New Epson printers P7300/P9300

[mcbroomf]

Thanks to Keith for this overview of the new Epson announcement (probably 7370/9370 in US).  No doubt more details to come.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qdAf3u0tyA

[BernardLanguillier]

I understand that the previous generation was sort of a regression in some ways compared to earlier models, let's hope that Epson got it right this time.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dgberg]

I would love another 44” Epson but it has to have a user replaceable head.

[mcbroomf]

Comparatively old news now, but here are a couple of links to Keith's updated comments on the new 10 ink printers, and the link to Epson's printer/spec page. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxPDp_ewzg8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMGRMQ5aq3c

https://epson.com/For-Work/Printers/Large-Format/SureColor-P9370-44-inch-Wide-Format-Printer/p/SCP9370SE

Good to see that there is a path forward if my P8000 bites the big one (without having to go for the 12 ink P9570 printer).  Having had a (2nd) head replaced in November I hope it will go for a while.  Idly wondering if I should buy a spare print head (price has already gone up by ~$150 since November) in case they are discontinued.

Dan, Keith mentions in the last video that the head is user accessible for cleaning, same as the 12 colour printers.  Not user replaceable though.

These should be available soon I guess (summer)

[dgberg]

Oh I am here Mike. Also worried that my P8000 may kick the bucket one day soon.
I have this beautiful Pro4600 I purchased as a backup but just don't use it. It has user replaceable heads and the 2nd roll adapter which is worth every penny.
I have had a total of 10 Epson's over the years and high priced service be dammed I keep going back.

[Mark D Segal]

My review of this printer is now posted: Printer Review: Epson SC-P7370

[langier]

Thanks Mark!

Looks like a worthy upgrade to the LF Epson printers.

In the meantime, my 9900 still slogs away and I hope to get a few more years of great printing out of it. With any luck, it could outlast me ;-)

[dgberg]

Mark, Excellent review!

I have purchased quite a few printers over the years and really like keeping up with new technology but the price increases are far out pacing the upgrades, in my opinion.
I paid $3495 for my present P8000 about 4 years ago. Full list on the P9370 is $5795. Add a full set of 700 inks and you have spent an $8000 bill.
So you don't have to switch blacks and it is twice as fast, that's not worth 8 Grand. I have a new Canon Pro 4600 I purchased last fall to backup my P8000. It was $4000 with 330ml ink carts included. It has the dual roll auto feed and replaceable heads. All that for half the cost of the new Epson. Would love a new P9370 to match my P5370's inkset but probably not going to happen.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Dan, glad you enjoyed the review.

In making your cost comparison between the Epson and Canon printers, just several points to be aware of: (1) The price of the Canon is no longer $4000.00. It's up to about $5500.00 (today on B&H), so pretty close to the Epson. (2) On the inks, yes, the Canon includes 330ml cartridges, but the Epson includes 110 ml cartridges, so indeed you get more ink in the box from Canon, but in neither case do you need to spend up-front on ink. (3) Other factors that may be relevant and for which I have not seen any useful comparative data: (a) relative need/timing of print head replacement and (b) how much ink on average per sq.ft. of printing including maintenance. So while the Canon option appears up-front less expensive for now, how all this works out in the long run is a bit hard to say. I think the cost contest may be tighter than you portray it. I know those Canon printers make lovely prints as well, so in the final analysis the most determinative element of choice may be user-preference, given some differences of features and operation.

[dgberg]

As always your input is greatly appreciated. Sure the numbers were probably skewed a little and believe you me I wanted the Epson. A lifelong Epson operator still running a half dozen Epson’s the Canon was my first pigment non Epson. Not sure I have another new Epson in me but I will have to decide when and if I replace the P8000. Although my Pigment printers still have an edge over my solvent prints we are moving more and more of our canvas reproduction wall art work to our 64” Epson solvent. I finally have it dialed in to a pretty good match to the pigments. It has been a tough sell especially to the artists that have been brought up thinking it has to be a pigment print. The solvent canvas does not require spraying. The s80 is about 4 times faster than the P8000 and runs at least 20% less accounting for cheaper canvas and no uv required sprayed topcoat. We mount solvent canvas an hour after printing and the pigment takes 2 days when you take into account ink and topcoat application and drying.
If I had not found it at auction there is no way I would have a new one. Lots of good buys out there.

[Mark D Segal]

Interesting insights on the canvas/solvent ink front. Thanks Dan.

