Re: Are Canon IPF printers any reliable?
Re: Are Canon IPF printers any reliable?
- Subject: Re: Are Canon IPF printers any reliable?
- From: Scott Martin <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:29:32 -0600
> I can't put any more time and money on my old Epson 4000
> printer without ruining my bank account....I thought Scott Martin could chime in with his experience?
Hey Roger. If you're coming from a 4000 anything will be a huge improvement. What a clogging disaster the 4000 was! Don't get me started...
It's nice how a new year can cast familiar things in a new light. When I look at the x300 printers this month I can't help but feel like there's a bit of old technology in them - the B&W displays, the silly 8bit icons in the print spoolers and the overall slow user responsiveness (like loading and ejecting paper). Canon's print speeds and print quality are great. I think their inkset is the best of the 3 brands (lowest bronzing, highest scratch resistance, look to B&W prints, etc), but the dot placement not quite as accurate as Epson's.
When I'm on Z series printer, I feel like it's the same old stuff we had three years ago. From what I've heard the platform is going much of anywhere but I hope I'm wrong. I just don't like using the Z's but I don't have nearly as many things to complain about as I did a few years ago.
When I'm on Epson's x900 printers I feel like I'm using a refined tool that's a pleasure to spend the day with. The sounds, the responsiveness, the color display, the accurate paper handling all lead to customer satisfaction. I love them like a German car but dread the expensive repair that might lie ahead. Z's and iPFs are practical like asian cars but not particularly lovable.
I oversee a large base of clients using all three brands of pigment printers in different markets and it's fun to see the advantages and disadvantages of each system in different enviorments, and watch for trends. Canon and HP's on-board calibration provides a level of consistency over time that Epson clearly doesn't, and that's attractive to bigger businesses but not as much to smaller ones.
As for print heads, I see advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Epson's solution is great for lower volume personal usage - they usually last long enough until you want to get a new printer anyway. That said, I'm pretty shocked to see so many 9900's needing head replacements in the last year. Half a dozen of my clients are furious about replacing 13-15 month old 9900s last year. I feel like the days of the old reliable 9600 are gone.
Low volume Canon iPF users dread potential head replacement. Those that keep their printers on and make at least one print a week have found their heads can last 3+ years. But lots of people turn their printers off and don't use them for periods of time and that leads to premature head failure - we're seeing a lot of that. High volume users LOVE the user replaceable heads and are happy to replace them after they've made a jagillion bucks on them. High volume users need excellent consistently over time across a bunch of fast printers that crank out prints 8+ hours a day and the iPF printers really excel in this type of environment.
HP's heads have so few nozzles that they are inexpensive to replace but that's also why they are so slow...
RIP integration is another issue and I see Epson's fitting the bill nicely more often than the other two. The Z series integrates the RIP with the spectro like no other which GMG users love for good reason. Too many details to get into here...
In my own studio (where I have a lot of printers that are coming and going) I'm reminded that operating any of these large format printers is expensive, and the hassles are significant every now and then. For those that are new to large format printing the excitement of owning one overshadows the costs and hassles. Over time we better recognize these costs for what they are.
Lots of people buying large format printers these days are low volume users. And the unforeseen longterm costs can be really awful for them especially if they don't use their printer frequently as they were designed to be used. I think something like an Epson 3880 or 4900 probably makes more sense for this type of user than a Z series or iPF. High volume users find the iPF printers to be the reliable, practical workhorse with all sorts of the little goodies they can't live without (PS print plug-in, long print support, volume print management with job storage on local hard drive, etc)
But getting back to those low volume users that are so common today. The 3880 has been super popular but is getting long in the tooth. That's the printer to beat. On that note, the Canon Pro-1 is new - super new, well throughout and refined technology from a separate division at Canon. The inks are even newer are more exciting than the x300 inks - clearly the best out there, IMO, and a sign of things to come. If the rumors are true that we'll see a 17" version and possibly even a 24" down the line I think they will be very popular in low volume environments. Small footprint, lean, 17-24" printers with medium sized ink cartridges should be a fun segment to watch during the next 10 years.
Roger, I'm not sure what your needs and usage are like. I'd really take a fresh look at the RIP situation and not use one unless you must, and weigh the above mentioned brand advantages based on your volume. Brush off your 4000 experience and look at all options without bias. The three brands are neck-to-neck with no clear overall winner. It's your needs and usage that will likely point you towards one or the other.
Scott Martin
Onsight
Precise photographic color and workflow training
http://www.on-sight.com
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden