Help in choosing between Epson 4900 or P 7000

[mokenny]

I currently have the Epson 4880 and it is working well for the past 6 yrs but now long in the tooth. I only use the photo black ink for printing as I could not be bothered to switch from matte to photo black. I want move to the newer models e.g 4900 or the Surecolor P 7000, preferably the latter as it can print up to 24 inches and to be able to print with either matte or photo  black ink. I mostly print for myself and occasionally for exhibitions and competitions.
My concern is that the 4900 seems to have a lot of clogging issues and the P 7000 has a big foot print. Space and aesthetics are of concern. Will it be possible to connect the printer wirelessly ? using one of those wireless USB connectors ?. The intention being that I can put the printer in one room (kids are grown and moved out of the house)

Thanks for recommendations and suggestions

Mo Kenny

[Czornyj]

I currently have the Epson 4880 and it is working well for the past 6 yrs but now long in the tooth. I only use the photo black ink for printing as I could not be bothered to switch from matte to photo black. I want move to the newer models e.g 4900 or the Surecolor P 7000, preferably the latter as it can print up to 24 inches and to be able to print with either matte or photo  black ink. I mostly print for myself and occasionally for exhibitions and competitions.
My concern is that the 4900 seems to have a lot of clogging issues and the P 7000 has a big foot print. Space and aesthetics are of concern. Will it be possible to connect the printer wirelessly ? using one of those wireless USB connectors ?. The intention being that I can put the printer in one room (kids are grown and moved out of the house)

Thanks for recommendations and suggestions

Mo Kenny

The SP4900 is that the print head eventually dies after approx. 3 years. My advice is to buy Canon iPF PRO-1000 (wifi on board), or - if you really need the ability to print from rolls - Canon iPF PRO-2000. Both have separate PK, MK channels, both offer better quality on photo papers thanks to new LUCIA PRO ink set with Chroma Optimizer. The cost of printing on iPF PRO-2000 is much lower than in case of SC-P7000.

[Manoli]

My advice is to buy Canon iPF PRO-1000 (wifi on board) ...

Czornyj - you'd also recommend the Canon IPF PRO-1000 over the latest Epson SCP800 ? Would appreciate any feedback on these two printers as smaller scale alternatives. Thanks.

[Mark D Segal]

I would not necessarily buy an SP4900 at this time. My experience is that unless it's used at a maximum interval of every third day it will show missing lines in the nozzle check and need cleaning. I've had mine for over 5 years and the print head remains fine - for about 3500 sq. ft. of output over the period - low by commercial usage standards as I am not a commercial printer. Print quality remains really very good; but the new models from both Epson and Canon deliver somewhat better Blacks, and according to Epson the reformulation of the yellow ink for the new SureColor series would make SC800 yellows more fade-resistant than for previous models.

If you don't need more than a 17 inch carriage - and you do not intend to print with either rolls or posterboard (or the like), then the Canon Pro-1000 is an excellent choice. The paper feeds are fast and easy, no ink-switchng between matte and photo Black and the print quality is superb. If you intend to make panos or to feed posterboard into such a printer, then you would need an Epson P800 because it can take a roll holder (optional accessory) and it has a slot for flat-feeding very heavy media that the Canon does not. The feeding mechanism for fine art media is not as user-friendly or fail-safe as Canon's, but it's workable. As for cost of ink between these two models, we won't know because there isn't enough basic data made available to measure it. For Epson there is none whatsoever. The Canon has a utility that provides an excellent track on ink used for prints, but not on whatever amounts it uses internally for keeping itself clean - and it could be significant, but we don't and won't know.

Getting into the 24 inch models, as I have not tested an Epson SC7000 yet, I cannot provide any first-hand advice on it. I've seen it at trade shows, really nice looking printer and the output looks great, but I have no feel for the fine points. I have been working quite a bit with the Canon Pro-2000, and would suggest that if you need that width you can't go wrong. It's a really fine printer. It's footprint is very reasonable for that carriage width because of how they designed the positioning of the ink tanks, so if bulk is a concern, I believe the Pro2000 will be less bulky than an SC7000 - but you can check the dimensions in their spec pages on their websites.

[JeffS]

Forget the 4900....a problem waiting to happen (even according to my local dealer/service guy).

The P800 is a great machine, if 17 inch suits.  If not, maybe you can find a refurbished machine like yours.

Jeff

[Czornyj]

Czornyj - you'd also recommend the Canon IPF PRO-1000 over the latest Epson SCP800 ? Would appreciate any feedback on these two printers as smaller scale alternatives. Thanks.

In case of photo papers ChromaOptimizer gives noticeable advantage over Epson - it produces much deeper blacks, 3D look, vivid colors, virtually eliminates gloss differential and bronzing, and the scratch resistance of the print is now in a league of it's own.
The printer is much more robust, convenient in use, paper handling is excellent, and the vacuum allows to print on thickest available media without any issues or extended margins. I printed on rigid 500gsm rag papers, and bent barytas without any head strikes or marks.

