Questions regarding possible iPF8300 to replace iPF6100

[nemophoto]

I've had a Canon iPF6100 for about four or five years now. I'm exceptionally happy with it. I've thought of upgrading to the iPF8300 for two big reasons: 1) huge financial incentives though June that amount to lowering the price to about $2550 and 2) the ability to produce much larger prints. (Hey, who says size isn't everything!  ) In reading about the specs, I noticed that the 8300 seems to only have a front feed option for paper sheets versus the top-load option for my 6100, and I believe the 6300 as well. I've never used this, primarily because it seems less reliable for manual sheet feeding since there are no paper guides. Also, I've noticed that the minimum side margins appear to be almost double that of the 6100 when using roll paper.

I'd love to hear comments on these aspects as well as your experiences with the printer. The 6100 has been so trouble free that I'm almost reluctant to upgrade if the timing didn't seem so appropriate. Thanks.

Nemo

[Johnny_Boy]

I won't use 8300 for manual sheet loading printing, if you do a lot of that. You have to feed it one by one, by opening the lever, open the top, feed the paper, manually align it to the line, put the lever down, put the cover on, select the type of the paper for each. The workflow is optimized for roll printing and not sheet printing.

Also as you noted the margin is rather large especially the trailing edge, so for image like 8x10, actual printed image is way smaller. 

[neile]

The 8300 is basically useless for cut sheet printing. Yes, you can do it, but it's painful. Keep the 6100 for cut sheet, add the 8300 for rolls and big prints. I kept my 5100 around for exactly this reason.

Neil

[Darrel]

Here is a video of paper loading.  For the odd sheet it is easy and works great, but it is a large format roll printer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmjKDgJVSMQ

[nemophoto]

Thanks for all the great feedback and especially the YouTube video. Seems like the printer is a bit of a pain to load either sheet or roll, compared to the 6100. Of course, that might be the story with all larger large format (I've only ever owned two 24" over the years). The suggestion was made to keep the 6100 for the "small sheets. Maybe that's an option, though the office is getting smaller and smaller with all the bloody printers I have in here (an Epson 400 - which I really need to get rid of since I never use it anymore, the iPF6100, a Canon Pixmas Pro-1 and a large heavy-duty tabloid laser). I think my graphic designer wife, with whom I share the office, would go through the roof if I brought in another printer without getting rid of one!

[149113]

1) huge financial incentives though June that amount to lowering the price to about $2550 and

Nemo

Where are seeing those pricing incentives?

[nemophoto]

Shades of Paper for one. The incentives include $1000 mail in rebate and, in my case, $880 trade-in for my older Canon. A number of other printers qualify for the trade-in deal.

[epatsellis]

If you factor in that you are getting a complete set of 330 ml ink carts, you basically are getting the printer for free. For me, it was too good of a deal to pass up, idiotic single sheet feeding or not.

[Jim Pascoe]

I went through exactly the same decision process a few months ago, and eventually decided to go with a new 6300 rather than the 8300.  In truth I would rarely need wider that 24", so was tempted more by the long term cost saving in ink.  However, even with my fairly heavy use it would be around four years (allowing for the fact the printer cost more at the outset) before I would start to save appreciable amount of money on ink.  If you do much printing the cost of the ink and paper is going to dwarf the cost of the printer over a number of years, so the deciding factor has to be which is the best printer in general use for the type of printing you do, and not the initial cost.  For me, the plusses and minuses were -

For the 8300 -

Can make larger canvas prints.
Ink is cheaper per ml and larger carts need less frequent changing.
Two sizes of ink carts available - so I would go for the larger 700ml ones for the most used colours like grey.


For the 6300 -

Cheaper to buy but same print quality.
Easier to handle 24" rolls (though of course you can load 24" rolls in the 8300 too).
Smaller capacity cartridges - makes more sense for the little used colours like Red or Green which I only change about once a year (130ml).
Much easier to load sheets - about a quarter of my printing is still on sheets.
Takes up a lot less space!

I sorted of wanted an 8300, but in the end sense took over and I went for the 6300.  The sheet feeding demo I had did not endear me to the printer. My old 6100 performed faultlessly over four years and hopefully the same will be true with the new printer.

Jim

[I.T. Supplies]

We've sold many of the IPF8300's from April to June due to the crazy discounts.  We were a little cheaper than Shades of Paper as well.

We even have our own printer in our office which we print on it a lot.  We do both cut sheets and rolls without much of a problem.
I've attached a link (demo) to our sister company regarding sheet and roll feeding on the IPF8300.

We love the printer and would recommend it to many of our customers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmjKDgJVSMQ&list=UUkAkYwOQo5jC9PBVbioA7Sg&index=5&feature=plcp

Chris W
Atlex.com

[Czornyj]

Much easier to load sheets - about a quarter of my printing is still on sheets.

I disagree. It may sound strange, but in practice it's easier and faster to load cut sheets on 8300/300s.

[nemophoto]

I ended up buying the 8300 from Shades of Paper. So far, I'm happy, though admittedly I have had a chance to print much yet. The thing is a beast! Good thing I have a farm in the country so I could use a forklift on my tractor to unload it. Took four of us (me and three women) to get it inside; and there it sat for a couple of weeks while I was off on shoots and could clean out space in my office.