Considering replacing a clogging Epson 4900 with a new one

[digitaldog]

Did the other large format Epson printers you owned have 180 or 360 nozzles per inch?

7900, 7800. Whatever they were, they didn't clog anything like the 4900. Again, having to use the printer every 24 hours to prevent clogs is unacceptable. I don't care what the nozzles per inch are (or were). Or the gamut.

[Mark D Segal]

Well Andrew, "unacceptable" I suppose is a subjective term. What may be unacceptable to one person isn't necessarily so to another. Less than ideal - for sure, on that you won't have any argument from me.

[digitaldog]

Well Andrew, "unacceptable" I suppose is a subjective term. What may be unacceptable to one person isn't necessarily so to another. Less than ideal - for sure, on that you won't have any argument from me.

Mark, this is getting a tad pointless. A printer that's clogged can't make an acceptable print if any print at all agree? A printer that MUST be used every day or it will clog is by design a mess. Do you know anywhere Epson told it's customers they must print every day or the unit will clog? Do you own or have you owned a 4900? I can tell you my experiences. It clogged if not used every day. And go a few days or more, the clogs were so bad, it could literally take an hour or more to unclog it. That's not acceptable to me, I don't think it's acceptable to too many others. And at the same time, the lovely 3880 I own that was mere feet from this 4900 could go MONTHS without use and not have any lick of clogging. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest a printer that clogs consistently without daily use is unacceptable. I don't care how large the gamut is or how many dot's it prints, if the unit is clogged, none of that matters.

[Mark D Segal]

Andrew, you may recall, I've owned one of these 4900s since DAY ONE that it became available on the Toronto market (3+ years ago as I mentioned in one of my previous posts above) and I wrote a comprehensive review of it for this website shortly after I bought it. Of course at that time we didn't have a clue about the performance in respect of clogs, so I had nothing to say about this in that review because there was literally nothing to say about it. In fact it took quite some time before this issue became apparent. But it's definitely there now, and on that we aren't arguing. I'm not thrilled and I wish it weren't so, but I would say as an issue it's obviously rattling your cage more than mine. The fact is that when it isn't clogged, which is most of the time albeit with more maintenance than I like, it prints just beautifully. In terms of what's acceptable performance or not, I would like to hear more about that judgment from the commercial service bureaux making intensive use of this model. But this takes us a bit astray from the concern of the OP. By now the OP has a full flavour of what's involved with this choice and I think has enough "evidence" upon which to make an informed decision, except for one vital missing piece: is Epson about to replace it? I have no clue, and if I did, I probably wouldn't be allowed to say!

[digitaldog]

Andrew, you may recall...

No, or I wouldn't have asked. Didn't see the review either. I had clogging issues from day two, curious you didn't.

The fact is that when it isn't clogged, which is most of the time albeit with more maintenance than I like, it prints just beautifully.

I agree it makes great prints. Problem is, I spent almost as much time getting it to operate correctly to get those beautiful prints. Kind of a deal breaker for me. Only until I found a hack to make it print a tiny image every day did it become usable. I rarely print rolls, the size I needed 95% of the time could be done on the 3880 which produced as far as I could see, just as beautiful a print without any hassles.
The OP knows what he's getting himself into true, I posted simply to suggest that setting up a script to make a tiny print every day will likely prevent clogging. But I also stated he (we) shouldn’t have to. It's not the case with the 3880 by a long shot, it wasn't the case with other Epson printers I've used over the years. And it isn't like we don't hear lots of complaints about the 4900 clogging so, with that, I say forewarned is forearmed.

[dseelig]

Just wanted to note on the 3880 mine had a blown head and a stuck valve after 2 1/2 years and epson all but laughed at me for any help with it. I live in a dry climate. Just a warning.

[Mark D Segal]

............. I had clogging issues from day two, curious you didn't. ...........

Not surprising that different people could have different outcomes with this factor. It's climate and usage sensitive, so all it would take is some differences of those factors in the early months of usage and we would have different experience.

My overall operational experience has also been very different from yours. While the cleaning cycles are somewhat frustrating, I would say that on the whole, looking over any period of several months in terms of time spent between maintenance and actual printing the ratio is not greater than several minutes relative to several hours respectively. When I noticed maintenance started to creep up at one point I did call in a technician to do a thorough cleaning of the whole area around the printhead and pumping station assembly, and since then it has been back to usual. The exceptional circumstance is when I travel and no-one runs it in my absence for at least a week it can take 45 minutes or so to get it all back to normal. This is of course remarkably different from that 3800 I had before it, which can be left sitting unused for a year (I know this because it happened after I handed it over to a friend) and still work without so much as a single cleaning cycle right from switch-on time. I believe the 3880 would be very similar to the 3800 in this respect.

So yes, the OP is forewarned and fore-armed - in spades.

[Pete Berry]

Hi,

Do you use a Mac or have any experience using this printer with Mac OS X?
can you comment a little on panoramas?

Thanks for your help.

Nope, windows all the way.

I've done a number of panos, as long as about 60", and no problem if you are sure your roll has enough paper remaining with an additional 18" or so,  as  printing stops as soon as paper detaches from roll. Max. length is 50'!  I used to do borderless panos with a 17" roll, but now settle for the minimum printable 3mm-1/8" margins to avoid overspray buildup, though never a problem.

BTW, the Canon 16-bit printing plugin for Photoshop is a total joy to work with and bypasses the clunky PS/printer driver iterface - works with Mac & Windows.

Pete

[Peter McLennan]

Didn't Einstein have something to say about "insanity" and "doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results"?

My 4800 pissed more ink in to the waste tank than it did on to the various media I fed it.  The same is true for a friend who bought one at the same time I did.  We both hate that printer.
 
When it was working, it was fine.  But the number of head-banging Sundays I spent trying to unclog it more than cancelled out the good print vibes. I finally recycled it. I wouldn't sell it to an enemy.

Two magic words on clogging that I've learned from my NEVER, EVER CLOGS Epson 9800:  "pressurized carts".

[digitaldog]

My 4800 pissed more ink in to the waste tank than it did on to the various media I fed it.

I saw the same issue. I was kind of shocked how quickly the first waste tank didn't last.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Two magic words on clogging that I've learned from my NEVER, EVER CLOGS Epson 9800:  "pressurized carts".

Pressurized carts did not make a difference on clogging for other Epson models.

On maintenance tanks; my HP Zs are still using the waste ink tanks they got when new in spring 2007 and 2009.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Pete Berry]

Pressurized carts did not make a difference on clogging for other Epson models.

On maintenance tanks; my HP Zs are still using the waste ink tanks they got when new in spring 2007 and 2009.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

...and my iPF5100 has consumed only 20% of its tank in 2.5 years after the initial 20% hit from installation. $800 for two new easily installed heads every few years (the average head life on my 5000 and 5100 so far is nearly 4 yrs - the current ones 2.5 years. I would gladly pay that for trouble-free operation over that time, and I imagine just the ink consumed in forced cleanings over the years might equal or even exceed it.

Pete

[kayakfari]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the only direct competitor to the 4900 - the Canon iPF5100 - which has all the Epson features and more: 12 inks with auto, lossless black switch, and most importantly, thermally activated head nozzles with a huge auto-remapping redundancy for burned-out nozzles. Heads fail eventually when spare nozzles are exhausted, but heads are user-replacable at about $400 each (2), generally lasting several years.

What this means is total freedom from nozzle check prints and no forced cleaning cycles. Yes, TOTAL, until a head error message comes up and time for head change (takes about 15 minutes). In my iPF5000 the original heads were replaced under warranty at 11 months with the current PF-03 heads, which lasted five years. When those eventually failed I upgraded to the 5100 over two problem-free years ago and going strong. The $1500 printer cost was close to the retail cost of just the two heads and the twelve 90ml starter carts (replacements 130ml).

I know you're concerned about printer IQ, and I'd be happy to mail you 12x16 prints of the two printer test images I use - Outback's and Digidog's composits - or any of your choice, on my RR UltraPro satin proofing roll paper, which matches my Ilford GFS presentation paper quite nicely.

Pete

I'll second the Canon ipf5100! It's been a great printer for me, never had any clog issues even after 5 months away (printer was left to do it's automatic weekly cleanings). Being a fairly low volume printer, it took me close to 5 years for the eventual the head replacement message, and this is what I'm facing now. My fear is that I'll give it a new $450 left print head, and it will then turn around and say "ok, now give me a new right head!". So that would be $900 for two new heads, whereas a whole new printer costs about $1600. Never had any mechanical problems with it, my only 'regret' is that I didn't get the 24" model for a little more .. c'est la vie!

[Nora_nor]

I agree about the epson stylus pro 4900, lots of problems with clogging. It looks like they are trying to sell the new Sure color p800 to photographers now....
I am tossing the 4900.

One question about the canon ipf type printers ( I am thinking of buying a ued one cheap) Do I have to change both heads? When I look for spare parts only the part nr and name comes up, PF-03 , do I have to buy two?

[Landscapes]

I agree about the epson stylus pro 4900, lots of problems with clogging. It looks like they are trying to sell the new Sure color p800 to photographers now....
I am tossing the 4900.

One question about the canon ipf type printers ( I am thinking of buying a ued one cheap) Do I have to change both heads? When I look for spare parts only the part nr and name comes up, PF-03 , do I have to buy two?

It all depends on if both heads die at the same time.  They often do close to eachother, but if one is dead for some other reason, then both wouldn't need to be replaced.  It is the exact same head, PF-03, but once you put it in the printer, it is marked as L or R and can't be switched.  The printer would have to be really cheap for me to even consider getting a used one.  If you have to put in hundreds of dollars of ink just to get it going, and 2 new heads, you're getting close to the price of new, and there may still be other problems you don't know about.

[Mark D Segal]

The 4900 is a bit of maintenance challenge, but manageable if you use it and declog it properly. The P800 is not intended as a replacement for the 4900 (more the 3880), but may be suitable for you depending on your needs and printing frequency. Before, however, tossing your 4900, I'd suggest waiting a bit until the P800 actually appears on the market and there has been even a brief accumulation of user experience from which to make an informed decision.

[Some Guy]

I'm with the "Move over to the Canon camp" if the 4900 is the alternative to buy after failure.

Inkjetmall has some info on it here:  http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs176/1103080512009/archive/1113009190153.html and one of their newsletters mentioned using it as a "Gloss Optimizer printer" if they head was toast on a color.  I like the GO route over spraying with a gun and the subsequent mess.

I know when I talked to the paper guys at FreeStylePhoto.biz in LA, they used to sell the Epson line, but have switched to Canon due to clog issues from their customers.  You can call them and ask, but they do sell the Canon ipf models now and have had much better luck with them.

Bad part is Inkjetmall has zero ink for the Canon ipf-series in the piezo B&W ink arena.  No color ink for Canon either last time I looked.  Pretty much stuck with Epson if piezo ink processing is your ink route.

SG

[Pete Berry]

It all depends on if both heads die at the same time.  They often do close to eachother, but if one is dead for some other reason, then both wouldn't need to be replaced.  It is the exact same head, PF-03, but once you put it in the printer, it is marked as L or R and can't be switched.  The printer would have to be really cheap for me to even consider getting a used one.  If you have to put in hundreds of dollars of ink just to get it going, and 2 new heads, you're getting close to the price of new, and there may still be other problems you don't know about.

Unless you are a printer technician with an unlimited bank account, I would run, not walk away from the temptation of buying a cheap used large printer of any brand. They are just too complex with their micron-precise choreographed dance, and one failure cascading into others.

The price of the iPF5100 is about $1500 US, and this is just about equal to the retail value of the two heads and the twelve 90ml starter carts - with a year's peace of mind that all will be backed up by Canon's excellent service support.

Pete

[Nora_nor]

A new canon ipf5100 costs more like 2500 dollars here.
I went and got the 5000 to tinker with it. Cannot tell if more is wrong until I connect it to a mac.

A new Sure color p800 is offered for something like 1250 dollars (but it is kind of like the 3800 and wastes ink when switching blacks) and the 3800 are not so prone to clogs?

I have been reading and reading, and it looks like the printhead failures are actually inside the head, in the nozzles, the things that fire the explosions of ink. Even if one manages to clean a printhead with something, this won´t fix the nozzle problem. And you cannot change the 4900 printhead. (?)

[Mark D Segal]

That's right - the 4900 is not designed with printheads that are user-replaced consumables as for the Canons. Essentially the printhead is the printer, so depending on the prices of new printers at the time the need for replacement happens, there is a real question about whether printhead replacement makes sense for this model. But unless it's been abused by inappropriate declogging procedures, printhead replacement should be an unusual requirement for dealing with persistent clogs. The pump/capping/cleaning assembly would more likely be the first line of attack - to either service or replace depending on its condition, and this is much cheaper than head replacement.

I agree with the advice mentioned above to be careful about buying second-hand printers - unless you know a lot about how they have been used before and their current condition. They are complex machines. And with older models the cost and availability of parts and competent service are questions worth exploring before buying.