IPF 8400 vs. Epson 9900

[brntoki]

I've searched the forums and this has been discussed. I'd just like to ask, specifically (though there was some mention in the found threads), about the print quality, and the handling of media in regards to thickness and borderless printing.

1) Is there a noticeable difference in print quality? Is one better than the other? I'm used to small versions of the Epsons and love my results (not so much the clogging   ). It is a little nerve wracking to go to a new maker.

2) It looks like the Epson can handle thicker media. I prefer thicker papers but haven't printed on anything that would, apparently, tax the Canon too much. Anyone run into this wall before with the 8400?

3) Something that I really dislike is not being able to print borderless (though I usually set borderless and then create a border how I prefer, rarely actually printing to the edge), but it looks as if the 8400 is limited in how it allows borderless options; only specific media sizes.

Edit:

4) Just how difficult is it to load sheet media into the Canon? What death-defying feats exactly are needed? I tend to be better than the average bear at finagling and finessing things just so, so is it a case of many users just being all thumbs, or what?

I think the 8400 is the way to go, but just trying to do some due diligence here with those who have experience. Looks like everyone who has made the switch is quite happy, though one user said the print quality of the Canon was noticeably not up to par (but just one member that I remember).

[aaronchan]

I've searched the forums and this has been discussed. I'd just like to ask, specifically (though there was some mention in the found threads), about the print quality, and the handling of media in regards to thickness and borderless printing.

1) Is there a noticeable difference in print quality? Is one better than the other? I'm used to small versions of the Epsons and love my results (not so much the clogging   ). It is a little nerve wracking to go to a new maker.

2) It looks like the Epson can handle thicker media. I prefer thicker papers but haven't printed on anything that would, apparently, tax the Canon too much. Anyone run into this wall before with the 8400?

3) Something that I really dislike is not being able to print borderless (though I usually set borderless and then create a border how I prefer, rarely actually printing to the edge), but it looks as if the 8400 is limited in how it allows borderless options; only specific media sizes.

Edit:

4) Just how difficult is it to load sheet media into the Canon? What death-defying feats exactly are needed? I tend to be better than the average bear at finagling and finessing things just so, so is it a case of many users just being all thumbs, or what?

I think the 8400 is the way to go, but just trying to do some due diligence here with those who have experience. Looks like everyone who has made the switch is quite happy, though one user said the print quality of the Canon was noticeably not up to par (but just one member that I remember).

1. The print quality is about the same according to my naked eye. Epson produce a bit smoother skintone than Canon. But Canon doesn't need to switch PK/MK in any cases.
2. Epson can handles thicker media, but I have printed on 350g paper and 450g canvas with my Canon, nothing wrong with it. I have done 500g sheet paper on the Epson which I "DO NOT" think the Canon can handle it, but seriously, how many times will you print on this type of medium?
3. Canon does borderless printing when you use roll paper. Just like the Epson, only with certain width sizes only.
4. Everything has a learning curve, I spend 1 day to learn how to load a sheet on to my Canon. For the Epson, pretty much the same when I first use it. I spend more than a month to know how to load sheet paper correctly on my previous Z3200.......

I love the Canon, speed is about the same, but at least I don't get clog problem, or so even I have had printhead failure, I just replace it with a new one and it will start to work again within 30mins. Just keep a pair of new head under your bed, that could saves your life. No MK/PK swithing, saves time and money.

I still have 2 Epson 9880s which they just NEVER DIE!
But the newer 9900, it just doesn't like me at all

aaron

[Czornyj]

1. The print quality is about the same according to my naked eye. Epson produce a bit smoother skintone than Canon. But Canon doesn't need to switch PK/MK in any cases.
2. Epson can handles thicker media, but I have printed on 350g paper and 450g canvas with my Canon, nothing wrong with it. I have done 500g sheet paper on the Epson which I "DO NOT" think the Canon can handle it, but seriously, how many times will you print on this type of medium?
3. Canon does borderless printing when you use roll paper. Just like the Epson, only with certain width sizes only.
4. Everything has a learning curve, I spend 1 day to learn how to load a sheet on to my Canon. For the Epson, pretty much the same when I first use it. I spend more than a month to know how to load sheet paper correctly on my previous Z3200.......

I love the Canon, speed is about the same, but at least I don't get clog problem, or so even I have had printhead failure, I just replace it with a new one and it will start to work again within 30mins. Just keep a pair of new head under your bed, that could saves your life. No MK/PK swithing, saves time and money.

I still have 2 Epson 9880s which they just NEVER DIE!
But the newer 9900, it just doesn't like me at all

aaron

+1
Frankly speaking, I like sheed media handling in Canon iPF8x00 - it's fast, convenient and reliable in a long run. I've printed many double side jobs and really appreciate it:

[Phil Indeblanc]

How many printer do you have Aaron! wow! Busy shop you must have.
Sounds like the z is gone for you. Was the Canon that much better in quality?

