IPF 8400 vs IPF 8400S

[HKYcountry]

There are plenty of threads on epson vs canon. What I can not find anywhere, are opinions on canon vs canon.
I am in the market for a large format printer, primarily for Canvas printing. My contenders are the Epson 9890, Canon IPF 8400 and the Canon IPF 8400S.

I'm aware of the pitfalls surround the Epson (clogging, pump and board replacements, ink waste, etc) but ink purchase price, media handling and extended warranty cost are pluses.

I am very interested in the ipf8400 series, but it is a much larger initial financial investment. Here in Canada, the 9890DES is about $1400 cheaper than the IPF8400 at regular prices. Also buying a full set of 700ml replacement inks is about $1000 cheaper for the Epson....yes I am aware the canon uses more inks/cartridges.

The IPF 8400S is only about $500 more than the 9890. The 8400S uses fewer ink carts than the 8400....in fact the ink cart setup seems similar to the 9890.

My question now becomes, is there a noticeable print quality difference between the 8400 and 8400S? Does the elimination of the R,G,B and other inks significantly limit the gamut or gradation? While the cost of a full set of ink is more expensive, does the addition of these extra ink carts in fact create a situation where in the ink use efficiency is increased and extends the number of prints possible from one set (ie better $ to sqft)?

So any opinions on the IPF 8400 vs IPF 8400 S would be appreciated...in particular opinions about which printer (any of the 3) would be better suited to canvas printing? (Keep in mind these prints are for clients, not personal use)

Thanks in advance

[Geraldo Garcia]

I have no real experience with the 8400s, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

Less ink colours with the same droplet size and (almost) the same dithering algorithm equals to smaller gamut. That is to be expected.
On the other hand the coverage of ink should be about the same, so you can expect to use roughly the same amount of ink printing the same image on a 8400 and on a 8400s, which means changing cartridges more constantly on the 8400s.

Again, that is from what I researched, not based on real life experience.

[HKYcountry]

Fair enough and thanks for the response. I guess my biggest concern is making sure that I am not compromising print quality OR if by going with the 8400S am I handcuffing/limiting my output capabilities.

Thanks again for the input.

[shadowblade]

The 9890 is cheaper than the ipf8400 because it's not comparable. The ipf8400's gamut is more comparable to the 9900, with better longevity (chiefly due to a better yellow) and better abrasion resistance to boot.

Why not a second-hand 8300? They can be had for (relatively) cheap, and use the same inkset.

[Scott Martin]

My question now becomes, is there a noticeable print quality difference between the 8400 and 8400S? Does the elimination of the R,G,B and other inks significantly limit the gamut or gradation?

The reduction in inks has little to due with color gamut and everything to do with dot visibility and speed. S Series printers are surprisingly fast but have a more obvious dot.  It's excellent signage quality but not super fine museum/ fine art quality.  Canvas printing is fairly common on these printers but you should see the results for yourself before you buy.

[I.T. Supplies]

The IPF8400 will use less ink during printing and cleaning than the Epson x900.  Canon also has many other features that Epson doesn't have like a Hard Drive built in to store the files and reprint directly from the printer when needed.  It has an accounting software that you can print from any file to state exactly how much ink was used and the sq/ft printed to best determine the cost for your customer.  The 44" printer comes with a full set of ink (330ml) which is a great $ saver compared to Epson's 110ml (150ml is the smallest purchase size).

Quality will be comparable between both brands and it will be quicker speed on the Canon S version from the 4 less colors being used.  Not a tremendous difference, but it will be a little faster.

At the moment, I'm showing both ipf8400 and ipf8400S at the same price which is rare since the S version came out about 3-4 months later.  The price difference between Canon and Epson 9890 lightly different (Epson is barely cheaper) and colors wise the 9890 (9 inks) and IPF8400 (12 inks).  For the full set of ink and amount of colors that Canon provides, the price is about right.

We have the iPF6450 in our office and it's been a great workhorse printing on almost any media, including canvas and haven't had any print head issues.

[Scott Martin]

Quality will be comparable between both brands and it will be quicker speed on the Canon S version from the 4 less colors being used.  Not a tremendous difference, but it will be a little faster.

Have you used an S printer? The S is for speed - they are much faster. With 12 heads and 8 inks, 4 of the inks are redundant which, along with some unique screening, makes for much faster printing. There's still light gray, lc and lm which makes the dot visibility much lower than printers with 4 color CMYK inkset. They really hit a nice sweet spot in terms of quality and speed on these. I wish Epson had implemented an inkset like this in the Surecolor S30 and S50 printers, which suffer from a much more visible dot.

[Geraldo Garcia]

The reduction in inks has little to due with color gamut and everything to do with dot visibility and speed.

Again, I must state that I never used an "X400s", but I researched it deeply before deciding for a 8400 and, although the "s" is really for speed as you mention, I can not agree with you about the gamut.
It suffers from the loss of the extra inks as it has to. When we look at the gamut volume graphics we notice this clearly. Below is a comparison between the 9400 and the 9400s, same paper, same profile creator.
The 9400 has a 20% bigger gamut, noticeably bigger on the colors that were removed on the "s" version.

[Scott Martin]

Yes, I'm familiar. When I make real world evaluation prints on both printers the difference is fairly small. 20% sounds like a lot but make prints and tell me what you see. The extra inks help the gamut some but, IMO, do more to increase smooth gradations (and speed!). So that's what I mean by 'little'...

[HKYcountry]

I gotta be honest, all these threads and internet searches have me more confused than ever. I know there are pros and cons to every printer/company and I don't expect to have a 100% hassle free experience but wow....

