44" low-volume photo inkjet printer?
So, my Canon iPF8100 is on its last legs. It's served me not-miserably for several years...when it's worked, it's printed wonderfully, but I've also had to replace the logic board and I've gone through way more print heads than is reasonable. I don't do a lot of volume, and it's not unheard of for me to not need to use it for a couple months or so. I've been religious about printing at least a 36" x 11" test page with lots color usage at least once a week...but that doesn't seem to have spared me all that much in the way of headaches. Maybe being in Arizona doesn't help? It's air conditioned and kept at no more than about 80°F / 27°C, but we basically have zero humidity. Can anybody recommend a replacement that might have a better chance for survival? The print quality of the iPF8100 is, again, just fine for my needs -- though, of course, I'd always welcome a wider gamut. Better paper handling (including straight-through) wouldn't suck, but, again, I can manage with no worse than the iPF8100. Operations cost is high on the list...something friendly (or at least not excessively hostile) to third-party ink would be nice, including printheads that don't die unreasonably soon. Any other features would be mostly irrelevant; the iPF8100 is fast enough, has enough job accounting, and so on. I pretty much just need 44", photo quality, and not likely to die or otherwise eat me alive in maintenance and repairs. It looks like Canon and Epson remain the only big players. I wouldn't rule out other manufacturers, but I'd need some compelling reason to consider an alternative. Thanks, b&
On 13 Sep 2016, at 19:39, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
I pretty much just need 44", photo quality, and not likely to die or otherwise eat me alive in maintenance and repairs.
Ben I choose to use Epson 9900s but I wouldn’t recommend them for low volume work. Our 9900s (like the 9880s before them) will do 3yrs of service, thousands upon thousands of contract proofs and then retire to give even more years of service to others. The heads aren’t consumables like they are on the Canon ink jets so replacement isn’t routine. I can only recall having two print heads replaced in 15 years of contract proofing. The harder you drive the the more reliable they are. Leave them idle and they are nothing but trouble :( Regards -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
I second what Marin Orpen says. Infrequent use with a 99 can be more expensive than getting it printed by a professional fine-art lab. Best, Walker
On Sep 13, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
On 13 Sep 2016, at 19:39, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
I pretty much just need 44", photo quality, and not likely to die or otherwise eat me alive in maintenance and repairs.
Ben
I choose to use Epson 9900s but I wouldn’t recommend them for low volume work.
Our 9900s (like the 9880s before them) will do 3yrs of service, thousands upon thousands of contract proofs and then retire to give even more years of service to others.
The heads aren’t consumables like they are on the Canon ink jets so replacement isn’t routine.
I can only recall having two print heads replaced in 15 years of contract proofing.
The harder you drive the the more reliable they are. Leave them idle and they are nothing but trouble :(
Regards
-- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/forums%40walkerblack...
This email sent to forums@walkerblackwell.com
On Sep 13, 2016, at 1:56 PM, forums@walkerblackwell.com wrote:
On Sep 13, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote: On 13 Sep 2016, at 19:39, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
I pretty much just need 44", photo quality, and not likely to die or otherwise eat me alive in maintenance and repairs.
I choose to use Epson 9900s but I wouldn’t recommend them for low volume work.
I second what Marin Orpen says. Infrequent use with a 99 can be more expensive than getting it printed by a professional fine-art lab.
Thanks; I can appreciate that. But the flip side is that then I'm either dependent on the profiles supplied by the lab or I'm spending insane amounts on building my own profiles for their printers -- plus I'm limited by their paper selection, and so on. Likely can't (affordably) do front-and-back printing, either, which accounts for a fair ratio of the printing I do. Which means there might not be a good answer, I realize...I'm mostly looking for the least worst direction to head in. Knowing that the Epson 9900s should be avoided is good...but does Epson have any not-miserable options? Does Canon? (Or HP, or...?) I see that Canon is still using consumable heads, and they still map out clogged nozzles. That's a recipe for frequent replacement...once a nozzle clogs, even if it's something that might be cleanable if approached right, it never gets any more ink pushed through it, making the clog permanent. Once you lose enough nozzles, the head is toast. Thanks, b&
I agree that Epson's aren't great for low volume usage. Canon's new heads and ink should be better suited for low volume use. Time will tell. Checkout my notes on the Pro-4000 at http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/ Scott Martin (from phone) www.on-sight.com
On Sep 13, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
So, my Canon iPF8100 is on its last legs. It's served me not-miserably for several years...when it's worked, it's printed wonderfully, but I've also had to replace the logic board and I've gone through way more print heads than is reasonable.
I don't do a lot of volume, and it's not unheard of for me to not need to use it for a couple months or so. I've been religious about printing at least a 36" x 11" test page with lots color usage at least once a week...but that doesn't seem to have spared me all that much in the way of headaches. Maybe being in Arizona doesn't help? It's air conditioned and kept at no more than about 80°F / 27°C, but we basically have zero humidity.
Can anybody recommend a replacement that might have a better chance for survival?
The print quality of the iPF8100 is, again, just fine for my needs -- though, of course, I'd always welcome a wider gamut. Better paper handling (including straight-through) wouldn't suck, but, again, I can manage with no worse than the iPF8100. Operations cost is high on the list...something friendly (or at least not excessively hostile) to third-party ink would be nice, including printheads that don't die unreasonably soon. Any other features would be mostly irrelevant; the iPF8100 is fast enough, has enough job accounting, and so on. I pretty much just need 44", photo quality, and not likely to die or otherwise eat me alive in maintenance and repairs.
It looks like Canon and Epson remain the only big players. I wouldn't rule out other manufacturers, but I'd need some compelling reason to consider an alternative.
Thanks,
b& _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/scott%40on-sight.com
This email sent to scott@on-sight.com
participants (4)
-
Ben Goren
-
forums＠walkerblackwell.com
-
Martin Orpen
-
Scott Martin