Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: HPZ, Epson 4800/7800, Canon IPF shootout  (Read 27458 times)
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4924



« Reply #20 on: December 24, 2006, 09:11:16 PM »
ReplyReply

My Z3100 review will be online in about a week to 10 days, likely with answers to all of the questions that people have about it.

There's a lot more to this printer than meets the eye. It's quite remarkable.

Michael
Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #21 on: December 25, 2006, 11:21:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm getting the feeling the new HP series will end up being the "Cat's Meow" of printers.  I stayed away from the Canon 5000 simply because of all the "issues" and have been waiting for the next "BIG" printer (though I did order an Epson 3800) which I believe will be the HP Z3100 and I think I'm going to take the plunge; I'll EAGERLY await Michael's review!  I've had great success with HP in the past, but then Epson (and eventually Canon) just rolled over HP making their photo printers almost insignificant until recently.  Competition sure is great and it's very nice to see Canon and now HP throw their collective hats into the inkjet photo ring.  I agree that prints produced by all 3 manufacturers are "equal" and print speed, ease of use, features, etc. are most important.  

I do have one question for Michael.  Epson has a proven track record with inkjet photo printers as well as archival printing, neither Canon nor Hp do; what made you take a chance with Canon since you sell your prints?  Did you have any trepidation making the leap to Canon IPF5000?   I was quite surprised to see your latest portfolios being printed with the Canon printer, obviously you have no worries or concerns??

Gary
« Last Edit: December 25, 2006, 11:22:00 AM by Gemmtech » Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #22 on: December 25, 2006, 11:24:32 AM »
ReplyReply

The biggest concerns I had about the HP (absent a review re: image quality, etc.) were:

1) Cost - over $4000 U.S. compared to $1395 I paid for the IPF5000.  Of course, it includes a built in spectrophotometer, but I already own one.
2) Concerns about whether you can easily feed sheets from a Cassette like the Canon.  If you don't have this, printing on sheets could be a much bigger hassle.

I look forward to Michael's review.

--John
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4924



« Reply #23 on: December 25, 2006, 12:44:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Gary,

For me initially the attraction of the iPF5000 was not having to swap blacks as one does with Epson's large format K3 ink printers.

Since that move I have nothing but praise for the 5000's image quality and reliability. During early December I printed some 1,700 11X17" prints in 25 days of almost continious use, without a head clog, misfire or feed problem. Quite remarkable.

The printer still annoys with its poor user interface and lack of accesible documentation, but otherwise its a honey.

John,

The Z series printers do not have paper cassettes. There is only sheet feed or roll feed. Same as the large Epsons like the 7800 and 9800.

Also, you can't compare the cost of the iPF5000 and the Z printers, they are quite different beasts different size, different features, different markets.

As for price, figure in the fact that they have a built-in spectrophotometer, a 40Gb hard drive and a web server, and you'll see that they are very compatatively priced.

Michael
Logged
Tim Ernst
Guest
« Reply #24 on: December 25, 2006, 01:18:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree about not being able to compare the Canon and HP - two completely different printers. I find a need for both, and neither one will do it all. The Canon can print no larger than 17" obviously, and the HP can do 24" (or 44"). Yet the 24" printers don't do sheets well, and most of my printing is on 13x19 sheets - I don't like rolls other than for larger prints. The HP 130 was so great since it had a cassette and did 24" rolls, but I don't think we are going to see that again with any pigment printers, at least not in the near future. So my only solution is to have more than one printer - and since HP doesn't make a 17" one I now have the Canon 17" and the HP 24" (the z3100 being delivered tomorrow), plus two 13" printers to carry to workshops (Epson and HP). I should be a happy camper - at least until the next Epson line comes out...
Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #25 on: December 25, 2006, 04:45:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder how difficult it would be to make a paper cassette for the HP Z3100?  I do want to print using sheets, there has to be some work around.  I'm sure in 2007 we will see Epson and Canon new models with some of my top 10 desired features, however it seems that every single new printer we take 2 steps forward with 1 or 2 steps backwards.  Eventually we might have the "Holy Grail" of printers, but it would probably hurt business since they depend upon all of us to upgrade as do car manufacturers.  For now I just use multiple printers to handle various tasks.