I like that other than some people having issues with loading media there doesn't seem to be any real "mechanical" issues with the Canons.
I like the print quality of the Epson 9890 (not that the Canon is anything to complain about but the print from an 8400 is more comparable (visually) to one from a 9890 and the 8400S comes in behind those). Another plus is the Epson's media handling abilities, but the complaints of nozzle clogs and maintenance repair costs is concerning. Especially when Epson's go to fix seems to be to send someone out to replace the print head, circuit board and pump.

If it was based solely on price the Epson 9890 would be the choice hands down - at least with the prices here in Canada.  It's $1800 less than either ipf8400 model and I mean OEM ink costs heavily favour Epson here. $0.36/ml compared to Canon @$0.53/ml...doesn't seem that big, but when you look at individual cart replacement a 700ml cart for the 9890 is $110 cheaper than a Canon 8400/8400S 700ml cart. Then of course. there are the claims of the Canon's being 20-30% more efficient with ink (less waste on cleanings, etc.) which if being conservative (20%) basically cuts the ink cost difference in half. (yes I know ink is a relatively small cost in the overall cost of a print)

If I factor in the cost differential to include an equivalent amount of ink for the Epson, the price difference is reduced to $1100......So, is saving that $1100 and investing in an extended 2yr warranty (making it 3yrs) worth it? Or am I still better off spending the extra cash, buying an ipf8400 and paying $110 more per cartridge for ink, and NOT getting the extended warranty (is that advised? or should I still invest in one at some point during the 1st year?)?....(Yes I know the 8400 has  12 carts compared to the 8400S' 8 and the 9890's 9 - but frankly If I'm buying a canon I'll take an 8400 over the "S" model at the same price.)

So at this point given all I have read, here, on the forum and internet, I have pretty much eliminated the 8400S . So now I ask,  is the better choice to go with the IPF-8400 over the Epson 9890? The printer is for "professional/commercial" purposes.

Am I being blinded by the upfront cost? (I understand that the warranties can be purchased anytime during the first year)

Epson 9890 (with equivalent ink and full 3 year warranty) = $7302 (includes tax, etc)
IPF 8400 (without extended warranty) = $6665.87  (includes tax, etc)
IPF 8400 (WITH full 3 year warranty) = $9377.87  (includes tax, etc)

Is the potential of savings from the reduced ink waste and the potential reduction of servicing headaches worth that extra $2k upfront cost? I think my biggest concern with the epson isn't with warranty (although I suspect that warranty service for replacement of clogged heads would be an exercise in avoiding extra costs/epson claiming it's not covered for x reason), but rather with potential down time because of clogs or waiting on repair techs/parts.

If you can't tell...I'm spinning my wheels a little.

[Scott Martin]

I gotta be honest, all these threads and internet searches have me more confused than ever. I know there are pros and cons to every printer/company and I don't expect to have a 100% hassle free experience but wow....

Kinda par for the course with internet forums isn't it? There's no clear winner with these printers - they are all great but likely to cause you trouble at some point. If you use the heck out of a printer you have a love/hate relationship with it no matter which one you get. It's 6 of one, half a dozen of another. It's probably time for you to get some more hands on and decide which brand you want to go with.

[Geraldo Garcia]

My personal opinion? 8400 wins hands down.
But that is based on my needs and usage, of course.
I have experience with Canon, Epson and HP printers and I can´t stand Epson´s black ink swapping and other small things. User replaceable heads is an absolute necessity in my opinion. Some may think that is not an issue.
As Scott said, only you can know for sure what will be best for your needs and only a "hands on" experience will give you that.

Good luck.

[HKYcountry]

I decided to go for the IPF8400.....I haven't ordered it yet, but I am having some reservations because of one new wrinkle.

As it stands, here in Canada, it looks like Canon does not offer the extended warranty options that they do in the USA.

SO that means if I go with the 8400, after the 1st year (manufacturer warranty) I am on my own. i understand fixes on any printer can be expensive. I don't have an issue having to replace print heads on the Canon (not a huge cost)....my concern is in regards to the chances of something major happening in year 2 or 3. I tried finding information on the 8300's track record (figuring it would be a good measure) and I have found very little....frankly I don't know if that's good or bad.

Any thoughts?
If it is only covered for the 1st year would you still choose the Canon over Epson?

[BrianWJH]

If it is only covered for the 1st year would you still choose the Canon over Epson?

No, I'd definitely go with the extended warranty, from what I've read the Canon can be very expensive to fix if the printheads cause a main board failure so without an extended warranty it could be an expensive risk.

All the large format printers have reliability issues if not used frequently and without reasonable ambient humidity, I think periodic maintenance is also a necessity for reliable operation, something some people never do.

Brian.

[HKYcountry]

No, I'd definitely go with the extended warranty, from what I've read the Canon can be very expensive to fix if the printheads cause a main board failure so without an extended warranty it could be an expensive risk.

All the large format printers have reliability issues if not used frequently and without reasonable ambient humidity, I think periodic maintenance is also a necessity for reliable operation, something some people never do.

Brian.

100% agree that maintenance is something to stay up on and I have the ability to setup and keep my printing room at optimal conditions.

Your reasoning can't be argued with and what you mention in your post is exactly what is giving me pause. Part of me is approaching it from the stand point of, if something happens in year 2 or 3 (like the situation you mentioned) then I have the $2500+ set aside to pay for the repair ( the $2500+ being what I would have spent on the 2yr warranty - were it available) and unless I am the most unlucky person in the world I can't see having two catastrophic failures in that year 2 and year 3 period. Of course now that I have said that....i should go knock on wood.

That $2500 is in addition to money for replacing print heads.

....you are right though, the sense of security the epson extended warranty provides, is hard to ignore....with the epson, I am of the mindset that I would 100% need the extended warranty and use it at some point (if not more than once) during the first three years of ownership.