[Phil Indeblanc]

How many of those cards can you print Marcin,before its too much work aligning, cutting, etc? :-)

[Czornyj]

How many of those cards can you print Marcin,before its too much work aligning, cutting, etc? :-)

I had printed 200 pcs in this batch - my client designed custom christmas cards and he loves Hahnemuehle media Cutting and aligning doesn't take much of a time, the worst problem is that iPF measures sheet size with multisensor each time you load a sheet, which takes ages...

[Phil Indeblanc]

Wow, 200!
If there is anything printed inside, as it looks like it...how do you make sure it lines up. I do see a nice size boarder to help. But still, perhaps there is a known way to make this less frustrating.

What size sheet would make sense, as a 5x7 card would be 3 across on long side for a 24 inch sheet.
Well,bravo to you!

[brntoki]

Thank you Aaron and Marcin.

It sounds as if neither of you subscribe to the idea that the 8400 is too troublesome for sheet loading. Perhaps others have just gotten used to some easier methods and didn't like the too-hands-on approach. If the Canon takes ages to align/measure each sheet, yeah, that is going to drive me nuts. I generally don't mind feeding a sheet at a time, however, as I will only print my own work at my own pace. I often do so when it isn't strictly necessary because I fret over a misfeed screwing up multiple prints instead of only the sheet that was misfed.

Marcin, you said that sheet feeding was fast, convenient, and reliable, but also that it takes ages for the sensor to measure the sheet size. Umm . . . Could you clarify? Is it basically a fast process, but the sensor measurement takes longer than necessary, or something else?

Also, is it a case of people thinking the sheet is loaded properly, but then the print is not squared with the paper? Or would one be warned or know before a print that it wasn't aligned properly?

[Czornyj]

Wow, 200!
If there is anything printed inside, as it looks like it...how do you make sure it lines up. I do see a nice size boarder to help. But still, perhaps there is a known way to make this less frustrating.

What size sheet would make sense, as a 5x7 card would be 3 across on long side for a 24 inch sheet.
Well,bravo to you!

This is why I like iPF sheet handling - there may be a slight misregistration in double side printing, but it's small enough for my needs. My old SP7880 tend to skew sheets, which made it useless for such jobs.

In case of cards and invitations I'm printing rows of cards on 44" roll of Hahnemuehle (all Hahnemuehle fineart papers have no anti-curl layer on the backside), so I only have to load sheets manually to print on the back (usually some text). All I have to do is to iron the prints after printing the first side (you can iron them in a pile)

[Czornyj]

Marcin, you said that sheet feeding was fast, convenient, and reliable, but also that it takes ages for the sensor to measure the sheet size. Umm . . . Could you clarify? Is it basically a fast process, but the sensor measurement takes longer than necessary, or something else?

Also, is it a case of people thinking the sheet is loaded properly, but then the print is not squared with the paper? Or would one be warned or know before a print that it wasn't aligned properly?

iPF measures dimensions  and checks if the sheet is straight, this operation takes some time - it's not a tragedy, but when I print a lot of sheets it eventally starts to piss me off

[brntoki]

iPF measures dimensions  and checks if the sheet is straight, this operation takes some time - it's not a tragedy, but when I print a lot of sheets it eventally starts to piss me off

Sounds just like me! I know what I'm in for and go in with a good attitude, but still end up pissed somewhere along the line. Can't think of anything freaking me out as much as clogged nozzles, though. Really hate screwing with that, all the while knowing it could be the kiss of death, or run me out of ink that I don't happen to have an extra cartridge handy for. I lost an Epson completely out of the blue because of a clog and it stresses me every time I go to make a print with my current Epson. I haven't used anything bigger than an A3+ printer thus far, though, and I'd likely be in the psych ward if I had a 9900 clog on me.

[TSJ1927]

My only gripe with the Canon IPF8300 is the time it takes after printing to be able to release the print. The larger the print, the more time it takes before you can release it.  Called "Terminating".  It may take almost 1 min.

[aaronchan]

iPF measures dimensions  and checks if the sheet is straight, this operation takes some time - it's not a tragedy, but when I print a lot of sheets it eventally starts to piss me off

Actually I kinda like this function.
I use random size of sheet paper, some time from the left over from another print out.
It just easily tells me what size am I printing so I can set my paper size correctly on my computer.

How many printer do you have Aaron! wow! Busy shop you must have.
Sounds like the z is gone for you. Was the Canon that much better in quality?

In my previous company, I had quite a lot of printers.
Some of them were sent by the manufactory for me to test it and help them to mantain their current customer.
such as the Canon 9100 and the Z6100
Also I used to use the Z3200, ipf8300 and the Epson x800/x880 as well
All printer were loaded with OEM inks
So back in that time I was able to do side by side comparison in my office.
Very cool right
But I've left my previous company and now I only got 2 used 9880.
They are old and slow, but they just never die and work like a horse!

aaron

[Jglaser757]

I did the same comparison about a month ago..Bought the 8400 then changed my mind mid shipment due to the difference I could see in a side by side comparison.

