On 01/30/2012 05:29 AM, Scott Martin wrote:
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.
Scott, a good oversight. Some comments though. The iPF8300 and iPF6300 inks have that but the iPF5100 inks are not better than what Epson or HP have on the specs you mention above. The HP inks still have the best fade resistance but that may not be interesting for Roger. If an iPF5100 is considered I would suggest to take an iPF6300, about 4 years difference in Canon technology tweaking. Will not load heaps of sheets though, only single sheets. In the sense of lowest maintenance costs and ink consumption nothing beats the HP Z models but Roger is after a smaller wide format sheet loader in the first place I think. Check Keith's (Northlight) recent review of the iPF5100, there is something going on about lower pricing (1000 UKP or dollar) in view of a possible new model. If the Epson 4900 is considered check a recent illustrated thread on a dissected 7900, 3 years old and only 900 prints done, Roger's 4000 may have survived time better. Luminous Landscape pages. There is a basic flaw in the one wiper blade used on a 10 ink channel printer or Epson should change at least its service/maintenance model on that part and allow an easy replacement of that part by the user.
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 love my Z's and drive second hand French cars. Both for low mileage a year. Must be Dutch austerity.
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...
For high volume get a Canon, actual speed at consistent good quality is best of all, too many Epsons x900s have to use the highest print resolution settings to keep print quality issues limited and that affects speed. HP Z3200 heads still have >1000 nozzles per ink channel but the Canon's have >2000 per ink channel (like the HP 6200 heads). That represents the speeds delivered. Head exchanges are however far less costly on Z's measured over time and volume. Epsons 360 nozzle per channel heads act different, the variable droplet sizes compensate nozzle numbers partly and per nozzle the frequency could be higher. Epson not-user replaceable heads are very expensive, see the LL thread again. For a low volume printer the HP Z3200s are still the best solution but not if sheet loading is your first requirement. On image quallity, the Epsons use a minimum 3.5 picoliter droplet and possibly up to 12 picoliter in this range, the Canon 4 picoliter throughout, the HP two sizes: 4 and 6 picoliter. Every new generation improves dithering + weaving but some major steps were made around 2006 I think. In wide formats I expect that speed is the next goal and image improvements on gloss specs. Third party inks exist for all models right now, Image Specialists has Canon + HP pigment ink alternatives. Epson has many more alternatives. I do not think it is a wise choice today for a low volume printer. Very good recommendation in the rest of your comment I think. Given the LL thread on the x900 internals I would think the 3880 is the best economic 17" on the market if it has to last 2-3 years, no roll printing though and ink is more expensive. Otherwise wait for that Canon iPF5100 replacement. -- met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Shareware too: 330+ paper white spectral plots: http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm