Epson Surecolor P900 lust

[Ferp]

I agree with what you said, but even so it begs the question of where is the fine line between cautious conservatism and rip-off?

As I said, my intention in raising this was not to invite yet another round of such debates.  I was just raising the question about whether Epson had moved that fine line in the P900?  Some full and empty weights would be useful to understand this.

If the printer is to remain working the print head and lines have to remain full of liquid ink, if they dry out...dead printer. It's hardly a surprise that manufacturers tend to be conservative about when to change the carts if getting that wrong would kill the printers prematurely.

[pluton]

Epson printers report the ink remaining by estimating the cartridge content through monitoring what is printed, right?  There is no direct measure of cartridge contents, like the float gauge that measures the level in an automobile fuel tank. If somehow Epson allowed users to print 'all the way' until the cartridge was really empty, or closer to empty than at present, the established inaccuracy of the measuring system would pretty much guarantee numerous occurrences of total ink channel failure, probably bricking of the printer, and lead to many very unhappy customers. Of course, Epson could engineer an actual ink level measuring/reporting system, but I suspect the printers would go way up in price and complexity.

[Ferp]

No-one is arguing with any of this, least of all me.  I don't think that anyone is suggesting that people should be able to print until the cart is actually empty.  That's a recipe for air in the ink lines and a lot of pain.  The unanswerable question is how much safety margin is really needed?  Would you say he same if they left 25% of the ink in the cart?  50%?  People's concern has been that the safety margin seems rather high in the 3880, and I assume the P800.  The claimed capacity is 80ml, but the usable capacity is significantly less.  I think the usable capacity is what should be stated as the cart capacity.

As I said, I'm not looking to redebate all this all over again.  I'm only asking whether or not the safety margin in the P900 is similar.  To make an educate guess at that we need full and empty weights, or someone to cut open empty carts and measure.  The claimed capacity of the carts is only 50ml, and if the safety margin is the same number of mls, then that's a bigger percentage hit to the effective ink cost.

Epson printers report the ink remaining by estimating the cartridge content through monitoring what is printed, right?  There is no direct measure of cartridge contents, like the float gauge that measures the level in an automobile fuel tank. If somehow Epson allowed users to print 'all the way' until the cartridge was really empty, or closer to empty than at present, the established inaccuracy of the measuring system would pretty much guarantee numerous occurrences of total ink channel failure, probably bricking of the printer, and lead to many very unhappy customers. Of course, Epson could engineer an actual ink level measuring/reporting system, but I suspect the printers would go way up in price and complexity.

[Rhossydd]

I'm only asking whether or not the safety margin in the P900 is similar.  To make an educate guess at that we need full and empty weights, or someone to cut open empty carts and measure.

A few answers, or at least pointers to them, can be found in Keith’s review at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-sc-p900-printer-review/

Regarding changing empty carts he said “this cart (replaced as late as it allowed) had but a few drops of ink left in it.”  "A few drops" is rather too vague for our concerns here, it's rather a shame if he didn’t weigh them as he did for the maintenance cart.

“There will then be warnings that there may not be enough ink to finish a print. Initially you can ignore these, unless you’re making a big print…Finally, an error will be thrown up and you have to change ink to proceed. If this occurs during a print, you will lose the print…“
This was an interesting comment as the 38xx series printers could have the cart changed mid-print without a problem. Maybe that’s changed or maybe Keith didn’t test that fully.

Unfortunately I don't think user's opinions make a huge difference to how Epson specify their printers (with the possible exception of the, now very old, problem of dye inks fading). The P900 looks a like a good replacement for the 38xx/P800 series in most respects, it's just a shame that they've opted for a more expensive and worse for the environment ink cart regime.

[Balafre]

Eric,

With all due respect, I am not sure I agree with that statement.

A printer is basically given away for a cheap amount because the money over it's life span is in the inks.

It seems legitimate to compare and take notice where there is a 30% price hike from generation to generation.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard was right - I've found the report relating to ink cost differentials of the new P900 vs P800. Was off an English website (- possibly 'Northlight' or 'Northbridge'..??) that has done many thorough, unbiased full analyses/tests of printers and was the basis of my earlier P3880 purchase.
The variation is huge, and over time, might actually obviate the advantage of having separate dedicated channels for black inks. An accident? Hardly I feel, as engineers follow design briefs. It makes me wonder which cynical Epson Marketing Person conceived of this nasty sleight of hand?

[Rhossydd]

The argument that these printers are being sold 'cheap' and the profit is made on the inks doesn't really add here.
Credible when a colour laser printer is sold for £150 with half filled toner carts, then a set of full carts is £180. When this printer is sold for £1000 with full ink carts, that argument falls apart. Yes, they will be making a profit on ink carts, but I can't see the decision to choose 50ml carts rather 80ml being just about profit from ink sales.

[Balafre]

I fully respect this may not be of any import to some people, but it clearly is to a significant group of people judging by the thought and research and concern that has been expressed here.
That the accumulated benefits of marginal economics has been formally codified means a handbook exists for those intrepid or mercenary enough to implement it commercially and its' expressions are all around us.

[IPDOUGLAS]

Reviewers have indicated plenty of 'spare' capacity in the 50ml ink cartridges of the P900 and the fact that Epson made a clear decision to downsize from the 80ml of the predecessor of the P900 (the P800) either indicate a technical difficulty in implementing the 80ml (or larger) or a clear commercial (economic) decision that a greater profit might be made via inks.

In the now clear light of the P700 almost emptying its cartridges on initialisation and the P900 using a large volume of the diminished capacity supplied indicates either an insurmountable technical issue (highly unlikely) in supplying larger cartridges or a very strong profit (greed?) driven motive.

A printer that promised so much and replaced what was (with hindsight) a superior printer (the P800) in build and economy.  An opportunity missed?

I should also add that reviews of the A3+ sized Canon Imageprograf 300 (also pigment ink) are telling us that the black is superior to that of the Epson P700/P900!!!  Just the (major) drawback that the Canon has tiny cartridge capacity of 14ml.  I do not know why Canon other than profiteering through ink has hampered what would have made a superior and class leading printer?   Perhaps an Imageprograf Pro 500 A2 on the way to replace that so flawed Pro 1000?

[sunnyherman]

I've read a number of posts in this thread dissing the Canon Pro 1000 that based on my personal experience I would (politely) refute.

I bought a Pro 1000 3 years ago and set it up here in my RV. It's kind of big for the RV and an awkward setup so I haven't used it since I set it up and moved it into a cabin I've been working on.

This Monday, I finally decided to do some prints with it as I had promised a print to a friend. I downloaded the current firmware and ALL of the updates to the driver, Print Studio Pro, etc. and installed them on my PC (I originally had the Pro 1000 connected to my Mac system). I ran a nozzle check and the page printed with nary an issue, incredibly. I then printed a 13" x 19" trial run of the image I'd promised to my friend and it came out perfect. This morning I printed a 17" x 25" version of the same image and again it came out perfect.

Maybe it's just me or it was just luck, but I wouldn't consider any other printer for my needs.

ANY product can have a lemon - I owned a Mazda B4000 pickup and loved it, but at 36,000 miles the transmission blew and I swore I'd never buy a Ford product again - and I haven't . . .

[IPDOUGLAS]

I've read a number of posts in this thread dissing the Canon Pro 1000 that based on my personal experience I would (politely) refute.

...

Maybe it's just me or it was just luck, but I wouldn't consider any other printer for my needs.

ANY product can have a lemon - I owned a Mazda B4000 pickup and loved it, but at 36,000 miles the transmission blew and I swore I'd never buy a Ford product again - and I haven't . . .

You are correct, its just luck.

However there are a number of key issues here.  When you restarted your printer it would have triggered a head clean (a FACT unless Canon have changed this in newer firmware?).  This would have dumped a load of ink (possibly more than you actually used on your two prints!).  In around 60 hours it will repeat this if powered up.  If not powered up it will do teh same next time you power it.