The Canon is less worrisome but the tonal gradation is not as good as the Epson. The Epson is a pain in the ass with the cleanings, but when comparing "HEAD TO HEAD" there is a difference. It has to do with the size of the droplets. The loading on the Epson is alot easier!

From what I have heard, others can tweak their Canon Printer to get close in print comparison to the Epson, However, that is going to take alot of tweaking. or twirking if you prefer.

IMHO

[Phil Indeblanc]

If close enough, maybe worth that hassle for profile vs head clog?

Still have not heard any mention on how the z3200 faired to these 2. I thought Aaron might have elaborated in that:-)

[deanwork]

You need to make custom profiles for most media with the Canon ipf. After you do that the gradients are very smooth. I've found the generic paper company icc profiles for the Canon are decent but not great. Epson generic profiles are better. That is except for the Canson papers. I just tried the Canson supplied profile for the Platine and it is excellent. I'm going to make my own but I can't see how I can improve on this.

That Platine on the Canon is so damn sharp that it looks like a totally different printer printed it. All their coatings are so good, better sharpness, better dmax than any other paper and best brightness for a non-oba paper. Got to hand it to Canson, no flaking with the matt rag papers either. They have raised the bar. It costs ya, but they are excellent. Too much bronzing on the Z though with Platine.

john

[aaronchan]

I did the same comparison about a month ago..Bought the 8400 then changed my mind mid shipment due to the difference I could see in a side by side comparison.

The Canon is less worrisome but the tonal gradation is not as good as the Epson. The Epson is a pain in the ass with the cleanings, but when comparing "HEAD TO HEAD" there is a difference. It has to do with the size of the droplets. The loading on the Epson is alot easier!

From what I have heard, others can tweak their Canon Printer to get close in print comparison to the Epson, However, that is going to take alot of tweaking. or twirking if you prefer.

IMHO

Sorry, maybe I wasn't using the right way to explain what I'm trying to say. The gradiant is perfectly fine after I made my custom profile. Plus one of the advantage is you can create your own paper setting on your printer. So you don't have to remember Canson Platine Fibre need to go with Epson Premium Lustre setting..... etc.
What I was trying to say is the dithering. Canon produce a bit mroe noise on skin tone than the Epson. You can see it but I don't really mind, it's still acceptable.

[brntoki]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't using the right way to explain what I'm trying to say. The gradiant is perfectly fine after I made my custom profile. Plus one of the advantage is you can create your own paper setting on your printer. So you don't have to remember Canson Platine Fibre need to go with Epson Premium Lustre setting..... etc.
What I was trying to say is the dithering. Canon produce a bit mroe noise on skin tone than the Epson. You can see it but I don't really mind, it's still acceptable.

Aaron,

Do you agree, then, with deanwork that a custom profile is necessary to get comparable results to the Epsons? I do not have print profiling capability, but was putting it off because I've not been dissatisfied with canned profiles for my Epsons. If you and others say it is really a necessity, then what is an acceptable print profiling solution? The first to mind is the Color Munki Photo, but there are other less expensive alternatives it looks like as well. I think, all-in-all, I can still come out ahead by going with the Canon plus third-party profiler when considering ink costs, etc. It seems like a poor option (though probably convenient) to spring for the IPF's proprietary spectrophotometer as it will only allow profiling that one printer, right (or other IPF's???)? And why does the Canon page say the photometer is for the ipf 6450??? I don't know what that's about.

[aaronchan]

Aaron,

Do you agree, then, with deanwork that a custom profile is necessary to get comparable results to the Epsons? I do not have print profiling capability, but was putting it off because I've not been dissatisfied with canned profiles for my Epsons. If you and others say it is really a necessity, then what is an acceptable print profiling solution? The first to mind is the Color Munki Photo, but there are other less expensive alternatives it looks like as well. I think, all-in-all, I can still come out ahead by going with the Canon plus third-party profiler when considering ink costs, etc. It seems like a poor option (though probably convenient) to spring for the IPF's proprietary spectrophotometer as it will only allow profiling that one printer, right (or other IPF's???)? And why does the Canon page say the photometer is for the ipf 6450??? I don't know what that's about.

Sorry, I have not used a canned profile before, not on any of my printers.
So I can't really say what's the acceptable range for you.
But If you are buying a $3000 dollars printer, I thinking spending another $450 is reasonable.
I like the ColorMunki which produce superb profile with 100 patches only.
The outcome is amazing.

[brntoki]

Sorry, I have not used a canned profile before, not on any of my printers.
So I can't really say what's the acceptable range for you.
But If you are buying a $3000 dollars printer, I thinking spending another $450 is reasonable.
I like the ColorMunki which produce superb profile with 100 patches only.
The outcome is amazing.

"But If you are buying a $3000 dollars printer, I thinking spending another $450 is reasonable."

I really agree with this, but if I went with the Epson I'd wait probably on the profiler. It's something I'll need eventually at any rate. And where can I get this printer for $3000? Do tell!