Canon Stock ICC profiles are also better than Epson - the difference between stock profiles and my own profiles done with X-Rite i1Publish Pro2 was really tiny, while in many cases I saw strong violet-pink cast tendency of Epson stock ICC profiles.

In case of Canon there's a very simple method of tracking the amount of ink used for maintenance - you can weight the maintenance cart. Actually, I did this myself and found out that the amount of ink used for maintenance is small to negligible.

The drawback of PRO-1000 is the lack of panoramic formats support, but AFAIK everyone is begging Canon to increase the maximum format size, and they increased it a little bit already.

The good news is that Aardenburg Imaging and Archives bought PRO-1000 for LUCIA PRO light fade testing, so I'm eagerly waiting for Mark's first reports. My well educated gut feeling is that it should be even better than previous LUCIA EX

[Mark D Segal]

In case of Canon there's a very simple method of tracking the amount of ink used for maintenance - you can weight the maintenance cart. Actually, I did this myself and found out that the amount of ink used for maintenance is small to negligible.

Yes, one can approach it that way but the reliability of such measurements is uncertain. How representative they are of average experience over a reasonable time period depends on the volume printed and time intervals between the initial measurement and the end-point measurement. I assume you're not making an adjustment for specific gravity, but relating weight to volume based on water (perhaps close enough)? I'd be interested in hearing more detail on exactly how you conducted this comparative measurement and what ink volumes for maintenance you came up with relative to ink used for prints over the same measurement interval.

I agree with your comments on the overall quality and convenience of the printer.

I do have reason to doubt there will be any further increase of the maximum print length for this model, but one doesn't know for sure perhaps we could be pleasantly surprised!

For clarity, the class of papers that a Pro-1000 was not built to accommodate, notwithstanding the really good paper-handling mechanism, are those media well beyond what you are talking about, such as aluminium, wood or really heavy posterboard which the P800 can accommodate, but no big deal for those not intending to use them.

[Manoli]

Czornyj - Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.

[Wayne Fox]

The p7000 is a great printer, great results, has some nice features (like great paper handling), and is very reliable. I've been running a p9000 for over a year now, think I've run 3 or 4 minor nozzle cleans in that time.

There are issues and expenses with both brands, I've used both, but prefer the epson.

I will say however DO NOT buy an Epson 4900.  Worse printer Epson has ever made.  (If you are thinking of a 17" printer and can print on sheets for most of  your work with some use of roll paper, the p800 with roll printer is a stellar printer, following in the legacy of the Epson 3800/3880 which are two of the most reliable pigment printers anyone has ever made.)

[Czornyj]

Yes, one can approach it that way but the reliability of such measurements is uncertain. How representative they are of average experience over a reasonable time period depends on the volume printed and time intervals between the initial measurement and the end-point measurement. I assume you're not making an adjustment for specific gravity, but relating weight to volume based on water (perhaps close enough)? I'd be interested in hearing more detail on exactly how you conducted this comparative measurement and what ink volumes for maintenance you came up with relative to ink used for prints over the same measurement interval.

I agree with your comments on the overall quality and convenience of the printer.

I do have reason to doubt there will be any further increase of the maximum print length for this model, but one doesn't know for sure perhaps we could be pleasantly surprised!

For clarity, the class of papers that a Pro-1000 was not built to accommodate, notwithstanding the really good paper-handling mechanism, are those media well beyond what you are talking about, such as aluminium, wood or really heavy posterboard which the P800 can accommodate, but no big deal for those not intending to use them.

PRO-1000 has a maintenance cart with a valve, so whole ink gets there and doesn't evaporate. Even after longer period of time the cart weight remained the same. My test unit was using 0,6-1mg of ink (less than 1ml) for inital print after a longer pause in printing (couple of hours), then used less ~0,1mg (less than 0,1ml) for A3 print. When I wast turning the printer off to take it to another location it usually took 2-3mg of ink for cleaning. In normal use when the printer was constantly powered on it consequently used less than 1mg per initial print and 0,1mg for next prints. The only time it used ~8mg of ink was after paper head strike (I was experimenting ), which resulted in error and emergency turn off.

[Czornyj]

The p7000 is a great printer, great results, has some nice features (like great paper handling), and is very reliable. I've been running a p9000 for over a year now, think I've run 3 or 4 minor nozzle cleans in that time.

There are issues and expenses with both brands, I've used both, but prefer the epson.

Canon PRO-2000 uses up to 40% less ink than SC-P7000, and time for printing at comparable quality is up to 30% shorter. Thanks to clogged nozzle compensation system it never exhibits any trace of clogging. You also don't waste ink nor time for PK<>MK switching. Hot swap retention tank system dries carts completely, so you don't waste ink that's left in the cart, and can change carts without stopping the printing.  Ironically, "great paper handling" of SC-P7000 takes more time for a roll change than in case of PRO-2000. The PRO-2000 narrower, more convenient, with optional dual roll feature. In the event of print head failure you just change the print head, not the whole printer. Oh, and did I mention that the quality of Canon CO coated print on photo paper is noticeably better than Epson SC-P print?

[mokenny]

Thanks for all the recommendations, I think I will seriously research the canon pro 2000
Mo Kenny