Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: hdomke on November 27, 2013, 01:25:53 pm
-
I'm thinking of getting a Canon iPF9400 to replace my Epson 11880.
If you have made the switch I'd love to hear about your experience.
By-the-way, I print about 50% on matte canvas and 50% on matte paper.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
-
No, have not. i use 3880 and R2000 and sticking with them for now. i think Canon is about 10% - 15% better for fade resistance than Epson. But don't hold me to it. If Epson comes out with a 3880 with gloss optimizer and Epson vivid i will be thrilled.
-
I'll probably hang with Epson since most B&W ink sets are made for them. Canon doesn't seem to get a lot of love from the B&W ink suppliers and Piezo printers for some reason. Maybe the RIP people don't get a decent SDK program guide for the Canon printers over Epson. Wish they would as I prefer to change heads out myself and Canon isn't that unbearable in printer head costs compared to Epson where it pretty much is disposable once the head blows chunks.
SG
-
I have a 9800 that's trapped in my house due to a fire (careless smoking by the neighbour) so I got a Canon 6400 to carry on while in my temporary location. Very happy with the Canon in terms of output, I do artwork reproductions so the colours have to be right on (I was doing fine on the 9800 using Vera inks). The BIG difference is that I don't waste a pile of time, ink, energy and cursing at the 9800 while dealing with ink dropouts (clogs) sometimes even during a (big) print, then running multiple cleaning cycles, plus running a nozzle check before every print. The Canon just prints, no hassle at all.
Having said this, not all is roses, the Canon's sheet loading routine is a time wasting farce, but in balance way better than the hassles with the Epson.
As an aside, just putting this out there in case anyone has direct experience or other knowledge about the situation: due to size and other issues, the 9800 is the only personal possession still in my fire damaged house, which is being repaired as we speak. However the roof was entirely removed last week so my house has been topless for a week in the Canadian winter. The printer is bundled with a thick protective industrial type blanket but it's been exposed to sub-freezing temperatures for over a week. No time to drain the ink as we had to evacuate while the fire was blazing. I'm wondering what damage to the print head and other parts freezing might have done - no doubt I'll find out when the insurance co. hires Decision One to do the clean and recovery process, just wondering if I need to think about a replacement.
Ken
-
Ken, I think you are in for a new printer! To the best of my knowledge the Epson pigment inks are not freeze/thaw stable and I can't imagine what has happened to the print head and dampers if the ink actually froze inside them. (Ever see latex paint after it has been frozen?) - Jim
-
i think Canon is about 10% - 15% better for fade resistance
I most interested in knowing how trouble free it is.
I print a lot and I've had recurring problems on all three of my 11880 printers.
I'm hoping that the Canon might be less troublesome.
Thanks!
-
I'll probably hang with Epson since most B&W ink sets are made for them.
Almost all my printing is full color so that's not an issue for me.
I prefer to change heads out myself...
I like the idea, but I don't have any experience with that yet. I've seen many heads replaced on my 11880s when they were under warranty. Once the warranty expires the cost of the service call is prohibitive and the only real choice is to buy a new primer.
-
The BIG difference is that I don't waste a pile of time, ink, energy and cursing at the 9800 while dealing with ink dropouts (clogs) sometimes even during a (big) print, then running multiple cleaning cycles, plus running a nozzle check before every print. The Canon just prints, no hassle at all.
That sounds like a dream to me! I've printed thousands of nozzle checks and wasted gallons of ink with cleaning cycles. Even with that I still sometimes see banding when nozzle clogs occur during printing.
the Canon's sheet loading routine is a time wasting farce
Not an issue for me. I use other printers for smaller cut paper prints.
Sorry to hear about your fire and now the potential freeze damage to the printer. I'd be shocked if you don't have to replace it.
-
I`ve used a Canon ipf8100 for several years and I have had to replace the print heads several times. It only takes a few minutes. My problem is probably from not printing often enough instead of too much. From what you have experienced with head replacements on your Epsons the Canon would be a big improvement.
Mike
-
I used to be a epson 9880 user which is similar to your 11880
And now I'm using the Canon 8300 which is similar to the 9400 as well
I don't see why not make a switch. 9400 has better color than the 11880
the print head is cheaper and is self replaceable
it is way faster than the 11880
you are mostly print on paper and canvas and i don't think you will print on something like aluminium or foamboard
but the canon has a very good feed path as well
the canon breaks down less than the epson in my exp.
also the canon waste lot less ink than epson during the cleaning cycle
aaron
-
9400 has better color than the 11880
I'd be surprised if the 9400 is significantly better than the 11880. If it is just as good I'll be satisfied.
...it is way faster than the 11880...also the canon waste lot less ink...
That's nice but not critical.
...the canon breaks down less than the epson...
That is the key thing. Less wasted time and money.
-
I have had to replace the print heads several times. It only takes a few minutes.
I'm glad to hear that.
Any problems that you've noticed? For example, one chronic problem that I've had on my 11880 printers is intermittent drips of ink on large canvases.
Epson has never found a solution.
Any odd problems like that with the Canon wide format printers?
-
No, I`ve never experienced any drips or other problems. It just needs a $400.00 print head once in a while.
-
...intermittent drips of ink on large canvases.
I used to have the "spitting" problem, too. Perform a good cleaning then try dialing back the color density in the printer settings under paper config. I'd try increments of 5 (-5, -10, -15, etc.) Worker for me, YMMV. - Jim
-
try dialing back the color density...
I tried that and thought that the images started to look anemic. And I still got drips.
I wonder if anyone who uses Canon printer every has ink drips or "spitting"?
-
No, I`ve never experienced any drips or other problems. It just needs a $400.00 print head once in a while.
Can you give some more info about the print head "once in a while"?
(High/low print volume and replacement interval timing.)
-
My printer gets light use and I have replaced print heads about once a year. I will put up with that instead of the Epson problems.
-
My concerns with a 1-year old ipf6400 follow (I've not owned a LF Epson due to past frustrations with their A4 printers).
1. Ink lines on the back side of prints, typically 1" or less from the edge of both sheet & roll paper. Research suggests the ink may be from the vacuum system picking up & redepositing ink mist. These marks have not been visible from the front, but would be an issue with double-sided printing if you do not trim/hide the edges.
2. Pizza wheel marks on some luster papers (I've not printed on glossy papers & wheel marks have not been a problem on matte or fine art papers). The marks are tiny, but visible in solid dark areas. I've not taken the risk of purchasing rolls of the problem papers, so can't comment on whether wheel marks an issue with those papers in rolls. I'm currently printing on Canon-branded luster paper & it prints without marks.
3. The sheet feed mechanism is slow and frustrating to use. There are too many buttons to push & alignment errors are common. Rolls are easy, however.
These are my only issues & am generally happy with the printer. Output is wonderful.
-
I have had a Epson 7900 for about 3 years now and a Canon 8300 for a little over 1 year.
To me, the bottom line is, the canon is a much more user friendly experience than the 7900.
Far less time spent doing the nozzle check and head clean dance that is required for the epson.
The canon did drip ink on one print out of several hundred since I have owned it, but not near as
bad as the epson. A circuit board on the canon went bad and was replaced under warranty.
The epson never required a service call, but I still prefer the day to day user experience of the canon.
I have owned 2 epson 3800's that were very trouble free until their deaths, now have a 3880
The 7900 is a different beast however.
Bill
-
No real expertise or conscious bias here. I use a new 3880 recently purchased to replace a 3800 that died after almost seven years of moderate amateur use, mostly with matte papers. I have always used Epson printers, have speculated about Canons but I know almost no one who uses a Canon wide format printer. I just wonder if there is a significantly smaller installed user base of Canons and that that accounts for the fewer apparent problems reported on user fora such as this, just wondering? Data anyone?
-
Used epsons for ab out 10 years, 2400, 4880, 7600. Wanted to buy a 44" about 6 mos ago and researched between the epson 9900 and canon ipf8400. Finally took the plunge with the canon 8400 mostly due to the ability to swap print heads. Although I loved the epson print quality, the repeated issues with block print heads and cleaning cycles pushed me over to canon. I've been very happy with the canon 8400. No problems at all. To my eye the print quality is no different than the Epsons. The only issue for me has been that I always used epson papers before. Of course there are no public ICC profiles for epson papers available for canon printers. Most non epson paper manufactures provide profiles for the canon printers so I've just moved away from epson papers. For the one espon paper I continue to use, I just had a custom profile made for it.
-
+1 for Canon.
I run Canon ipf8300 44" and HP z3100 44". One area where the z3100 outshines the Canon is gloss differential. With Canon there is very little. With the z3100, there is absolutely none thanks to gloss optimizer. Clogging and nozzle checks and wasted time, ink and paper are why I abandoned Epson. Best advantage my Canon and HP printers have over Epson: NO CLOGS.
-
+1 for Canon.
Best advantage my Canon and HP printers have over Epson: NO CLOGS
As we know, clogs do in fact occur in the Canon printers it's just that the clogging is transparent to the user because of the nozzle remapping.
I'd be interested to know if the remapping has any effect on print quality as the print head becomes increasingly clogged and unused nozzles become harder to find.
Brian.
-
As we know, clogs do in fact occur in the Canon printers it's just that the clogging is transparent to the user because of the nozzle remapping.
I'd be interested to know if the remapping has any effect on print quality as the print head becomes increasingly clogged and unused nozzles become harder to find.
Brian.
It doesn't have any effect on print quality. I also had Epson SP7880 that I switched to Canon iPF6350, then to iPF8300 - never looked back.
-
Awaiting supply of ipf6400 to replace my 5 years old 3800.
I returned 1 month ago from a 6 week trip to India and was asked to print 10 x A2 prints for a friend promoting an amateur dramatics play he was performing in. I found I had a magenta clog which eventually cleared using up a lot of ink in the process. Went to print again last week for a small local exhibition and again it was clogged - magenta and black. Tried 3 head cleans which failed to clear it. Pondered for 4 days over whether to continue throwing ink at a 5 year old printer or upgrade. Decided to upgrade to ipf6400. Being delivered early next week :-)
Epson lost me due to its ( apparently increasing ) poor reputation for clogging ( especially in larger printers purchased by moderate users ) and non-interchangeability of its heads. Larger ink carts ( 300ml ) also makes ink costs cheaper. Makes sense to be able to change heads as and when required myself rather than be dependent on Epson.
So I now have a still clogged 3800 printer for sale with 4 unused ink cartridges!!
-
As we know, clogs do in fact occur in the Canon printers it's just that the clogging is transparent to the user because of the nozzle remapping.
...
Brian.
The question is the nr of replacement heads one has to buy. At about 400 euro's per head (there are two inside a ipf6400) this can be substantial, should they need a yearly replacement.
It's off course a lot better than a defect printer or lot's of clogs.
-
I switched from an Epson 9890 to a Canon ipf8400. Colour is marginally better as can be expected going from an 8 colour to a 12 colour machine. I think it would be pretty much on par with the 9900 or 11880.
Paper handling is a bit better with the Epsons especially with sheets. Loading rolls is no big deal with the Canons but sheets can be a PITA until you get the hang of it. I've printed more this year with the Canon than I did last year with the Epson but my overall ink costs are MUCH lower even though my square inch ink costs average around $.65 with the Canon vs. $.50 with the Epson. Much fewer cleanings. I still have a few of the original ink carts that came with the machine.
I have replaced one head. I ran a nozzle check and had a very slightly deflected nozzle in the Blue channel, called Canon support and they couriered me a replacement. Swapped it out and sent back the old one with zero downtime. The replacement heads come with a 1 year warranty so if anything happens I'm covered. I'm pretty sure that I could replace both heads every 366 days and still be ahead with the money saved by not doing all the head cleans that the Epson does.
Also when the head clogged on the Epson, I was down for over a week while I tried to sort out service options. Mainly because none of the service guys up here wanted to call me back. Canon diagnosed the issue over the phone, asked me to email a photo of my receipt and then shipped me a new head. The entire process was less than an hour, including the 10 minutes I waited on hold for a tech.
Also, the Canon software is much better, I can set up custom papers in the printer and get very accurate reporting (on a PC) which I couldn't really do on the Epson.
Overall, I think Canon is making the better machines right now. With this printer there's a lot less messing around. I just load paper and print.
-
my square inch ink costs average around $.65 with the Canon vs. $.50 with the Epson.
Per square inch??? Must be that Canadian math! :o
-
You know, that's the second time I've done that on this forum.
-
Hi,
Have you considered one of the Roland printers with metallic inks? It seems like the possibilities for printing on various substrates for wall décor are numerous plus the special effects of the metallic inks are a plus. Here is the latest version http://rolanddga.com/products/printers/xf/
-
The solvent printers (Roland, Epson, Mutoh, Mimaki, etc etc) are becoming more popular but only where sufficient volume exists. The entry costs (price of printer) is higher compared to an aqueous based ink printer, but the ink-costs are lower, but the maintenance costs (and requirements) are higher.
The results from many of them are excellent.
-
The solvent printers (Roland, Epson, Mutoh, Mimaki, etc etc) are becoming more popular but only where sufficient volume exists.
I did extensive testing of Epson's newest solvent printer, the S70. I was unable to get prints that came close to the quality of the 11880.
I suspect solvent prints will one day be the answer, but the quality is not there yet. I suppose it boils down to color gamut.
The chronic problems with the Epson 11880 is just not going away. I've made the decision to move to the Canon printers.
-
IMO SureColor S70670 is not a simple replacement for water based pigment inkjet printer. It provides quality similar to SP11880, but on specific media, and it's not that easy to get it out of the box. The major reason to get one is the lower running cost, when you'll finally manage to get expected results.
iPF9400 is a whole different animal - it's as easy and user friendly as it gets, you just plug&print.
-
If you're looking for the same quality as aqueous on specialised media, then solvent won't do it. If you're looking for commercially acceptable prints, with the additional of metallic, white and outdoor longevity on a wider variety of substrates with higher entry cost, lower running costs, higher maintenance requirements, then solvent is there.
-
No real expertise or conscious bias here. I use a new 3880 recently purchased to replace a 3800 that died after almost seven years of moderate amateur use, mostly with matte papers. I have always used Epson printers, have speculated about Canons but I know almost no one who uses a Canon wide format printer. I just wonder if there is a significantly smaller installed user base of Canons and that that accounts for the fewer apparent problems reported on user fora such as this, just wondering? Data anyone?
My personal data point is 7 years of iPF 5000-5100 usage. The generational heads are identical through the printer size range. Aside from two PF-01 heads replaced under warranty in the first year of the 5000 (with the newer PF-03's, each overnighted after a single tech support call!), the heads lasted over four years of moderate usage of about 500 sq ft/year. When they finally failed, with ample warning, I replaced the printer with the 5100 two and a half years ago without any failure signs to date. I've never printed a nozzle check aside from installation, never a forced cleaning cycle, and only maintenance is a self-calibration routine I run yearly.
Pete
-
I did extensive testing of Epson's newest solvent printer, the S70. I was unable to get prints that came close to the quality of the 11880.
I suspect solvent prints will one day be the answer, but the quality is not there yet. I suppose it boils down to color gamut.
The chronic problems with the Epson 11880 is just not going away. I've made the decision to move to the Canon printers.
I know this is an older thread, but since I'm in the exact same boat of thinking of getting a Canon IPF9400 to replace my Epson, I was wondering if you had any feedback on how it was working out for you since you made the switch? Do you find the print quality comparable? Any thoughts you have would be greatly appreciated.
-
Over 6-months ago I replaced my Epson 11880 with a Canon iPF9400.
My only regret is that I did not do it sooner.
So many fewer headaches!
Many fewer wasted prints.
No nozzle checkes.
I thought others might like to know.
-
Right now though, I wouldn’t do anything until I see where each is going. The new Epson p600 and with the improved inkset will certainly be pushed up the line, and the print quality difference from what i’ve heard are not insignificant, especially in blacks and deeps shadows. Also the new Epson inks and heads may see improvements in nozzle management.
edit: (I see this is an old thread ... deleted most of my response. but this part above is still something to consider for those thinking of a new printer now)
-
When I switched from Epson some time back, I went to HP.
There was nothing in the Epson to make me think twice or want to switch back.
No company was giving me free printers or supplies, so I had to change out of such a system.
I'm very happy I made the change out of Epson.
I havn't used Canon, but I think it would be just as rewarding.
-
Im Newbie, but?????
I compared both printers and their output recently..A head to head competition.. I originally bought the 8400 based upon ease of use and ink set. However, there is a significant difference in the output. That is based upon the technology. The Epson will give better tones than the canon..ITs especially obvious in portrait work. The canon is a great printer, but even on landscapes there also significant difference. The best way to describe it is that the images are compressed. I can see the difference. The reason is based upon the technology and how they print and place ink on paper. Yes there are issues with clogging etc( i even have had a few issues recently on my new printer), but the output is amazing. I even showed the prints to other experts in the field and they could tell difference right away.
Needless to say a week later I ordered the Epson 9900 and couldnt be happier with the output.
just my .02c.
-
Im Newbie, but?????
I compared both printers and their output recently..A head to head competition..
I love it!!! LFP humor!!! (As I spew my Dr. Pepper dangerously close to my monitor...) - Jim
-
Im Newbie, but?????
I compared both printers and their output recently..A head to head competition.. I originally bought the 8400 based upon ease of use and ink set. However, there is a significant difference in the output. That is based upon the technology. The Epson will give better tones than the canon..ITs especially obvious in portrait work. The canon is a great printer, but even on landscapes there also significant difference. The best way to describe it is that the images are compressed. I can see the difference. The reason is based upon the technology and how they print and place ink on paper. Yes there are issues with clogging etc( i even have had a few issues recently on my new printer), but the output is amazing. I even showed the prints to other experts in the field and they could tell difference right away.
Needless to say a week later I ordered the Epson 9900 and couldnt be happier with the output.
just my .02c.
I too can't help but laugh as to the 35 vs MF parallel, but I honestly don't know if Glaser is joking or not. (I guess I would have to read more of his posts to help?)
-
Right now though, I wouldn’t do anything until I see where each is going. The new Epson p600 and with the improved inkset will certainly be pushed up the line, and the print quality difference from what i’ve heard are not insignificant, especially in blacks and deeps shadows. Also the new Epson inks and heads may see improvements in nozzle management.
edit: (I see this is an old thread ... deleted most of my response. but this part above is still something to consider for those thinking of a new printer now)
But still an Mk/PK switch, if I am reading the specs correctly.
Brian A
-
That was the second reason to ditch brand. Who wants to sit there and switch cartridges?
Switching cats just reminded me of a old printer...it would print solid colors. You can print white or gold etc. I want to say it was a Alps.
It took a number of colors and you could print on black paper. It was more for craft, but what a great little machine. I saw it in action, but never purchased it. A bit slow, multiple passes. but hey! We are 2014.
Maybe some new tech can work out the physics?
I hope the OP got the responses expected, if not...carry on.
-
Well I haven't yet, but I'm certainly leaning that way. I've dealt with a number of clog issues with my 4900. I'm considering getting a 24" printer and have noticed IPF 6400 is available for $1600 after a $300 rebate, whereas the 7900 is $2650.
I like to print small test prints on 8 1/2x11; the 4900 is great for that with the tray feed. Will I find it difficult to do this with the larger printers?
-
I compared both printers and their output recently..A head to head competition.. I originally bought the 8400 based upon ease of use and ink set. However, there is a significant difference in the output. That is based upon the technology. The Epson will give better tones than the canon..ITs especially obvious in portrait work. The canon is a great printer, but even on landscapes there also significant difference. The best way to describe it is that the images are compressed. I can see the difference. The reason is based upon the technology and how they print and place ink on paper. Yes there are issues with clogging etc( i even have had a few issues recently on my new printer), but the output is amazing. I even showed the prints to other experts in the field and they could tell difference right away.
Well... sorry to say, but what you wrote makes no sense at all. I can only assume you weren't able to set the 8400 properly by some reason (could even be a defective unity).
I have extensive experience with the top printers from the 3 brands (HP Z3200, Canon IPF 8400 and Epson 9900) and I can tell you for sure that any of the three is capable of producing top quality prints, with some slight differences on very specific scenarios. Actually the 8400 has the larger gamut on glossy papers.
Sure we can devise some tests (image/paper combinations) to show the differences between the printers, but you shouldn't be able to see it on 99% of the work and, I must emphasize, even on the rare situations were difference can be seen, "different" doesn't necessarily mean "inferior".
Today I work only with the HP Z3200 and the Canon IPF 8400 because I couldn't justify an Epson 9900. The Z3200 wins on the black and white and has the gloss enhancer (it can make a lot of difference when using satin/luster papers). The IPF 8400 is faster, has better gamut on glossy and gives better scuff resistance. Both never clog and are quite frugal o ink. The 9900 would give me a (slightly) better gamut on matte papers, less image permanence and a lot of head ache.
-
I went the other way. I bought a IPf 6200 when it first came out, then replaced it with a 6300 about three years ago. Two years ago I bought an Epson 3880 and a 7900. I use the Canon and the Epsons side by side. Bottom line, the Epsons have slightly better IQ; it's slight, but noticeable. The Canon is x10 more user friendly and uses far less ink. In 6 years of owing IPfs I've only had to replace the heads once. The 7900 must be used at least once every two days or it will clog. The 3880 seldom clogs and hardly ever needs a nozzle cleaning, even if it sits unused for weeks. Changing paper on the Canon is a major headache, and feeding sheets is so tedious, I never do it. Feeding sheets and changing rolls on the 7900 is a breeze. Every now and again the 7900 and the 3880 will go haywire with a print, the Canon never does.
-
It would be silly to say that feeding rolls or sheets is a major headache on the IPF 8300. It is easy as any printer I've ever had. It takes me about a minute to load a 44" roll of anything. I actually much prefer the bottom feeding, It think it is a good design. Never had even a slight paper jam on any media in the Canon, had many on my Epsons. I spend more time on my 9890 loading rolls, which is easy too.
Yes, I switched to Canon after 15 years of using all kinds of 44 and 24 inch Epsons, just about all of them. Each generation became more problematic in regard to head life and ink waste. If you could pull an Epson head out when a nozzle disappeared and pop another one in for a few hundred bucks after a couple of years it would be one thing, but you can't. When one nozzle goes, your screwed.
-
"Paper askew" is the problem on the Canpns, especially when feeding a lighter paper, like a roll of banner paper. This error message repeats time and again, and you just have to start the loading process over and again each time, all the while remembering that insanity has been defined as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. I've had this problem with the 6200 and the 6300, and it has cost me hours of frustration, so much so that I just leave one roll on paper on the Canon, the one I use most often, and use the 7900 for a variety of paper types. Although it's not as annoying, I don't see the point of the Canon system of having to mount the roll on a spindle, where on the 7900 you just clamp the roll between two end caps. Even under ideal conditions, and leaving aside the "paper askew" problem, the Canon loading routine takes at least twice what it does with the 7900.
-
I went the other way. I bought a IPf 6200 when it first came out, then replaced it with a 6300 about three years ago. Two years ago I bought an Epson 3880 and a 7900. I use the Canon and the Epsons side by side. Bottom line, the Epsons have slightly better IQ; it's slight, but noticeable. The Canon is x10 more user friendly and uses far less ink. In 6 years of owing IPfs I've only had to replace the heads once. The 7900 must be used at least once every two days or it will clog. The 3880 seldom clogs and hardly ever needs a nozzle cleaning, even if it sits unused for weeks. Changing paper on the Canon is a major headache, and feeding sheets is so tedious, I never do it. Feeding sheets and changing rolls on the 7900 is a breeze. Every now and again the 7900 and the 3880 will go haywire with a print, the Canon never does.
Yes, sheet feeding with Epson printers is definitely superior. I never think twice about loading a sheet in the 9890 or the 3880. I use 24” x 36” sheets in the 44” printer almost as often as rolls.
The roll end carriers on the Epson are also much better – they take both 2” and 3” rolls.
It would be great if these printer manufactures copied the best of their competition.
Brian A
-
"Paper askew" is the problem on the Canpns, especially when feeding a lighter paper, like a roll of banner paper.
Have you tried to turn this off in the printer? There is a setting for each media type, and you can choose how sensitive you want the alignment to be. I turned this feature completely off and never has a problem, and since its off, I never get a message. If I can see its clearly off I could reload, but this never happens.
And back to the topic, I've had an iPF6100 that has been a dream. I didn't use it much the first couple of years and so the heads died prematurely, but just knowing I could replace them myself and be back up and running is important. When I had an Epson 4000 and 4800, it would always clog, entire channels would drop, cleaning cycles made it worse, etc. I've got an iPF6400 now and I imagine I will be just as happy with it.
-
I can concur with some of these. All printers have their weak areas and some quirks, but I'm so far very happy with the z3200(recent to me), and for years I've been happy to leave Epson. I still get the Epson impressive mailers of new models and such. I look them over and think what headache have I been missing, I love the prints I get now, and then it goes in the trash bin.
-
I never think twice about loading a sheet in the Canon 8300. I do it all day long, often they are curled sheets off of the roll. I have also never encountered a roll paper alignment issue. I mean they've got these little red arrows showing you exactly where to place the sheet or roll edge :-). I use everything, thick rag, gloss fiber, canvas, silk, linen, thin Kozo. Feeding has never been a problem and I have never had a roll damaged, ever.
-
I've been using large format printers for nearly 15 years, and here are some observations (the important unit I've never used is the Canon x300/x400 - I have a ton of experience with the x100 generation, but have only seen occasional output from the newest Canons, never really used one).
1.) Canons ARE lower maintenance - I get exceptional image quality from my 7900, but it does like its nozzles checked. I haven't had a clog a simple clean won't fix right away, but it isn't zero-attention like a Canon.
2.) Epson's current paper feed is far superior to anything Canon has ever put together - it's a straight path that will run essentially any media you can imagine. The 6x00 series Canons have a 90 degree bend in the path, and the 8x00 series actually requires the media to make a 180 degree turn (as well as loading UNDER the printer - not the most comfortable place to load). Even though a 6x00 series Canon looks similar to an Epson, the Epson printhead is mounted at an angle that allows the paper to run through straight, while the Canon printhead is mounted vertically (as in almost any other inkjet), forcing the paper to turn almost 90 degrees in order to run horizontally under the head. This is a real advantage, especially on odd media (I run silk on a backing sheet through the 7900, which I'd never dare to run on a Canon) - even ordinary paper is much easier to load on the Epsons, though.
3.) The image quality advantage of the 7900/9900 over the previous-generation Canons is substantial - you'll notice it every day, on most landscape images. That isn't really a fair comparison, though - the 3880 should be compared to the previous-generation Canons, and the 7900/9900 to the current (x300/x400 generations). 3880 vs. x100 is very close - I have a lot of experience with both, and I prefer different printers on different prints (the 3880 is NOT especially close to printers that use a more recent inkset, despite some claims). I wish I had more experience with Lucia EX as used in the latest Canons - from the test prints I've seen, it's close to the 7900/9900 inks, but not quite there. Canon does have a better blue, due to the dedicated blue ink. The ideal inkset (that doesn't exist)would seem to be based on Epson's newest, but with Canon's extra blue and no-switch blacks. I've never used (or even seriously looked at samples from) Canon's smaller Pro-1, which uses an extra black level, so I can't comment on that. Some technologies are not available in certain sizes - Epson's 64" 11880 is a major generation behind the rest of the line (it's a giant 3880, without the important orange and green inks), while Canon's 9400 uses the current inkset. At the other end of the line, Epson has the 4900, the only 17" printer with a current inkset.
4.)The 7900/9900 are beautifully built machines (in a way that Canons and the 3880 aren't). It's like looking at a Hyundai (3880) versus a Toyota (Canons) and a Mercedes (7900/9900). I haven't really used 44" Canons all that much (enough to know that I don't like the paper feed, but not the hundreds of prints I have on the others), so I am not sure how much better than the 24" machines they might be built. Canons also have the unfortunate sub-tank system that means the big ones really can't be moved once the ink's in. I think the 6400 now has this issue as well (the 24" machines used to not be an issue).
5.) Match your printer to your camera! A 24" printer wants at least a 24 mp camera, ideally a 36 mp camera. 44" printing really requires 36 mp or more. Conversely, only a 24" or 44" printer will fully utilize the resolution of a high-pixel camera. If you aren't printing big, a modern 16 mp camera (or less) is fine. The current generation of Micro 43 cameras look awfully good on a 3880 on 17x22" paper, while the A7r and D810 need a big printer to show their stuff. Big printers are big commitments - anything bigger than a 3880 is in a different class from desktop printing you may have done.
-
I really wonder why Canon printers have a bad rep for sheet paper usage...I use my 8400 (and 8300 and 8100 before it) with sheets of all sizes constantly. The Paper Askew problem can my fixed simply by placing a finger on either side of the paper as it's being drawn into the printer, as a guide. Problem solved.
-
I've been printing on Epson Pro printers for 10+ years. I've also been printing on my Canon ipf8300 for 2.5 years.
1) On the issue of loading sheets on the ipf8300 - Once you get the hang of it, its really easy and very dependable. I load 11x14 & 17x22 sheets all the time and get perfectly even and square borders without any problems.
2) Image quality - my Epson 3880 and my ipf8300 are VERY close in image quality. With good profiles it's really neck and neck. The 3880 has a slightly better dither, only noticeable on glossy paper in smooth areas at VERY close distances or with a loupe.
3) Consistency - My ipf8300 has problems with color consistency over time, this has been a PITA! I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere. I often make prints for clients and then get orders for reprints many months later. Between the first printing and prints made at a later date there is often a slight but noticeable shift in the neutral areas on the magenta/green axis. One time I was doing a large run of 24"x32" prints of 1 image, and the prints shifted in color (subtle but noticeable) during the run - very frustrating! I didn't change ink carts or anything during the run. My hunch is if the printer determines that the print head(s) needs to be remapped because of a clog, it results in a slight color shift. I've never had this issue with my 2 Epson 3880s. I would love to know if other Canon IPF users have noticed this issue. This issue is enough to make me want to go back to Epson for my next large printer in the future.
-
I do reprints pretty much on a weekly basis and I've had no issues with any color changes over the last 3 years with my 8300.
You do know that you need to recalibrate the printer periodically, especially after replacing heads? If you don't do that the way the inks is being laid down could vary just due to that linearization. It would effect neutral tones first, but because many colors use composite grays along with color mixes a lot of colors could be effected if not brought back in to calibration.
It is a very simple procedure accessible on the printer menu. I do this about every 3 months or so and I have not had to remake any of my custom icc profiles over this time period. I use the Canon HW Matte media for this.
The coating on some batches of some papers can vary from others. I use the Canson and Hahnemuhle media for the most part and their tolerances are very tight from batch to batch, but other papers do not have such close tolerances. I have seen some color variation with black and white prints back when I was using only Epson printers but I haven't experienced that in a long time with any of modern printers and papers I use now.
john
-
Canon 8300 very close to an Epson 3880? That suggests that the 8300 is also very close to the older Canon 6100... While I have limited experience with the 8300 (I've seen test images, but no more than that), I have extensive experience with both the 6100 and 3880, and they're darned close - if anything, I prefer the 6100 on more images than the 3880 - it varies by image, with the 6100 superior on darker tones, especially blues and the 3880 better in lighter and warmer tones.
I would have thought the 8300 would have been closer to an Epson 7900, which is a clear and visible step above either the 6100 or 3880. Gamut plots show the 9 ink Epsons (3880) very similar to the pre-Lucia EX Canons (6100), and the Lucia EX Canons much closer to the 11 ink Epsons (7900). I can confirm that the 9 ink Epsons are very close to the pre-Lucia EX Canon from many hundreds of prints on both, and that the newest Epsons are a significant step above that level (probably a combination of the higher precision heads and the two extra colors). Since the x300 and x400 Canons are supposed to be a significant step up in image quality from their predecessors, I had mentally placed them in the range of the 7900?
-
I didn't know the resolution of the Epson 3800 or 3880 was any different than the 9900?
In the Canon line starting with the IPF 8300 the dither was significantly improved. In my opinion when outputting at native resolution these newer Canons are in the same realm as the new Epsons like the 9890. I've done side by side comparisons of monochrome work from super fine grain drum scans and I can't tell them apart on matte media. Haven't tested gloss between them.
If you look at the print with strong reading glasses or a loupe you can see the dither on the modern Epson large format is a little bit finer out of their driver if your working from a perfect file. But hell, even at fast bi-directional printing that I just did for a big job, the dither on the 8300-8400 is very good indeed.
This is NOT true of the previous models like the 6100-8100-9100. I did find them unacceptable and why I went for the HPZ at that time that has as far as I can see the same resolution as the new Canons. But that has been over 7 years and a lot has happened with everyone's head design ( except HP which has stayed the same, but if it ain't broke don't fix it). You also have to take into consideration that the Piezo heads through the Epson driver is max 2880 while the thermal heads on the Canon and Hp are 2440. If you print through Studio Print with any of these printers you're resolution also increases, and the Epson output is pretty damn amazing with that software, but not many people are going down that road these days, especially for color.
john
-
Epson SPx900 uses much more bright inks than Canon iPFx300, that's why it has slightly smoother dither - here's the same gray patch:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/iPFvsSP1.jpg)
Gamut-wise they're pretty darn close, after I've created custom profiles with exactly same settings the prints were virtually indistinguishable.
-
On the Canon I don't use any color inks for printing grays, out of TBW, like is necessary with Epson pigments.
Yes, it seems like the Epson HDR has the edge in gamut in some lighter hues while the Canon an edge in some of the darker hues from those comparison tests a few years ago.
You're totally right, the quality of the profile is critical. If you use X-Rite and a custom, something like 2,600 patches you will see something quite different that trying to use a generic profile from the paper manufacturer. Also a good recent linearization of the Canon is important. With the newer Epson HDR inks using orange and green there is a greater potential color gamut, and you can see it with color think, there is no question it is more expanded and the best out there, but in practical daily photographic usage they are so close it's really not an issue for what I do, even with painting reproductions on canvas. I've never found any photographic color that I couldn't match, but there might be one out there somewhere :-) .
john
-
I prefer the 6100 on more images than the 3880 - it varies by image, with the 6100 superior on darker tones, especially blues and the 3880 better in lighter and warmer tones.
Is this with the manufacturer's profile, or is it with a custom profile? My limited experience with Canon is that many of the profiles they provide for their own paper isn't nearly as good as a custom profile. Many of the profiles they provide for other manufacturers paper are of much higher quality. Rather odd, I think.
-
but in practical daily photographic usage they are so close it's really not an issue for what I do, even with painting reproductions on canvas. I've never found any photographic color that I couldn't match, but there might be one out there somewhere :-) .
john
We have both the Epson 11880 and some x900 printers, and it's easy to see a difference with images containing larger areas of green if you print the same image on both printers. Landscape images with saturated green colours is better reproduced on the x900 printers.
-
Even though the Canon and HP printers have their own separate green channels from the two cyans and for me do an excellent job, the yellow on the Epson printers is stronger and influences a lot of greens as well.The problem with that is that the yellow is the weakest link by far in their stability, which is dragging down the Epson permanence ratings. If they had a yellow that wasn't quite as intense they could probably reach the Canon Lucia inks in permanence ( but never the HP Vivera ).
-
Even though the Canon and HP printers have their own separate green channels from the two cyans and for me do an excellent job, the yellow on the Epson printers is stronger and influences a lot of greens as well.The problem with that is that the yellow is the weakest link by far in their stability, which is dragging down the Epson permanence ratings. If they had a yellow that wasn't quite as intense they could probably reach the Canon Lucia inks in permanence ( but never the HP Vivera ).
That is one of the reasons I like ImagePrint's profile, where they have tried to minimize the use of the yellow ink and orange and green ink is used instead.
-
Not just the green, but also the orange, play a role in landscape images on the 7900. I can see an easy improvement over the 3880 and x100 generation Canons in just about every image (but especially images with bright oranges or greens, of course), and, contrary to some reports, the orange and green inks see significant use. For me, the high-use ink by a wide margin is Light Black, and the low-use inks are the "dark" cyan and magenta (their light equivalents see a lot of use). The improved nozzle density and dither is also noticeable - 7900 images just look slightly sharper than older printers' output - I really wish I had significant experience with x300 or x400 Canons to compare it to. I think the recent Canons also improved the dither pattern, and, while they didn't add inks, they are supposed to have done quite a bit with the gamut by improving several of them.
-
I was just reading a current blog out of one of LA's largest paper suppliers. Food for thought.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/industry-snapshot/2014/december (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/industry-snapshot/2014/december)
SG
-
Wow! A Canon commercial from someone that sells Canon! Well I'll be!!!
-
The no-switch blacks is reason enough to switch. I am so tired of this on the Epsons.
Eduardo
-
Repair an Epson or buy a Canon? I really do need some advice and counsel from all of you. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Apologies for the length of this posting.
I own an Epson 7900. My current problem is that I have very light horizontal banding in LL Black, that shows up most clearly on shades of white or gray, for example, prints of water falls or darker clouds. Also notice it on light blues like ice caves. On the nozzle check, it shows up as 4 to 6 small gaps in the faint lines on the second block from the right. All other ink colors are perfect in the nozzle check. I have done numerous power cleanings, and in the service menu, done level 4 on LL Black. None of that knocks out the banding. The problem is also intermittent. When the 7900 is first turned on, it can sometimes run a clear nozzle check, but after 3 or 4 prints, the banding returns, and no amount of cleaning can knock it out. I called Epson Prographics support. The Epson support technician told me it sounds like the head. A repair call would be $275 minimum for labor. If it is the head, it is an additional $1,132. That would be close to $1,500 -- half the price of a new printer. When I talked to the company that does the repairs in Washington DC/Maryland, the scheduler said "only a 50-50 chance it is the head" and said a cap would affect more than one color. The scheduler guessed it may be the "selector unit" (which includes the damper?) and is $175. I scheduled a repair visit but that won't happen until early next week. If it is the selector unit, for an additional $175, I might do that. If it is the head, for a total of $1500, well that is half the price of a new printer, and might be throwing good money after bad, from the perspective of an amateur coping with the frustrating ink clogs of Epson. (Ironically, I also put in a new set of ink to try to narrow the problem, and we know what that costs. If any of you Epson owners want to buy a new set of cartridges, based on the expiration date and % left in each one, I may be selling a set.)
If it is the head, and I decline and just pay the labor for the diagnosis, that would mean a new printer. I am an advanced amateur and not a professional and may not notice the subtle color differences between Canon and Epson reported on in this thread. I do not use the printer every day, and the above problem might have been caused because I did not turn the 7900 on for months due to other demands at my real job. (Before you all chastise me, I now realize that whether it is Canon or Epson, it is best to power it up, and run a few prints through it ever week. I have learned that lesson the hard way.) My guess is that you will all agree that Epsons, with clogs, may have not been the best choice for me. That leaves Canon, as I have ruled out HP since those are discontinued. I print on rolls 90% of the time, so the aggravation reported here of loading sheets on the Canons would not be that large an issue for me. Some reported in this thread that Canon can't handle really thick media, but I assume it can deal with sheets of Exhibition Fiber, to use an example, without any problems. I also print on canvas, and I assume Canon is fine for that. (And apparently has some feature related to gallery wraps?) My impression is that Canon does not switch between photo and matte black ink, so that particular Epson problem does not exist?
I am frankly confused by the models, so welcome input from Canon owners. B&H said that the iPF6400 is better for photo printing, as it has 12 color ink, at $1900, versus the more expensive iPF6400S that has only 8 colors of ink but costs more at $2845. The B&H staff said that the difference is the hard drive in the 6400S, but it is inferior for printing photos. B&H said it is counter-intuitive, but the cheaper printer is better for photo printing. The iPF6450 is $3500, for 12 inks and the hard drive. But the actual print quality between the 6400 and 6450 is the same??
Now, for the final dilemma, that I only discovered tonight. If I buy before December 31 -- and before the repair guy shows up -- I can save $500 on Canon printers on the B&H web site. (Two separate rebates that total $500.) That means that the 6400 would be $1400. That causes me to really consider cutting my losses, and not even attempting to determine the problem with the Epson, and stop spending money on it. I can always sell the ink cartridges on craigs list, and maybe someone will give me a few hundred bucks for an Epson printer with an undiagnosed problem.
Advice, anyone?
-
Now, for the final dilemma, that I only discovered tonight. If I buy before December 31 -- and before the repair guy shows up -- I can save $500 on Canon printers on the B&H web site. (Two separate rebates that total $500.) That means that the 6400 would be $1400. That causes me to really consider cutting my losses, and not even attempting to determine the problem with the Epson, and stop spending money on it. I can always sell the ink cartridges on craigs list, and maybe someone will give me a few hundred bucks for an Epson printer with an undiagnosed problem.
This is a tough one. I don't know much about the problems you are having, but it sure sounds like it could be the head, and worst of all, not knowing what it is means that even after all that money you could still have a lemon on your hands. I personally would just get a new iPF6400.. What you need is the photo version, the 6400, not the 6450 with the hard drive or the one with only 8 colors since that is more for printing signs and stuff. To get that extra $200 off you need to own a very recent Canon DSLR, but maybe you do so if this is the case, go with BH.
I'm surprised it says out of stock though... so just go with Itsupplies.com if the $@00 rebate doesn't apply to you. Its free shipping and I got mine from there as well just a couple of week ago actually. Same price of $1900 minus the $300 mail in rebate (its not even mail-in... I did it all online and it was approved in one day). Otherwise, its really too much money to throw at a printer that isn't guaranteed to work. I just don't know about the service for these printers where basically they just randomly replace stuff at your cost and hope something fixes the the problem. That kind of service is pathetic. As you say, you can also work with Matte Black and Photo Black at the same time. I really have no idea why anyone buys the Epson printers. Its even cheaper on ink and if you ever have a head problem, you can fix it yourself by buying replacement heads. The prints are gorgeous, and although there might be some tiny advantage with the dither pattern on the 7900 vs the 6100, I think things are much more improved on the 6400 and almost everyone says the prints are gorgeous, so quality is no issue. What separates these printers is reliability and user experience, and the Canon is ahead on both fronts.
-
Get the Canon, and don't look back. Really, stop fussing, the Canon at that price is a fantastic deal. Although you can see from my earlier posts that I favor Epson over the Canon because the Epson is easier for me to load cut sheets, the roll paper transport is better, and it has a slight quality edge, the differences are not that great. I think the quality difference is so slight, that if I did not have them both and could compare prints side by side, I would never spot it. I dread the day, and I know it's coming, that I need a service call to clear a clog with the Epson. The Canon, OTOH, is exceptionally reliable. My only concern is that I am waiting for a 6500 to come out, and I am guessing that it will be soon. When it does, I'll buy it.
-
That means that the 6400 would be $1400...
Advice, anyone?
Jump on that! That is a huge bargain. I have a 6400 and love it. I have no problem loading cut sheets or rolls, although I have no experience with other large format printers to compare ease of use in that area.
-
if its in the budget, buy once, get a 36"+ :-)
-
I am frankly confused by the models, so welcome input from Canon owners. B&H said that the iPF6400 is better for photo printing, as it has 12 color ink, at $1900, versus the more expensive iPF6400S that has only 8 colors of ink but costs more at $2845. The B&H staff said that the difference is the hard drive in the 6400S, but it is inferior for printing photos. B&H said it is counter-intuitive, but the cheaper printer is better for photo printing. The iPF6450 is $3500, for 12 inks and the hard drive. But the actual print quality between the 6400 and 6450 is the same??
Now, for the final dilemma, that I only discovered tonight. If I buy before December 31 -- and before the repair guy shows up -- I can save $500 on Canon printers on the B&H web site. (Two separate rebates that total $500.) That means that the 6400 would be $1400. That causes me to really consider cutting my losses, and not even attempting to determine the problem with the Epson, and stop spending money on it. I can always sell the ink cartridges on craigs list, and maybe someone will give me a few hundred bucks for an Epson printer with an undiagnosed problem.
Advice, anyone?
I didn't face the quandary of having a non-performing 7900 but I have decided I want to start printing bigger than my much loved Epson 3880 can handle. I would have preferred to have stayed with Epson but the MANY stories of clogged printers that needed huge repair bills dissuaded me. Plus "sale" prices and the rebates on the Canon iPF6400 and iPF8400 are simply too good to pass up right not. Since I have the space, I opted for the iPF8400. The deciding factor for me was that it comes with the full 330ml ink cartridges rather than the 90ml starter cartridges on the iPF6400. That is something like $1400 of ink included which makes the iPF8400 so close to the price of the iPF6400 as to not matter. The best prices I found were from Lexjet but Shades of Paper was willing to match it. Bottom line was $3799 - 800 = 2999 for a 44" printer that will be much less hassle than the Epson. No brainer in my book. But you only have one day to make up your mind LOL. And ignore the 8 ink S versions if you are printing photos. And the iPF6450 is really designed for large print shops that need to match colors between printers. Another benefit of the iPF8400 is it comes standard with the hard drive that is in the iPF6450. Printer comes Monday. Fingers crossed I made a good choice LOL.
-
That is a great deal! I would have purchased this $2999 Canon 8400 deal over my z3200/44" I got recently (I know they may disco the models, but I hope to get 10years out of it).
-
That is a great deal! I would have purchased this $2999 Canon 8400 deal over my z3200/44" I got recently (I know they may disco the models, but I hope to get 10years out of it).
I'll be honest, I never even evaluated the HP printers. I know HP claims to have the most archival inks and less gloss differential but the printer was quite a bit more expensive, especially when you took into account the size of the introductory ink cartridges which I think were only 69 ml. What were the pros over the Canon in your mind?
-
Yes, he first set are 69ml. 130ml is available for about $30-45. I think because I had an HP Desinjet before. They are built rather solid. So I am familiar with it to some degree. Also each print head is 2 inks for under $30. $180 replaces all of them. But these prices are more for expired goods, which I don't like HP pushing at. I wonder if Canon has such expiration on the head and inks?!
There are brand specific nuances that are within all models, so I felt a bit less intimidated with a new brand of printer entirely. Sounds odd, but I didn't want a complete new learning experience with a project on my plate. (never mind the delay I'm experiencing now with my belt issue!)....
I had to dive right into printing. Also my printer came with a lot of media/inks, so it was a bit of a deal, and perhaps I may have still made this purchase..but if it were from retail printer to printer price, The Canon would be my choice.
Having said that, one point about the Canon that comes to mind....on some forum I ran into a few threads regarding the prints coming out with markings on the back of the print. This is from more than 1 new unit at least one person was experiencing. Regardless, I would take either one over the headaches I have had with Epson. I have not looked for info on Canon, but haven't come across such issue here on LL.
I don't know the quality differences for print between the 3 comparatively, but I have noticed in the posts often Epson 7x prints compared to Canon ipf6400, while HP is out of the loop. Perhaps it is not a contender on the others level?
-
I'll be honest, I never even evaluated the HP printers. I know HP claims to have the most archival inks and less gloss differential but the printer was quite a bit more expensive, especially when you took into account the size of the introductory ink cartridges which I think were only 69 ml. What were the pros over the Canon in your mind?
Pro imaging has the 8400 for $2895 after rebate. The printer includes about $1950 of ink; if I had room for an 8400, I would go that route. I'll be buying a 6400 for $1599 net. They also have the HPZ3200 44" for $2799.
-
With that price of $2999 for the 44"...and even the HP being 2799....
I really could have held off on my timing. AND that 330ml ink size on the Canon is a super plus.
The only reason I could see is the $30~ print head vs the $450 for a print head.
I wonder how the speed is for the 8400 vs the HP Z3200? (or a 24" to 24" test)
I also wonder if there has been any direct image file to file tests of which printer uses more ink? but image quality would have to be in the comparison if one was noticeably better. I have heard the HP BW prints are more neutral vs Canon maybe hard to profile for BW(?)
Here is the marketing on speed from Canon..."In highest print mode, the order of ink application and layering is optimized to maintain the highest print quality with fewer passes, making this mode twice as fast compared to previous models".
After these variables are ironed out for your individual need, at some point you just go with your gut and jump in the water.
-
I must say that the rumors about Epson printers always clogging feels a bit exaggerated. We are a lot of printers that use x900 printers without any problem. We have a 4900 that we don't use that much, can be standing still for a week or two. When we then start to print on that printer, we have to do a nozzle cleaning or two, but not more than that. As with all internet rumors, it's only those that have a problem that write about it. We, that are happy users, enjoy printing with it instead.
Best regards
Stefan
http://www.korta.nu/profiler
-
It's not exaggerated if one of you nozzles completely drops out and never came back, which happened to me after a year and a half.
-
I wonder how the speed is for the 8400 vs the HP Z3200? (or a 24" to 24" test)
I also wonder if there has been any direct image file to file tests of which printer uses more ink? but image quality would have to be in the comparison if one was noticeably better. I have heard the HP BW prints are more neutral vs Canon maybe hard to profile for BW(?)
I can answer you that quite easily: Last week I sent a file to print on the Z3200, 24x36" print of a BW image on matte paper(24" roll). Right after the spooling and while the printer was starting to wake-up I sent another job to the IPF 8400, 5 color prints of 16x24" on Canson Platine (24" roll). Both jobs with equivalent print settings and guess who finished first? The Canon IPF 8400 finished the last print a couple of seconds before the HP. The 8400 printed 80" on a 24" roll while the Z3200 printed 36".
The BW from the Z3200 is simply dead neutral (and more beautiful IMHO) than any other printer with OEM inks.
Best regards and happy new year!
-
I can match the print color of the HPZ with the Canon for "neutral" output, but I have to use the TBW rip by Bowhaus. Canon must have left that up to them because they offer no decent em solution themselves ( but that is ok with me because they had the sense to let someone do it well). Both of these brands have grays that are a hair to the cool side of neutral but they are very nice even without a slight color toning, which is very minimal if you even want that.
With the HPZ you can do it straight from the conventional driver. The bigger difference for me with the Z is the dmax on matte rag media. The Vivera black is just a lot darker and easily measurable and they best black anyone has come up with for matt media. If both of these printers had one more light light gray they might come close to the Piezography inks in highlight subtlety and that dimensional quality. But as good as they are they aren't there yet in that department.
john
-
Thanks for that Geraldo...wow, darn fast! Happy new year to you too! I know if I select detail/more ink on the HP, I'm looking at 30+ minutes on a 24x36" print.
John, funny you mention "dimensional quality". It is something I am "chasing". Well Maybe not chasing, but I did see it in a BW Epson sample print with nice skin pours and deep blacks(upon close inspection without glass), so perhaps I shouldn't expect that as I have this ceiling of satisfaction I feel I am trying to surpass with a Ahhha moment!...But maybe I should quit on that and just enjoy the prints as they are.
I have very little to nil expereince with matte paper, as my MK has clogged on a Relaitic Litho I have tested 2 images on. The first the profile was wrong, and the second after a profile was made nicely, the MK head was clogged. So 2 ugly posters from the Litho roll :-) Then I printed one color poster on satin and by the end the belt was spaghetti! I have no other matte experience, just Satins. Soon enough, I will have it back up and running.(Monday/Wednesday perhaps).
Anyway,
-
I must say that the rumors about Epson printers always clogging feels a bit exaggerated. We are a lot of printers that use x900 printers without any problem. We have a 4900 that we don't use that much, can be standing still for a week or two. When we then start to print on that printer, we have to do a nozzle cleaning or two, but not more than that. As with all internet rumors, it's only those that have a problem that write about it. We, that are happy users, enjoy printing with it instead.
Best regards
Stefan
http://www.korta.nu/profiler
I have a 1 month old epson 9900 and it has clogged. I panicked a little, called my seller, they talked me thru an incorrect solution. I ran a test print, cleaned,ran a test print, cleaned again, and resolved the issue. Do I care that I had an issue.Yes, but that is because i didnt think I knew what to do. However, based upon the ultimately output and tonal gradation of this beast. I AM VERY HAPPY with this printer.
-
I have a 1 month old epson 9900 and it has clogged. ......However, based upon the ultimately output and tonal gradation of this beast. I AM VERY HAPPY with this printer.
You certainly have more heart and patients than I do. I suffered more than 1 clog, but eventually after a number of models I had to give up. As mentioned before, "Insanity is defined by repeating a process and expecting different results".
For all intensive purposes I may have seen the edge on a BW Epson printfrom a 79x, But I have not seen a sample of what a HP or Canon can do . At the end I will not have any other print to compare outputs, but I know that all 3 can produce exceptional quality prints. I have gone to the Getty museum and seen a number of prints that looked really nice, and I think they are done with the HP z series. Without close insepction to see the dimentional quality, there is no reason...But I do have a slight itch for that quality, I must admit! :-)
-
Get the Canon, and don't look back. Really, stop fussing, the Canon at that price is a fantastic deal. Although you can see from my earlier posts that I favor Epson over the Canon because the Epson is easier for me to load cut sheets, the roll paper transport is better, and it has a slight quality edge, the differences are not that great. I think the quality difference is so slight, that if I did not have them both and could compare prints side by side, I would never spot it. I dread the day, and I know it's coming, that I need a service call to clear a clog with the Epson. The Canon, OTOH, is exceptionally reliable. My only concern is that I am waiting for a 6500 to come out, and I am guessing that it will be soon. When it does, I'll buy it.
This is a tough one. I don't know much about the problems you are having, but it sure sounds like it could be the head, and worst of all, not knowing what it is means that even after all that money you could still have a lemon on your hands. Otherwise, its really too much money to throw at a printer that isn't guaranteed to work. . . I just don't know about the service for these printers where basically they just randomly replace stuff at your cost and hope something fixes the the problem. That kind of service is pathetic. A
Many thanks to all of you for your advice. See my separate posting about service and repair of the Epsons in Washington DC. "Landscapes" comment about randomly replacing parts is precisely what the factory authorized repair guys would do, and they admitted as much. The other factor is the various long threads on repairing these printers. They have hundreds of moving parts, and since my 7900 is probably 5 or 6 years old, I decided it just didn't make sense to spend a minimum of $600 to $700 on a repair, as that would be the LOWEST cost repair. That is half the price of a new 24" Canon. Spending that kind of money on an older printer, versus a new one -- the choice was a no-brainer. I agree with Paris1968 on that point.
Ultimately, I ended up ordering the Canon 8400. I based that decision on (1) the price of the 6400 versus the 8400 after the rebate, as the 8400 includes a much larger rebate. (2) Then I factored in the ink that the printers start out with. The 6400 comes with starter cartridges that are 90 ml. I assumed I'd soon have to buy another set of the 130 ml cartridges for about $900. That would be a total of 220 ml. The 8400, by contrast, comes with full size 330 ml cartridges, or about 110 ml more than the 6400 with the starters and a full $900 replacement set of 130 ml. So the price difference between the two printers is largely covered by the additional ink the 8400 comes with.
That may not be true in the future, as the price difference is minimized by the $300 rebate for the 6400 versus the $800 rebate for the 8400. But with those rebates, the result is that the cost difference is covered to a signficant extent by the extra ink that comes with the 8400.
I don't know how often I will make the mega-sized prints that the 8400 is capable of, but at least I will have the capability.
-
It's not exaggerated if one of you nozzles completely drops out and never came back, which happened to me after a year and a half.
I know that this printer has had its fair share of problems, but we are a lot of happy users that never has a problem with it. When you read some posts it feels like all x900 printers will have clogs that can't be solved.
-
I know that this printer has had its fair share of problems, but we are a lot of happy users that never has a problem with it. When you read some posts it feels like all x900 printers will have clogs that can't be solved.
So basically people are rolling the dice when they purchase an Epson printer. You might luck out and only have a few problems...or you might need to continuously go through the head clean...test print cycle. I'd rather not gamble.
-
Many thanks to all of you for your advice. See my separate posting about service and repair of the Epsons in Washington DC. "Landscapes" comment about randomly replacing parts is precisely what the factory authorized repair guys would do, and they admitted as much. The other factor is the various long threads on repairing these printers. They have hundreds of moving parts, and since my 7900 is probably 5 or 6 years old, I decided it just didn't make sense to spend a minimum of $600 to $700 on a repair, as that would be the LOWEST cost repair. That is half the price of a new 24" Canon. Spending that kind of money on an older printer, versus a new one -- the choice was a no-brainer. I agree with Paris1968 on that point.
Ultimately, I ended up ordering the Canon 8400. I based that decision on (1) the price of the 6400 versus the 8400 after the rebate, as the 8400 includes a much larger rebate. (2) Then I factored in the ink that the printers start out with. The 6400 comes with starter cartridges that are 90 ml. I assumed I'd soon have to buy another set of the 130 ml cartridges for about $900. That would be a total of 220 ml. The 8400, by contrast, comes with full size 330 ml cartridges, or about 110 ml more than the 6400 with the starters and a full $900 replacement set of 130 ml. So the price difference between the two printers is largely covered by the additional ink the 8400 comes with.
That may not be true in the future, as the price difference is minimized by the $300 rebate for the 6400 versus the $800 rebate for the 8400. But with those rebates, the result is that the cost difference is covered to a signficant extent by the extra ink that comes with the 8400.
I don't know how often I will make the mega-sized prints that the 8400 is capable of, but at least I will have the capability.
Congrats on the new beast!!! I totally get the logic and would have done the same if I had not seen the difference(its subtle and probably can compensate for it with lots of fine tuning).
Interesting how this becomes a fight about which is better? Just like the Nikon vs Canon rivalry. I shot both and each has strengths and weaknesses.
-
So basically people are rolling the dice when they purchase an Epson printer. You might luck out and only have a few problems...or you might need to continuously go through the head clean...test print cycle. I'd rather not gamble.
I do think that you will find unhappy users of every printer on the market. Life's a gamble.
-
Get the Canon, and don't look back. . . I think the quality difference is so slight, that if I did not have them both and could compare prints side by side, I would never spot it. I dread the day, and I know it's coming, that I need a service call to clear a clog with the Epson. The Canon, OTOH, is exceptionally reliable.
Congrats on the new beast!!! I totally get the logic and would have done the same if I had not seen the difference(its subtle and probably can compensate for it with lots of fine tuning). Interesting how this becomes a fight about which is better? Just like the Nikon vs Canon rivalry. I shot both and each has strengths and weaknesses.
I have not had the opportunity to directly compare prints from Epson and Canon when all the variables are the same. Meaning identical prints from the same file and same PC or Mac. I am an advanced amateur. Therefore, I agree with Paris1968 that any differences would be not even noticed, without a side by side comparison. Even, then, for my purposes, I doubt that any very subtle difference that could be seen in a side by side comparison would influence my decision on which printer to buy. Professionals who print for a living would likely base a decision on those very subtle differences, but that is not the case with me. Finally, since I largely print from rolls, the issues involving sheet feeding on the Canon are less important, at least for me.
I have owned the HP Z3100 and the Epson 7900. As explained below, I had serious problems with both. I agree with comment from Jglaser that for some of those who post, this is a battle to defend their own purchases, not very different from the battles over Canon versus Nikon. IMHO those battles are just plain infantile and silly. When I am asked for camera recommendations, I tell friends that either Nikon or Canon are fine, and which camera is "up" or "down" in reviews varies from year to year depending on the latest release of the model.
With that being said, three points. (1) My number one piece of advice would be to NEVER buy a printer in the first six months of the release of a new model. I made that mistake with both HP and Epson, and wow, was it a huge mistake. Just look at the threads, in this forum, in the early days of the release of those printers. Both the HP Z3100 and Epson 7900 suffered from crippling problems in the first six to eight months. Before buying the Canon, the first thing I did was look to see when the Canon 8400 was first released, and to see if any early problems have been worked out, and that appears to be the case. These manufacturers are utterly irresponsible because they release defective products -- and it takes months to fix the problems. During those months, their customers are the guinea pigs who test the defective products for those manufacturers. The only reason that the manufacturers get away with it, as compared with auto manufacturers, is that printers don't kill you when they fail. They simply frustrate the owners who must cope with defective products. And before anyone defends Epson or HP, read the threads during the first six months of the release of those printers. The problems were so glaring, immediate and serious -- there is no way that the companies could not have known. If they didn't know about the problems prior to releasing the products, it would then mean that they did almost no testing to verify the operation of the printers.
(2) The other point would be the really dumb engineering decisions. Based on what is reported in this thread, the Canon engineers should copy the Epson design for sheet and roll feeding. Canon knows that they are criticized in that regard, and have been for years. But have done nothing to fix it. The Epson engineers should have solved the clogging problem years ago, since it has plagued Epson printers for years and years. Why didn't they solve that with the 7900? It says something that 7900 owners could only solve the problem of wasted ink in nozzle cleanings by accessing a service menu that was never intended to accessed by consumers. Epson has known that we all are doing that -- indeed, it was an Epson technician who told participants in the forum how to access the service menu -- yet they have never provided the equivalent of the level 1 or 2 service cleanings in the main firmware. Why not? Could it be because nozzle cleanings in the main menu waste huge amounts of ink, especially if viewed over the entire time you own the printer, and Epson makes huge profits off all the extra ink that is sold? What other explanation could there be for not fixing the clogging problem, once and for all, or at least providing the same flexibility in the main menu as in the service menu?
Both Canon and Epson suffer from head failures if the printers are used infrequently. As discussed here, in the case of Canon:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=96473.0
HP addressed that problem and the issue of nozzle clogs. The downside of their system is the goop and ink that is left behind, but for amateurs, they were the first and only manufacturer to address how to keep printers working reliably when those printers are used infrequently by amateurs as compared with daily use in printing shops.
(3) The other issue is variability in manufacturing, and IMHO this is more of an issue for Epson than for others. The reports from Epson owners simply are all over the map in terms of whether they have clogging problems in addition to other issues. Some Epson owners have no problems, and others are really screwed. My conclusion is that there must be an issue of variability in manufacturing, since there is no other explanation.
In conclusion, I lived through the enormous frustration of owning defective products from both HP and Epson. I was a fool who bought those printers in the first six months though. In any case, having lived through that, my number one criteria now is simple reliability. That is based on the assumption that all three manufacturers have printers that turn out very good prints, and I would never see the difference unless they were placed on a table side by side, and even then the differences would be pretty subtle.
As an advanced amateur, who lacks the time to invest in addressing defective products, I simply want equipment to work reliably and consistently. That is not too much to ask. Canon and Nikon largely deliver on that expectation with cameras. Why the manufacturers of printers can't accomplish that is the question. Maybe they all need to be sued by class action attorneys, since sales and legal judgements appear to be all they care about.
If they actually cared about the frustrations of their customers, all three manufacturers would produce better and more reliable printers.
The conclusion that they all suffer from their own set of problems is the only conclusion that is true IMHO. Since I am tired of the clogging of Epson, I am now moving on to Canon, having tried the other two manufacturers. I am hoping, based on reports here, that Canon may be more reliable. But apparently their heads fail every 3 or 4 years based on the thread I cited above? Even then, at least I know that it is the price of ownership with Canon, and I can replace the heads on my own without a service call. That may be expensive reliability, but at least it is predictable, consistent and something I can address myself in a matter of minutes. And my own guess is that the cost of replacing a head will be no greater, and probably less, than the value of all the wasted ink on an Epson due to frequent cleanings.
-
(2) The other point would be the really dumb engineering decisions. Based on what is reported in this thread, the Canon engineers should copy the Epson design for sheet and roll feeding.
It's patterned
-
It's patterned
You mean patented? I'm sure that the Canon engineers and lawyers could develop a better design that would not violate patents. A straight through paper flow is hardly something that Epson can patent, but I will leave it to the patent lawyers to debate that point.
-
I agree with you Alan on this issue. With some circumstances that make one brand more attractive than the other.
As long as we expect technology to make things more reliable and more affordable, there are capable companies in the advantageous position to take advantage of this, and deliver just the opposite(well, to milk as much $ as possible sometimes)!
So I look for new brands with new visions, and less of a greed instilled crony disposition to come up with solutions for such idiotic problems we consumers consume and expect different results, and kill our time with.
But I do wonder what Mimaki, Mutoh, Roland, etc do? Do they have a "Fine Art" printer without issues? I know the entry to them is much higher, and they are true production machines, but what if they had a sideline for artists, low volume consumers?
-
The Epson engineers should have solved the clogging problem years ago, since it has plagued Epson printers for years and years. Why didn't they solve that with the 7900?
I do agree that they should have solved the problem long time ago, but I do think that they have done so now with the new SureColor P600. I have it for test now for a month, standing in a room without any humidifier. The humidity is around 20 %, sometimes even lower. It has been standing still for days now and then, a user pattern that I think would be very normal for an advanced amateur. During this time I have had only one nozzle clog and it took just one cleaning to get rid of that. I am so looking forward to Epson releasing updated models of their printers in the pro line up.
Best regards
Stefan
http://www.korta.nu/profiler
-
What does it have to do with LFP models? The SPR3000 and SP3880 are also not problematic. It's the x900/x890 series and SP11880 models that are known for having issues.
-
I don't know what to make of these designs that simply fail the user. How did they put a belt that gets shredded in less than 700square feet? Or, if a wear part, how hard could it have been to design one that snaps together without the need of stiping the machine! So I pull at my thoughts vs my hair! :-)
Its frustrating that I can't print. Waiting for parts, then seeing if the tech can make it out, or if I want to do it myself...play with it all day, perhaps more if I'm not careful on replacing the belt or something.
-
What does it have to do with LFP models? The SPR3000 and SP3880 are also not problematic. It's the x900/x890 series and SP11880 models that are known for having issues.
Yes, but I don't think that Epson has spent hundreds of millions on a new ink set and a new printer head just to use that in a amateur printer for A3+. I expect that they will release updates for their pro line during 2015. I hope that the first one out is the 11880, it's about time that a new 64" printer is released.
-
You mean patented? I'm sure that the Canon engineers and lawyers could develop a better design that would not violate patents. A straight through paper flow is hardly something that Epson can patent, but I will leave it to the patent lawyers to debate that point.
Thanks for correcting the auto correction ;D
As I remember, the straight through paper flow "IS" patented by the Epson. This information may not be 100% but I got this from the HP management group in China.
-
Yes, but I don't think that Epson has spent hundreds of millions on a new ink set and a new printer head just to use that in a amateur printer for A3+. I expect that they will release updates for their pro line during 2015. I hope that the first one out is the 11880, it's about time that a new 64" printer is released.
They have stopped the production of the 11880 and there will be a brand new design of the 64" pigment ink printer, but just never know when will it come out from the cage?
-
Yes, but I don't think that Epson has spent hundreds of millions on a new ink set and a new printer head just to use that in a amateur printer for A3+. I expect that they will release updates for their pro line during 2015. I hope that the first one out is the 11880, it's about time that a new 64" printer is released.
I'm not holding my breath ;)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=96599.msg0#new
-
I'm not holding my breath ;)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=96599.msg0#new
I've had it for a month now, during that time have had one clog that was easily fixed with just one cleaning. Although the printer is in a room with no humidifier I haven't experienced any problems with it during this test period.