Gary
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4924



« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2006, 05:27:37 PM »
ReplyReply

None of these large roll paper printers, from any manufacturer, are designed to take paper cassettes, and to imagine that one could be retrofitted is to miss the point.

If you need a cassette-based printer then something like the Canon iPF5000 is a good choice, since it can handle the largest papers that are commonly made. But, be aware that the better art papers won't feed properly from the cassette, and you'll have to feed them single sheet anyhow.

One device can't do everything that everyone needs.

Michael
Logged
haefnerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2006, 05:47:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I think it would be a marvelous idea to produce a 17" version of the Z3100, has anyone heard of such a machine on the horizon?  Michael, how is the print speed with the Z3100?  Does the gloss optimizer slow it down?  Jim
Logged

Tim Ernst
Guest
« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2006, 07:20:04 PM »
ReplyReply

<<None of these large roll paper printers, from any manufacturer, are designed to take paper cassettes, and to imagine that one could be retrofitted is to miss the point.>>

Actually the HP 130 has one and it is great. A very simple concept that makes the printer useful for a wide range of media sizes from small sheets up to 24" rolls. If only it were a pigment printer...
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4260



« Reply #29 on: December 25, 2006, 08:24:00 PM »
ReplyReply

If I may indulge my sarcastic sense of humor -

----------
The good news is you get a printer that relinearizes with a button press, giving repeatable prints.

The bad news is you need a linearization tool because everytime you swap out a head you really should relinearize ....
-----------

As for some here who wonder whether they should go for Canon or Epson or HP - I think all brands deliver very good quality these days, if properly profiled...Let's be thankful for the competition, at least the quality of the big three keeps getting better, even though the running costs are stratospheric.

Edmund


Quote
The twin pack of 130ml cartridges is priced the same as 1 Epson 220ml cartridge or thereabouts.
The heads are as permanent as Epson print heads thus will last a good time before nozzles start failing. When you do need to replace the head ( all are 2 color per head) you just plug in a new one. They are very reasonably priced compared to all others.
On dry times> the HP inks are stable to <0.5 dE in <5 minutes and stay put there after.
Drying time are known for all HP OEM media and assumed for others. If when profiling you prefer to read in the patches at a later time/date you simply check the radio button to do this. Not really a trick but a planned feature.

On patches. I think it is 463 patches on the built in profiler standard on all Z printers. Yet the option for a software / hardware Gretag/X-Rite Profile Maker upgrade is going to cost no more than a few ( I can't remember exact pricing) good custom profiles would. It has an excellent editor in it and can take the infamous Bill Atkinson TC 9.18 (918 patch) charts. A very worthwhile option of any photographer.

On calibration: profiles are always created after calibrating. Hence it's the calibration that brings the printer and media combo back in line for continuous use of already generated profiles. Only when media or other external influences are carrying changes would you have to re-profile. Normally the paper vendors should be meeting specification hence little change between rolls should occur.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: December 25, 2006, 08:36:21 PM by eronald » Logged
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666


« Reply #30 on: December 25, 2006, 09:09:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...Let's be thankful for the competition, at least the quality of the big three keeps getting better, even though the running costs are stratospheric.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The running costs are a total steal. What is stratospheric is the potential that's available to us.

All of these printers can produce predictable and repeatable, consistent results of much higher quality than ever before. Archival printing is in the hands of the layman and the pro alike. Paper choices are seemingly endless and readily available in sizes from note cards to murals.

Gone are the days of the toxic darkroom. My fingernails are no longer yellowed from fixer and the saturation of silver, selenium and bleach in my liver is hopefully reducing over time. None of these heavy metals are being released into the water table after I end a printing session.

The current state of the art in inkjet printing is amazing, though clearly still in it's infancy.