[StuartR]

My 9500's matte black channel has died, but the printer is otherwise working. I am not particularly fond of this generation of Epsons...I had tons of loading issues and banding issues in comparison to the previous P9000. At the same time, the speed and lack of ink switching were large bonuses. The cost of a head replacement here is such that it is not particularly economical to do it, versus getting a new printer with a new warranty. I was waiting to see if Epson would upgrade the P9500 (9570), but it seems like this is not in the cards soon. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

Meanwhile, costs here have risen dramatically, so the P9500 is nearly 10,000 dollars in Iceland and I find it very hard to justify. I am curious if the P9300 would be enough for me. I mostly print for artists, and I do not do any proofing or pantone work. I cannot seem to find any real world comparison of the gamuts between these two printers. Gamut is certainly important to me, but I am curious as to whether the differences are visible outside extreme cases. On the other hand, I use very little Orange and Green ink, so I think the cost over time will not make a difference, it is more the initial price difference. I have not gotten a quote yet, but I think it will probably be quite a bit cheaper here...I know the difference in the US does not seem as large.

Can anyone speak to the real world gamut differences and where they might be expected, as well as if there are any other advantages or disadvantages between the two printers in terms of use and longevity etc.? Thank you!

[JCD]

My 9570 has worked flawlessly for this year that I’ve used it. No banding ever and happy with everything.

As for the ink, I use less of the green and orange inks that anything. For me it would come down to how much subtle and or vibrant green I would be doing.





quote author=StuartR link=topic=144662.msg1266831#msg1266831 date=1756821505]
My 9500's matte black channel has died, but the printer is otherwise working. I am not particularly fond of this generation of Epsons...I had tons of loading issues and banding issues in comparison to the previous P9000. At the same time, the speed and lack of ink switching were large bonuses. The cost of a head replacement here is such that it is not particularly economical to do it, versus getting a new printer with a new warranty. I was waiting to see if Epson would upgrade the P9500 (9570), but it seems like this is not in the cards soon. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

Meanwhile, costs here have risen dramatically, so the P9500 is nearly 10,000 dollars in Iceland and I find it very hard to justify. I am curious if the P9300 would be enough for me. I mostly print for artists, and I do not do any proofing or pantone work. I cannot seem to find any real world comparison of the gamuts between these two printers. Gamut is certainly important to me, but I am curious as to whether the differences are visible outside extreme cases. On the other hand, I use very little Orange and Green ink, so I think the cost over time will not make a difference, it is more the initial price difference. I have not gotten a quote yet, but I think it will probably be quite a bit cheaper here...I know the difference in the US does not seem as large.

Can anyone speak to the real world gamut differences and where they might be expected, as well as if there are any other advantages or disadvantages between the two printers in terms of use and longevity etc.? Thank you!
[/quote]

[Mark D Segal]

................... I cannot seem to find any real world comparison of the gamuts between these two printers. Gamut is certainly important to me, but I am curious as to whether the differences are visible outside extreme cases. On the other hand, I use very little Orange and Green ink, so I think the cost over time will not make a difference, it is more the initial price difference. I have not gotten a quote yet, but I think it will probably be quite a bit cheaper here...I know the difference in the US does not seem as large.

Can anyone speak to the real world gamut differences and where they might be expected, as well as if there are any other advantages or disadvantages between the two printers in terms of use and longevity etc.? Thank you!

Sorry for responding on this a bit late. Somehow, notifications are not coming through, so I only see new posts when I look for them. I just finished (several weeks ago) posting a whole article dealing extensively with this very question of interest to you. It's my article on the SC-P7370. You may wish to have a look, or refresh your memory. But cutting to the bottom line right here, no, for a great many photogrpahs you won't see much or any difference in real-world results between the models with versus without the O and G inks. But there are some where the gamut is so large that those extra colours could come in handy. It's not that your very high gamut warm or cool tones won't print - they will, but a bit less saturated in the one model versus the other. It also depends a lot on the paper you are using. Matte papers are kind of gamut limited anyhow, so where you would see meaningful differences for these extreme photos is with gloss/semi-gloss/luster papers. I also looked at the comparison of investment cost in the machinery versus the usefulness of those extra two inks, but in the continental North American market contexts. Given the relative machine pricing at the time I wrote, it seemed to be not a very relevant consideration. It could be more relevant where the price spread between the two is much larger, then again depending on how much recourse you would need for those two inks.

To give you a slightly different perspective on it, I have here both an Epson SC-P5000 that has O and G, and an Epson SC-P5370 which does not. For the wide-gamut papers, if I analyze the profiles for both machines, same paper, using ColorThink 4, I see numerically the gamut volume for the P5000 is definitely higher than for the P5370. I've printed the same test photos through both machines using their appropriate profiles and I find it's hard to distinguish between them in most cases.