I stress out every time I have to put a new ink cart inside, which usually ends up with a call to Epson to get a replacement. 6 times out of 15 or so changes is unacceptable.

* I really like the Canon Photoshop plugin.

I do like the 9900 for cut sheets over the 8300, and that is what sways me to use my 9900 in that circumstance.

Thank you. Why do you prefer the 9900 for cut sheets over the 8300?

[abiggs]

The 9900 has a great way of loading cut sheets: just drop it into place and the printer does the rest. All other wide format printers (44" models) you have to line up this line with that line, move a bar, wait a minute for the printer to check for skew errors, etc etc. The Epson is a load it-and-go setup, which is very very easy.

[Jozef Zajaz]

The 9900 has a great way of loading cut sheets: just drop it into place and the printer does the rest. All other wide format printers (44" models) you have to line up this line with that line, move a bar, wait a minute for the printer to check for skew errors, etc etc. The Epson is a load it-and-go setup, which is very very easy.

Okej thats not good, haha i was planning to use both roll paper and sheets. But wonder if its worth the 1500 diffrence though.

Is the 9890 set up in the same way?

[Light Seeker]

Okej thats not good, haha i was planning to use both roll paper and sheets.

Jozef, I have an 8300 and for perspective, it is not difficult to load and print on cut sheets. I came from an Epson 3800, which is a great cut sheet printer. I would say that loading my 44" Canon is no more difficult than loading a sheet of paper in the rear manual feed of my 3800. Actually, it's probably easier. However, it's not quite as easy as loading paper in the regular 3800 top feeder.

Something you should research is minimum margins and minimum paper size. When you print from a roll in the Canon 8300 the minimum margins for most media is 0.20" on all sides. With cut sheets it's 0.20" on three sides and 0.91 on the trailing edge. This means you can't quite print an 8x10 on an 8.5x11 sheet. So, I buy rolls make sure my the left-overs are large enough to facilitate my standard sizes. The smallest side a cut sheet can have is 8" or 8.5" (can't remember which). You should look into any restrictions Epson may have in this regard.

Here are the things I most appreciate about my 8300. . . .

• In almost 4 months I have yet to have a clog.
• The prints are sharp and colourful, and I've had very positive customer feedback.
• Matte and gloss black are always available (no ink swap needed).
• I really like the Canon Photoshop plug-in, and the control it gives me.
• You can define and name custom media types. These allow you to control ink loading. The names automatically appear on both the printer menu when you load paper and on your computer. Very powerful.
• When you set up a media type for roll media, such as canvas, the printer will print a test pattern to determine if length compensation is needed. On a 20" canvas print without compensation I'm 1/8" short. With the compensation, which is embedded in the custom media type, my 20" prints comes out exactly 20". On my 3800 I had to compensate when I prepared my canvas files for print.
• The printer automatically agitates the inks periodically to keep the pigment from settling.
• You can run a calibration routine to align the printer with a set of factory specs. It prints a pattern, reads the pattern and then calibrates the printer. It's very nice to have a built-in reference point you can align to as things drift over time.
• The built-in cutter works great, even on canvas.

Terry.

[Mark D Segal]

Speaking of clogs, one thing that should be kept in mind is that Canon printers also experience nozzle clogs, but they are handled differently. The Canon heads have many more nozzles than they need to use, so as they clog the printing process uses other open ones, until it reaches a point when you need to change the print head. They cost hundreds of dollars. When that happens would depend on usage and other factors. The Epson design philosophy is different. For Epson the head is not considered a consumable, there are no spare nozzles, so when clogs occur you clean them. I have no idea which approach ends-up being more economic in respect of nozzle clog management, but it's important to know that both brands have clogs, dealt with in different ways.

[Jozef Zajaz]

Jozef, I have an 8300 and for perspective, it is not difficult to load and print on cut sheets. I came from an Epson 3800, which is a great cut sheet printer. I would say that loading my 44" Canon is no more difficult than loading a sheet of paper in the rear manual feed of my 3800. Actually, it's probably easier. However, it's not quite as easy as loading paper in the regular 3800 top feeder.

Something you should research is minimum margins and minimum paper size. When you print from a roll in the Canon 8300 the minimum margins for most media is 0.20" on all sides. With cut sheets it's 0.20" on three sides and 0.91 on the trailing edge. This means you can't quite print an 8x10 on an 8.5x11 sheet. So, I buy rolls make sure my the left-overs are large enough to facilitate my standard sizes. The smallest side a cut sheet can have is 8" or 8.5" (can't remember which). You should look into any restrictions Epson may have in this regard.

Here are the things I most appreciate about my 8300. . . .

• In almost 4 months I have yet to have a clog.
• The prints are sharp and colourful, and I've had very positive customer feedback.
• Matte and gloss black are always available (no ink swap needed).
• I really like the Canon Photoshop plug-in, and the control it gives me.
• You can define and name custom media types. These allow you to control ink loading. The names automatically appear on both the printer menu when you load paper and on your computer. Very powerful.
• When you set up a media type for roll media, such as canvas, the printer will print a test pattern to determine if length compensation is needed. On a 20" canvas print without compensation I'm 1/8" short. With the compensation, which is embedded in the custom media type, my 20" prints comes out exactly 20". On my 3800 I had to compensate when I prepared my canvas files for print.
• The printer automatically agitates the inks periodically to keep the pigment from settling.
• You can run a calibration routine to align the printer with a set of factory specs. It prints a pattern, reads the pattern and then calibrates the printer. It's very nice to have a built-in reference point you can align to as things drift over time.
• The built-in cutter works great, even on canvas.

Terry.

Great thank you. I will probably not print on cut sheets that small though.

How big does it bring borderless?

[Shark_II]

"Clogs" that cost me nothing in wasted paper, wasted ink or (much more importantly) wasted time are not "clogs" in my opinion.

Advanced technology that protects me from all the above is offered by Canon.  All I have to do is pop out a head when its useful life is over and pop in another.  No wasted paper, no wasted ink, no aggravation... effectively no "clogs".

By the way, Epson heads have to be replaced from time to time too... just read the forum.  Not as often of course, but they fail too.  To do that you pay for a tech visit as well as a head.  Meanwhile you waste time, ink and paper (and colorful swear words, I like to save those for special occasions) cleaning clogs.

Tom

[Jozef Zajaz]

Speaking of clogs, one thing that should be kept in mind is that Canon printers also experience nozzle clogs, but they are handled differently. The Canon heads have many more nozzles than they need to use, so as they clog the printing process uses other open ones, until it reaches a point when you need to change the print head. They cost hundreds of dollars. When that happens would depend on usage and other factors. The Epson design philosophy is different. For Epson the head is not considered a consumable, there are no spare nozzles, so when clogs occur you clean them. I have no idea which approach ends-up being more economic in respect of nozzle clog management, but it's important to know that both brands have clogs, dealt with in different ways.

Great input, anyone else have ideas about this?

[Mark D Segal]

"Clogs" that cost me nothing in wasted paper, wasted ink or (much more importantly) wasted time are not "clogs" in my opinion.

Advanced technology that protects me from all the above is offered by Canon.  All I have to do is pop out a head when its useful life is over and pop in another.  No wasted paper, no wasted ink, no aggravation... effectively no "clogs".

By the way, Epson heads have to be replaced from time to time too... just read the forum.  Not as often of course, but they fail too.  To do that you pay for a tech visit as well as a head.  Meanwhile you waste time, ink and paper (and colorful swear words, I like to save those for special occasions) cleaning clogs.

Tom

Hold the phone Tom - let's not get things mixed up. Technical faults and routine clogs are different animals. Any piece of equipment can have technical faults.

The main difference I'm talking about here is whether you spend more money on ink cleaning Epson's clogs, than you spend on replacing Canon print heads once they are clogged-up, which are not cheap. Clogs are there in both. You can't just define them away based on a convenience criterion. But it is perfectly legitimate to prefer one way of dealing with them over another. My only point was for the OP to be clear that it happens whatever the pigmented ink printer.

[Jozef Zajaz]

Hold the phone Tom - let's not get things mixed up. Technical faults and routine clogs are different animals. Any piece of equipment can have technical faults.

The main difference I'm talking about here is whether you spend more money on ink cleaning Epson's clogs, than you spend on replacing Canon print heads once they are clogged-up, which are not cheap. Clogs are there in both. You can't just define them away based on a convenience criterion. But it is perfectly legitimate to prefer one way of dealing with them over another. My only point was for the OP to be clear that it happens whatever the pigmented ink printer.

How much does the canon heads cost?