Best 44" printer currently available

[Zachary Goulko]

I've been a faithful Epson user for 17 years, and have always been happy with the print quality I've gotten from all the printers starting with the 4000, then the 4800, and now the 9900 (since 2011), but at this point I've had enough aggravation with the clogging/cleaning/ink wasting/print head failure nightmares. So far the worst of the bunch has been the 9900. In 2013 after owning the 9900 for only 2 years I got the infamous clog of death, and had no choice but to replace the head, costing me $1,700. I don't print often, sometimes going for 2 weeks at a time, so after replacing the head the first time I took an extra precautionary step by scheduling and automated task to print a color bar test strip twice daily (every 12 hrs). While this didn't eliminate the clogs, it did help to reduce them but nevertheless, 3 years later (yesterday) I once again got the clog of death, 30% of the K bars are missing. I've tried everything I can think of, pair cleanings, service mode cleanings, windex, etc. etc., and aside from buying a sledge hammer to crack this thing in half, I refuse to spend another penny on an Epson.

I'm hoping to get some advise on a new 44" printer, and the one I've been looking at is the proGRAF 4000, but welcome other suggestions. I print mainly on glossy paper, mostly vibrant, highly saturated colors, so I'd like to have the widest gamut possible. The other very important factor is being able to replace the head manually, without having to pay Epson 2 grand every 2 years.

[JeffS]

Although I understand the Epson turn-off, the 4900/9900 machines were most prone to clogging issues. The SureColor replacement P9000 (with the new ink set and other changes) was designed in part to overcome these issues. (There are a couple of variations of 44" Epsons with the new inks).  FWIW, there's a $1000 rebate until year end, and I wonder if you could negotiate a sweeter deal with Epson or a dealer considering your woes and past loyalty. I haven't seen user reports to verify improvements, but might be worth checking if you're not adamant.

Jeff

[Mark D Segal]

Gorgeous work on your website Zachary.

Gamut-wise, depending on the paper, there is still nothing to beat the Epson x900 series. For example on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, measured in ColorThink Pro you'll get a gamut volume from a good custom profile in the range of 960,000 to 977,000. The Canon Pro-1000/Pro 2000 I've evaluated (and the same would go for the Pro-4000 -same inkset and printhead) will give a gamut volume of about 847,000. Frankly, the difference wouldn't be noticeable in most prints, but it could be for photos having colours within a very limited portion of the colour palette - I've discovered mainly in the range of very bright yellow/green, that one finds for example on some birds and flowers. But even here the difference, while noticeable is not monumental. The Canon technology in this new line or printers really performs very, very well in respect of avoiding clogs that turn up in a nozzle check, the print quality is superb and the print head is replaceable. I haven't gotten a specific price from Canon because at the time I asked they hadn't priced it yet - the product was too new on the market so everyone would still be under warranty. I still don't see it advertised; but to judge from the prices of the previous printheads in their professional model lines I would be surprised if it will be more then USD 500~700, but this is sheer "guestimating" on my part. For your printing frequency this may be the option giving you the most peace of mind. I've been working on and off with the Pro-1000 and Pro-2000 for quite some time now and never experienced clogs on a nozzle check. But before going there, you should take into consideration that the new line of Epson printers that replaces the x900 models may be more "clog resistant" than the predecessors and give you some extra gamut if you really want it and think you'll need it. My measurement of Epson's Premium Luster profile for the SCP9000/7000 indicates a gamut volume of about 875,000 - not terribly higher than the Canon on a similar kind of paper. So my recommendation would be to learn what you can about the new Epson line (personally I haven't tested one yet but Keither Cooper on Northlight Images has) and then make your choice. I don't know of anything else on the market competing with these two new printer lines for the purposes you want them. But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't anything out there!

[Czornyj]

On glossy papers iPF PRO is so much better that it's not even funny - do yourself a favour, get a sheet of Canon Platinum Pro, make a test. CO does wonders, offering OLED like black impression and vividness of Cibachrome:


It's also better at virtually every other aspect. I absolutelly love mine - it's a printer's printer, a real joy to use.
http://www.designsupply.co.uk/blipdfs/Canon%20PRO-4000%20vs%20Epson%20SC%20P9000.pdf

[howardm]

Does anyone know what 'other brand/label/OEM paper' (or if) Canon Platinum Pro is?

[John Hollenberg]

The Canon technology in this new line or printers really performs very, very well in respect of avoiding clogs that turn up in a nozzle check, the print quality is superb and the print head is replaceable. I haven't gotten a specific price from Canon because at the time I asked they hadn't priced it yet - the product was too new on the market so everyone would still be under warranty. I still don't see it advertised; but to judge from the prices of the previous printheads in their professional model lines I would be surprised if it will be more then USD 500~700, but this is sheer "guestimating" on my part. 

Good guess.  $675.00 in the U.S. (and in stock) from a quick google search:

http://www.colorhq.com/PF-10-Replacement-Print-Head-for-PRO-2000-PRO-400-p/0861c003aa.htm

[Zachary Goulko]

Vividness of Cibachrome, and being able to replace the print head is exactly what I need/want. I wonder how the new Canon's gamut compares to the Epson's 900 series, specifically with blood reds and deep blues which is what I print a lot of. I wonder if B&H has it on display. Would love to see some test prints.

OLED like black impression and vividness of Cibachrome:

[Zachary Goulko]

Gorgeous work on your website Zachary.

Gamut-wise, depending on the paper, there is still nothing to beat the Epson x900 series. For example on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, measured in ColorThink Pro you'll get a gamut volume from a good custom profile in the range of 960,000 to 977,000. The Canon Pro-1000/Pro 2000 I've evaluated (and the same would go for the Pro-4000 -same inkset and printhead) will give a gamut volume of about 847,000. Frankly, the difference wouldn't be noticeable in most prints, but it could be for photos having colours within a very limited portion of the colour palette - I've discovered mainly in the range of very bright yellow/green, that one finds for example on some birds and flowers. But even here the difference, while noticeable is not monumental. The Canon technology in this new line or printers really performs very, very well in respect of avoiding clogs that turn up in a nozzle check, the print quality is superb and the print head is replaceable. I haven't gotten a specific price from Canon because at the time I asked they hadn't priced it yet - the product was too new on the market so everyone would still be under warranty. I still don't see it advertised; but to judge from the prices of the previous printheads in their professional model lines I would be surprised if it will be more then USD 500~700, but this is sheer "guestimating" on my part. For your printing frequency this may be the option giving you the most peace of mind. I've been working on and off with the Pro-1000 and Pro-2000 for quite some time now and never experienced clogs on a nozzle check. But before going there, you should take into consideration that the new line of Epson printers that replaces the x900 models may be more "clog resistant" than the predecessors and give you some extra gamut if you really want it and think you'll need it. My measurement of Epson's Premium Luster profile for the SCP9000/7000 indicates a gamut volume of about 875,000 - not terribly higher than the Canon on a similar kind of paper. So my recommendation would be to learn what you can about the new Epson line (personally I haven't tested one yet but Keither Cooper on Northlight Images has) and then make your choice. I don't know of anything else on the market competing with these two new printer lines for the purposes you want them. But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't anything out there!

Hi Mark,
Thanks for your detailed reply. The gamut difference is pretty substantial between the Canon and Epson. Given that I'm heavily invested into the 9900 ink at this point, I might attempt replacing the head myself, and make the decision once the head fails again in 2 years.

[Mark D Segal]

Zachary, the gamut volume difference is far less apparent in reality than the data would make one think it should be, so I wouldn't lay too much emphasis on this variable unless you really need every last drop of gamut the printer can achieve. As for replacing an Epson print head on your own I recommend caution. A qualified tech could save you a lot of time and stress unless you are adept and experienced with this. Most of the cost will be the component not the labour, if you can buy it.

[Czornyj]

Vividness of Cibachrome, and being able to replace the print head is exactly what I need/want. I wonder how the new Canon's gamut compares to the Epson's 900 series, specifically with blood reds and deep blues which is what I print a lot of. I wonder if B&H has it on display. Would love to see some test prints.

Be aware that the apparent gamut of iPF PRO is much larger than measured dE^3 numbers would suggest
http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/

[Mark D Segal]

I agree with Marcin on this point. My experience examining gamut differences indicates as I mentioned above and in my pro-1000 review is a slight gamut difference in certain images featuring a narrow band between highly saturated yellow/very bright green.

[BobShaw]

Possibly the best advise if you say don't print often is to not buy a 44" printer. A lot of money to sit idle.

[Czornyj]

Possibly the best advise if you say don't print often is to not buy a 44" printer. A lot of money to sit idle.

Printing is one of the most enjoyable parts of photography. Shooting is like a seduction, post processing is like a foreplay, printing is like having sex - not something I'd really like to outsource

[chez]

Possibly the best advise if you say don't print often is to not buy a 44" printer. A lot of money to sit idle.

You can say this for a lot of specialized lenses people have. Many are used very sparingly...but when they are used they can deliver magic.

I went the used market for my large format printers and saved bundles. I have a 24" and 44" HP Z3100 printers, have been using them sparingly for the last 7 years and have learned a great deal about printing. I saved myself at least $5,000 over those years in print costs.

[Mark Lindquist]

Another plus for HP Z Series printers.  I have a 44" Z3100, a 24" Z3200, a 44" Z3200ps and another new 44" Z3200ps coming on Tuesday.

There are so many advantages of owning the Z3200ps especially for occasional or light duty printing.
I like Canon's Glossy paper and use it in my Z's a lot.

The Z Series printers have quite a few Kudos:

The Z series really has stood the test of time, and in hindsight may very well be the most practical choice for photographers printing for themselves rather than trying to be in the print service provider business for others.  The jury is truly still out on whether the latest Canon ink set has equal light fastness to the older LUCIA EX ink set, or whether Canon has elected to go backwards in light fastness meanwhile Epson has definitely moved the ball forward and closer to what HP accomplished with the Z's.  I hope both Canon and Epson achieve parity with the HP Vivera Pigments, but I doubt any of the new printers exceed the Z's in print longevity ratings. With further print longevity testing, I would love to prove myself wrong

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Here are some of the advantages of this printer:

The printer is the most lightweight of all available today.
It has a proven track record of excellence
Printheads are inexpensive and easily user replaceable
Micro drop  technology - little or no clogs when left alone for months at a time
Embedded spectrophotometer comes standard, no extra charge (all other printers are charged extra for embedded ESP)
Easy creation of in-house ICC profiles
Vivera inks have outstanding longevity and are in some cases still state of the art
One of the best printers for B+W - exceptionally neutral black and whites
No swapping inks for gloss or matte
12th cartridge is gloss enhancer - cuts bronzing way back on gloss and semi-gloss
The printer is easy to work on and there is a lot of documentation and an abundance of spare parts
It is the most printer for the least money on the market (currently $2,995 and free shipping at IPS)
Probably the simplest learning curve of all 44" printers today

There are some cons to this printer but most people who get them overlook them or use work arounds.
Loading sheets can be a pain - have to load from the back of the printer
Printer is slower in comparison to its counterparts
Can't use the internal cutter for cutting canvas (people use a blade in a conveniently located slot for cutting)
Sometimes software is finicky until HP updates it
There used to be a known issue with the carriage belt fraying.  Now it appears they have improved that issue.

There are a few experts on this forum, Ernst Dinkla, Geraldo Garcia, John Dean and others who continue to use their HP Z3100 printers in addition to other Canon or Epson printers in their shops.  Many people go out of their way to keep their HP printers going because of the quality they get.

This is not a production printer as such, as it will not be able to keep up with the new Epsons or the new Canons.  But in terms of quality and print longevity, it a close race still.  The printer has been at the forefront since it rocked the LF world in the beginning nearly 10 years ago and HP has maintained an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" stance, only upgrading the Z3100 to the Z3200, with the inclusion of chromatic red.  Now, HP continues to sell the post script version of the 3200 printer with no specific end of manufacture being disclosed.  Could be next year, could be 5 years, could be who knows when.  They must provide service and support at least 5 years after end date manufacture.

Unquestionably, the very best deal on a 44" printer today, particularly for light yet careful use, with expectations of excellence in output is the HP Z3200ps printer.

When a printhead goes bad, it's $70 for two colors.  The Printer has 6 replaceable printheads.  When one goes bad, it's an easy thing to replace it.  Like putting in a cartridge.  Not pulling the printer apart and replacing an entire printhead assembly.

Unquestionably, the new Canons and the new Epsons are exceptional printers.  Put prints side by side with the HP Z3200ps, and it will be extremely difficult to say which is which, and in 200 years, all will likely be there.

Put the three printers side by side and leave them idle for 2 months, and I can almost guarantee the HPZ3200ps will print.
Don't know about the others.

I'm hoping to get some advise on a new 44" printer, and the one I've been looking at is the proGRAF 4000, but welcome other suggestions. I print mainly on glossy paper, mostly vibrant, highly saturated colors, so I'd like to have the widest gamut possible. The other very important factor is being able to replace the head manually, without having to pay Epson 2 grand every 2 years.

If that is the case, I recommend you look at the HP Z3200ps.  No kidding.

Mark

[Chris_Brown]

I, too, print sporadically. I left Epson years ago for Canon and haven't looked back. I run an iPF8300. Far fewer clogs, user replaceable heads and an excellent color gamut. It's solidly built and just keeps on running. I'll come back from 3 or 4 weeks away and it starts up & prints without a hitch.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Printing is one of the most enjoyable parts of photography. Shooting is like a seduction, post processing is like a foreplay, printing is like having sex - not something I'd really like to outsource

You made my day :-)

The more that it isn't a car analogy.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[John Nollendorfs]

+1 For the HP!!!
Had mine 9 years now. Still prints like a champ. At $3000, a deal you should not pass up. Canon is a good printer too, but their print heads seem to only last 1 1/2-2 years, whether you use it much or not, and then it's like $500 to replace one of two. I've only replaced 2 full sets of print heads in mine.
Also, it is VERY stingy on ink usage, unlike the Epsons, which end up putting a lot in the waste ink cartridge.

[Roscolo]

Go with Canon. I've run Epson, HP Z printers, Canon 8300 and 8400. Canons the winner for me, hands down. No clogs. Insanely faster than the HP. Replaceable heads. Durable and reliable. The Photoshop Print Plug-in is fantastic and intuitive.

[deanwork]

Maybe the new Epson P 10K which is a totally redesigned 44". but there is no one out there reporting on it on this site.

john