The discussions here are often among those who have no idea what it was like 'in the old days,' as little as 10 years ago.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2006, 09:11:07 PM by K.C. » Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #31 on: December 25, 2006, 10:17:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The discussions here are often among those who have no idea what it was like 'in the old days,' as little as 10 years ago.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Or by those of us who would like to forget the old days.  Personally, I prefer the smell of the inkjet print making over the darkroom!

Gary
Logged
EvoM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« Reply #32 on: December 26, 2006, 11:06:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Phew!...I'm glad to see Michael thinks it's around 12 ink cartidges per print head change, thanks Micheal!

Now that's sorted I just need a comparison expected ink use with say a 9800 or ipf8000 before laying out the cash on  Z3100 44", 12 inker!

Wonder if Micheal will be able to offer any info via the software data?

Evo

ps how's the gloss ink use too?
Logged
PrintLabGuy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2007, 02:59:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Anyone have an idea how fast the HP z3100 prints in high res compared to the Epson and Canon printers? Right now I am printing out 15, 30x40 full color posters @ 300dpi and it took 8 hrs just to print out ten of them on my Epson 9600 printer. Fortunately we aren't too busy but I'd like to handle more volume jobs and need a printer that can do it.
Logged
djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2007, 03:40:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Or by those of us who would like to forget the old days.  Personally, I prefer the smell of the inkjet print making over the darkroom!

Gary
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Last Sunday I spent three hours cleaning out a fair amount of my ex-darkroom-turned-storage-room, including a couple of 3.5 gal. containers with R5 developer and blix that had been fermenting for over 6 years. I needed some space so I could move some stuff from my main work room and make space for my iPF5000. I'm glad that's over! Now if I could figure out a way to sell somebody my Jobo Colorstar 2000 analyzer ...
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2007, 03:50:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now if I could figure out a way to sell somebody my Jobo Colorstar 2000 analyzer ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

eBay (you'd be surprised what there is a market for!)
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2007, 05:25:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I really think that we can wait one more day until michaels review is up. Most of our answers will be answered.
Logged

Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2007, 05:33:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I really think that we can wait one more day until michaels review is up. Most of our answers will be answered.

Hopefully our questions too!
(Mine being how these printers handle deckle edge papers)
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Logged
sallysal58
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2007, 04:22:33 AM »
ReplyReply

This is my experience testing the 3 printers:
Canon IP: expensive ink cartridges!
             expensive printhead
             bad service, no support from dealers!
             colour range smaller than HP / Epson despite the 12 colours!
             Fast printing at low resolutions, slow at photo quality (same as Epson)!
             Color degradations, after a few month black is grey...
             overall rating : 6
             I do not recommend to buy the Canon printers! If their cameras are good
             than I rate their printers as bad

HP Z2100 : Thermal heads needs regurly replacing ( = COST)
              Spectometer waste of time ( each day 10 minits calibrating)      
              There are 1000 nozzles for each color but they are not all used...when  
              the nozzles block it simply take another nozzle = deflections =
              calibrations = time waste!!!
              It is an expensive machine because we only use 2 or 3 papers!!!
              overall rating : 7
              We use this printer for 1 month...and already replaced 4 printheads!!!

Epson SP7800 : super quality on Epson Photo Glossy and FujiFilm premium photo
               paper!
               Can print on carton board 1,2mm thick!
               We have this printer for 1 year... NEVER got cloggings!
               We have done +- 9500sqm
               Free ICC profiles from FujiFilm!!!

anyway we sell the posters, prints and pictures...so are we only using Quality brands, we are not interested in cheap papers that deterioate the printer or that affect our quality assets!
Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2007, 04:55:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Or by those of us who would like to forget the old days.  Personally, I prefer the smell of the inkjet print making over the darkroom!

Gary
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's not really a matter of whether the inkjet is a replacement for the darkroom. Each has its place. For example, if I need to make 40 8x10's, it would take an eternity to do via inkjet. I can do it in the darkroom in a couple of hours.

Also, I've yet to see an inkjet print that compares to a fiber-base glossy black-and-white.

Inkjet or Darkroom? Both!
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad