Epson 9900, 9890, or Canon iPF 8300 purchase decision

[badbluesman]

There have been many posts on this topic, but no threads recently.  I would appreciate hearing from printmakers who have had comparative experience with at least two of these three printers. I am deliberating the decision to purchase either the 9900, 9890, or iPF 8300.

I have owned previous Epson and Canon printers and I prefer Canon for mechanics, functionality, and BW printing.  But recent test prints that I had done lead me back to Epson for color.  I ganged up 9 color files on 13x19 and had them printed on the 9900, 9890, iPF 8300, and HP Z3100 printers (my files are 16-bit Adobe RGB 1998 color space).  All of the people who printed for me are making their own icc profiles.  Everyone printed on the same paper: Photo Rag Baryta.  The best overall color and best match for my calibrated monitor was the 9890!  The 9900 had better greens than the 9890, but overall its color was more anemic and a poorer match to my monitor.  The Canon color was really over the top- almost too much gamut and too much saturation bordering on distortion. A highly exaggerated red flush in face tones was the most worrying problem, since I am about to print an 85-print exhibition with faces in nearly every frame.  Other Canon color distortions in my test print include an overall yellowish warm cast that is not on my monitor, sky blues rendered as hot tropical blues, fluorescent greens, and a generally poor monitor match.  My previous Canon printer, the iPF 5100, had the same exaggerated red flush issue in face tones, even though most other colors were accurate thanks to my custom profiling.  In my recent tests, the 9890, with its smaller gamut, had the best overall skin tones and the best overall monitor match.  Its only minor deficiency is that some greens are not quite up to those seen on the monitor and in the 9900 print.  However, this only applied to man-made greens; foliage was identical in the 9890 and 9900 prints.  I don't shoot that many man-made green subjects.  I shoot far more faces.

Some of you who posted previously mentioned having both the iPF 8300 and 9900 printers.  I would like to read your responses to my test results above.  I would also like to read your comments about relative ink usage and any other issues you might care to weigh in on.

Thanks in advance.

[I.T. Supplies]

We have both the 9890 and the IPF8300 in our office and we also sell these printers.  These 2 models are very close in quality to each other.  For the black change, the Canon is better (quicker and more quiet) than the Epson.  If the colors aren't coming out as clean as your monitor, sounds like you need to calibrate it to match up better with the print.

If you're looking for the best quality, the 9900 will do this due to the Orange and Green.  Granite that the 8300 has an extra color than the 9900, but the colors come out more vivid on the HDR ink.

Epson has some nice discounts upfront where Canon has a discount as a trade-in.  But, the 8300 comes with the full set of 330ml where Epson sends a starter set which is smaller then the small size available to purchase.

Epson doesn't have user replaceable print heads like Canon, but normally lasts a bit longer then Canon (depending on the usage, printing and how well you take care of the printer).

We recommend any of these models to be honest as we sell a lot of them each month.  Depending on what you print can help determine the printer that would work best for you.

[enduser]

There is no "black change" with the Canon, both blacks are totally integrated, with all the colors, into the overall ink supply.

Also, your results with the Canon described as "over the top- almost too much gamut and too much saturation bordering on distortion. A highly exaggerated red flush in face tones" is not normal for Canon ipf printers - it sounds like a profile problem.

(Is atlex.com pushing a bit too hard?)

[darlingm]

As crazy as this sounds, you can't necessarily determine which printer is best by which matches your monitor best.  Hear me out.

What type of monitor do you have?

If your monitor isn't an extremely wide spaced professional IPS LCD, it's quite possible that the Epson 9900 or Canon is printing what is in the file more accurately, but that your LCD can't accurately portray what is in the file.  I just upgraded monitors, and using a program called ColorThink Pro, I was able to compare the color gamut of my old monitor vs my Epson 9900, and there were many colors the 9900 could print that were out of gamut on my old monitor.

To put it perhaps more simply, if you think faces are too red on the Canon, it's entirely possible that color is out of gamut for an ordinary (or even above average) LCD panel, so printing on the 9890 with a smaller color gamut than the Canon might "match" the screen better, but still might not be a better match.

If you don't have an extremely wide space professional IPS LCD, I recommend looking at the Asus PA246Q.  It's only $463 or so online.  It's not a Planar, NEC, or Eizo, but it's also not as expensive.  I just upgraded from a Samsung LCD panel, and although I knew there would be a difference, I vastly underestimated that difference.  I can't believe the difference in colors.  I'm seeing so many colors that I never have before.  (On an LCD.)  I really can't believe the reds and oranges it's displaying.  I now feel like I've never truly seen a bright red on a LCD before.

That all being said, I absolutely love the Epson 9900 and highly recommend it, but admit I haven't used the Canon.  If it were down to the 9890 vs 9900 and cost wasn't a big factor, the 9900 clearly is better.

And I definitely agree with atlex that it's quite possible calibrating and profiling will fix some of the issues.