You will soon feel the amount of ink used and this can be proved by how much your maintenance cartridge weighs full versus empty - try weighing it. 

That was one criticism.

The second criticism involves usage also but cartridge replacement.  At some point a cartridge may not eject and unless you are prepared (as some are) to rip that cartridge out forcibly with subsequent damage then your printer is a right-off and on its way to printer heaven - the dump. 

Given your extremely light and sporadic use you have been lucky - so far!

Makes great prints though and the vacuum feed is sublime

If anyone wants a Pro 1000 only two years old with light use and is in UK, I have one at £100 for spares and repair only.

[hollisnolan@gmail.com]

Hey, just subscribed again after a decade away. Haven't been here since my Rebel XT days.

Now I am shooting GFX 50s and wondering how far down the printer rabbit hole I want to get. I have P900 budget, and need to start taking my images all the way across the finish line into prints. (Havent printed in a decade either).
The majority of my catalog is 24-26mp from the smaller Fuji bodies, but my work with my H2 (40mp) and 50s is much better, so I'm not too worried about printing the old stuff.

Last wrench in my plan is the ol "by once cry once" methodology. Sure I can grab a P900 now, but how many reviews will I read about the P7570 will I read, and keep wondering:
- what can I do with 4" more
- what can I do with that added green and orange
- what can I do with roll vs sheets

I'm kinda tempted to get the big one and get off the upgrade train. But. I seriously have not made a print in 10 years. Might need to start with some training wheels.

[aaronleitz]

I would read this post if you're considering an Epson 7570:

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=142536.0

[Tuco]

- what can I do with roll vs sheets

You can get a roll feeder (without a cutter) for the p900, for extra $$.

[hollisnolan@gmail.com]

I would read this post if you're considering an Epson 7570:

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=142536.0

Yikes! Thank you.

Looks like P900 or just go Canon. Def not a printer to start learning on.

[dgberg]

I am not a fan of the P900 at all. It is primarily a cheap mostly plastic printer. Small ink carts cost $1.00 a ml which is insane. The best buy in small wide format right now is the new 17" 5370. Built like a tank with roll feed and cutter for a few dollars over 2 grand. The inks are 200 ml for around $96 or .48 a ml, less than half of the P900 baby carts.
I am getting one to just fool around with, it is that impressive.

[KenS]

I am not a fan of the P900 at all. It is primarily a chip mostly plastic printer. Small ink carts must $1.00 a ml which is insane. The best buy in small wide format right now is the new 17" 5370. Built like a tank with roll feed and cutter for a few dollars over 2 grand. The monks are 200 ml for around $96 or .48 a ml less than half of the P900 baby carts.
I am getting one to just fool around with, it is that impressive.

I am interested in the 5370 for my landscape photography as my old Epson 7800 nears the end of its life.  Please keep us informed about your results with your new purchase !

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

The best buy in small wide format right now is the new 17" 5370. Built like a tank with roll feed and cutter for a few dollars over 2 grand. The inks are 200 ml for around $96 or .48 a ml, less than half of the P900 baby carts.

In terms of best value, going by B&H prices as of a moment ago, IMO a decent case can be made for the new Canon Pro-2600 24" printer at $2853. Many Epson prices for a given 'slot' of printer seem to have gone way up--the 24" Epson P7570 is $4245--and HP isn't cheap with a 24" Z9+ being $3195. So in terms of the printer itself, would you rather have a 17" P5370 for $2095 or a 24" Pro-2600 for $2853?

On the ink side, yes, the P5370 ink at $0.48/ml is a good deal. FWIW, the ink for the Pro-2600 costs between $0.45 and $0.66/ml, depending on whether you buy a 700 ml, 330 ml, or 160 cartridge.

[dgberg]

Agree Epson has raised prices on just about everything. I almost purchased a P6000 24" but decided that an extra 17" machine for our smaller portfolio work would make more sense.
5370 is on back order everywhere. Looks like the 3rd. week of March.