Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Epson printers in fall...  (Read 45058 times)
namartinnz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 187


« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2007, 03:38:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I for one am surprised this is that big of an issue to so many ... it would seem that  most photographers have their preference and rarely if ever switch.  I for one can't remember the last time I used matte black ... I just prefer the saturation and detail I can get with photo glossy papers.

That reasoning may be ok if you're only printing your own work. But if you're running a business and one customer wants prints on satin paper, then the next wants canvas, the option to swap blacks automatically becomes very important. This was the main reason I refused to buy an Epson 9800 and chose the Z3100 instead. I know of one local competitor who uses photo black for printing  canvas images. I've now taken away some of his business because I can do matt black prints that look better. It's a real step backwards in my opinion that Epson aren't doing 9 inks in all their new product releases. I had to deal with it when I  had the Epson 2100/2200 printer and jumped on the Epson 4000 when it came out. This has the potential to alienate a lot of buyers.

Neal
Logged

Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2007, 03:51:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since the "cat" is out of the bag, and several journalists have already seen these printers, it seems Epson or someone should be willing to respond to the Mk/Pk question.

I for one am surprised this is that big of an issue to so many ... it would seem that  most photographers have their preference and rarely if ever switch.  I for one can't remember the last time I used matte black ... I just prefer the saturation and detail I can get with photo glossy papers.

Anyone?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My answer is pretty much the same as Neal's. I held off and stayed away from the ink swapping Epson's because I couldn't imagine going through some time / ink consuming crazy process just because I need to print on a different surface.

One customer needs a print on glossy. Another needs some prints on matte. Or watercolor paper. Then another needs satin. Another needs canvas. You get the picture.

For me, it's not just the print jobs for others. I print some of my work on glossy / satin media. With the z, I like to print much of my B&W on matte, but not all. Swapping PK / MK inks would just be a nightmare for me. Surely Epson has eliminated PK / MK swap business on their new printers?
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2007, 10:48:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That reasoning may be ok if you're only printing your own work. But if you're running a business and one customer wants prints on satin paper, then the next wants canvas, the option to swap blacks automatically becomes very important. This was the main reason I refused to buy an Epson 9800 and chose the Z3100 instead. I know of one local competitor who uses photo black for printing  canvas images. I've now taken away some of his business because I can do matt black prints that look better. It's a real step backwards in my opinion that Epson aren't doing 9 inks in all their new product releases. I had to deal with it when I  had the Epson 2100/2200 printer and jumped on the Epson 4000 when it came out. This has the potential to alienate a lot of buyers.

Neal
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I actually do own a business, and even though inkjet output is a fractional part (< 1%) of what we do, we run multiple Epson printers, each dedicated to its own workflow, ink type, and paper type.  I can't imagine it any other way.  We currently run 3 4000's and 2 7600's, all with matte ink, and 2 4800's and one 9800 with PK, mostly on canvas.

My personal printers are 4800 and 9800, since I prefer to print my own prints instead of letting my staff do it, and I tend to use papers that we don't offer.

For individuals just doing their own work a single printer is a big investment, but if you are printing work for others, it just doesn't take that much business to run multiple printers, and in fact dedicating a paper type to a printer is the most efficient workflow.  They are so cheap relative to any other photo output device (Noritsu's, Lambda's, etc) that a couple of them just are not that much.

As far as being a real step back .. well that was my original question.  Does anyone out there have a definitive answer?
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2854


« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2007, 07:37:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I actually do own a business, and even though inkjet output is a fractional part (< 1%) of what we do, we run multiple Epson printers, each dedicated to its own workflow, ink type, and paper type.  I can't imagine it any other way.  We currently run 3 4000's and 2 7600's, all with matte ink, and 2 4800's and one 9800 with PK, mostly on canvas.

My personal printers are 4800 and 9800, since I prefer to print my own prints instead of letting my staff do it, and I tend to use papers that we don't offer.

For individuals just doing their own work a single printer is a big investment, but if you are printing work for others, it just doesn't take that much business to run multiple printers, and in fact dedicating a paper type to a printer is the most efficient workflow.  They are so cheap relative to any other photo output device (Noritsu's, Lambda's, etc) that a couple of them just are not that much.

As far as being a real step back .. well that was my original question.  Does anyone out there have a definitive answer?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129463\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is it a wild guess if I write that you started with the three 4000's that have MK and PK aboard ?

Individuals, small shop owners, starters and shops that will never own 8 printers will like the universal ink set of one or two printers for gloss + matt in both B&W and color mode. With two if one fails you still have the same flexibility. The shop has to diversify its equipment anyway for sheet or roll processing.

The five 17" you have can easily be replaced by two Canon iPF5000's. One or two Z3100's or iPF8000-9000 will do the roll jobs.

Ernst Dinkla

www.pigment-print.com
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2007, 02:07:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is it a wild guess if I write that you started with the three 4000's that have MK and PK aboard ?

Individuals, small shop owners, starters and shops that will never own 8 printers will like the universal ink set of one or two printers for gloss + matt in both B&W and color mode. With two if one fails you still have the same flexibility. The shop has to diversify its equipment anyway for sheet or roll processing.

The five 17" you have can easily be replaced by two Canon iPF5000's. One or two Z3100's or iPF8000-9000 will do the roll jobs.

Ernst Dinkla

www.pigment-print.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129503\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually we started with the 7600, and it has never had PK ink in it.

You are right, there are some that both matte and photo black are a very important feature.  I have never disputed that point, and if that is a must have for anyone, then HP is probably the best option right now.

However,  there are many of us that have no use for that feature at all.  I do not need it for my business, nor do I need the expense of a built in color profiling solution.   From a personal perspective, I wouldn't mind a good printer that has both, even though I rarely need matte, so it really isn't a major consideration for me.  As I mentioned I am much more interested in the performance of the new inks, and also just curious if there is any "official" word (in other words, someone that has actually seen a demonstration) of no mk/pk support.

As far as replacing the printers, not sure why I would do that.  The 4000's still have their original PK ink cartridge installed, despite printing thousands of prints. We have never done a single ink swap in any of the other printers.  Each printer is dedicated to a particular paper size/type. The sheet feed mechanism of the canon seems to be awkward (we have one) and not quite as reliable (more jams).    All printers are also dedicated to a single paper size/type.  Since labor is the biggest production cost, and we ship  all product the day after recieving the file, multiple machines is far more cost effective and efficient. Were I to replace all of them, even with the added speed of the canon and HP, I wouldn't have fewer printers, I would just need to run them a couple of hours less per day. Since these printers run 12-14 hours a day during peak times, I would be  surprised if the heads in the other printers would hold up under that much production.  Am I unique? Perhaps in the fact that landscape photography is a serious hobby so I frequent sites like this, but  I think there is a large part of Epson's installed base of these printers that are production facilities that operate similarly.

I hope Epson does eventually solve the mk/pk issue, so we can focus more about the quality of the output.  I have an ipf5000 and had a z3100 for about a month.  As far as quality of output is concerned I see nothing the indicates that either of them can produce a better print ... all of them are capable of producing outstanding results.  That would be the most compelling reason to switch.
Logged

Charles Gast
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2007, 06:58:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
  I have an ipf5000 and had a z3100 for about a month.  As far as quality of output is concerned I see nothing the indicates that either of them can produce a better print ... all of them are capable of producing outstanding results.  That would be the most compelling reason to switch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129879\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The ipf5000 I had also was difficult to use with the sheet feeder.
As far as quality goes I suppose it depends on definitions. One of the primary reasons the ipf5000 I had was on Ebay within a few months of purchase was that Wilhelm was withholding and continues to withhold final and official ink longevity figures.  The HPz series figures from Wilhelm are double those of the Epson.  Even though I will not be around in 250 years to appreciate the performance I like to know that under worst case conditions such as a print exposed without glass in a  brightly sunlit room the prints I am producing are very unlikely to shift colors within my lifetime.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2007, 05:24:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The ipf5000 I had also was difficult to use with the sheet feeder.
As far as quality goes I suppose it depends on definitions. One of the primary reasons the ipf5000 I had was on Ebay within a few months of purchase was that Wilhelm was withholding and continues to withhold final and official ink longevity figures.  The HPz series figures from Wilhelm are double those of the Epson.  Even though I will not be around in 250 years to appreciate the performance I like to know that under worst case conditions such as a print exposed without glass in a  brightly sunlit room the prints I am producing are very unlikely to shift colors within my lifetime.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


While longevity is important, I believe the conditions you stated will ruin any print in far less than your  lifetime.  Fortunately I don't think many prints are subjected to such treatment.

 I agree with your assessment of Canon's problem especially since the rumored ipf5100 includes a new "black" ink.  The very fact that the information has not been made available even though it appears the tests were made is disconcerting ... one of my concerns with Wilhelm is who funds the research and who are they beholding to.  Indeed if either they or Canon are aware of a problem and are keeping it quiet, (which the lack of information implies) then I"m not sure how reliable either company is.

While I think accelerated aging tests are valuable they are only predictors, so saying one lasts 125 years and one lasts 250 years  ... to me it means simply that any print with decent treatment will last a very long time, longer than work I was producing 30 years ago, which still looks pretty good.  So my main concern is how do my prints look now.  As such even after about 4 weeks with an HP on 2 different ocassions ( I really wanted an excuse to buy this printer) and even though I felt the printer produced great results, I didn't feel it exceeded the Epson and in some cases wasn't quite as good.  

We are however to an area that gets pretty subjective ... both are very good.
Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 26, 2007, 06:07:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since the "cat" is out of the bag, and several journalists have already seen these printers, it seems Epson or someone should be willing to respond to the Mk/Pk question.

I for one am surprised this is that big of an issue to so many ... it would seem that  most photographers have their preference and rarely if ever switch.  I for one can't remember the last time I used matte black ... I just prefer the saturation and detail I can get with photo glossy papers.

Anyone?


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its fundamental to me. I'm not buying a new Epson unless and until I can switch from matte to Photo black without hassle and expense.

they are falling behind.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8074



WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2007, 06:51:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Its fundamental to me. I'm not buying a new Epson unless and until I can switch from matte to Photo black without hassle and expense.

they are falling behind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Same thing here, I just don't get why they don't get it.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2007, 07:25:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since the "cat" is out of the bag, and several journalists have already seen these printers, it seems Epson or someone should be willing to respond to the Mk/Pk question.

I for one am surprised this is that big of an issue to so many ... it would seem that  most photographers have their preference and rarely if ever switch.  I for one can't remember the last time I used matte black ... I just prefer the saturation and detail I can get with photo glossy papers.

Anyone?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I print on both matte and satin/luster papers.  Its true that when I owned only an Epson printer I went strictly matte to avoid changing inks.  With the HP Z I'm printing again on satin/luster papers as well as matte.  

I like that ability as well as the built-in spectro with APS.  I never quite bought into Epson's claims that their printers were calibrated for life at the factory.

I was very pleased with the prints from my Epson and still think they set the mark for the other manufacturers to equal.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2007, 07:27:31 PM by rdonson » Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
wtlloyd
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2007, 07:32:55 PM »
ReplyReply

They do get it, judging by Micheal's latest report. I own a 4800, I upgraded from a 4000, but I won't be getting a 4880. I also will wait for a dual photo/matte black printer. I have never been tempted to jump to HP or Canon, however. I remember how responsive Epson was to initial issues that came up with the new Pro line printers - and to me, a company that really cares about it's users is one I want to support.
I'm glad I've waited for Epson to develop their next gen technology. It looks like there's a lot more coming than merely a 9 ink print head, and that makes the wait all the more worthwhile. Here's hoping it's everything it looks to be. I'm in for a 24".


Quote
Same thing here, I just don't get why they don't get it.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2007, 07:32:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Its fundamental to me. I'm not buying a new Epson unless and until I can switch from matte to Photo black without hassle and expense.

they are falling behind.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey! It's not such a big deal. How much does 10ml of black ink cost and a 24"x40" piece of the cheapest paper? Not much. That's all it costs to change from pk to mk or vice versa. With experience, you might even be able to reduce the wastage of 10-12ml of black ink by continuing to make additional prints with the 'wrong' paper type in order to use as much as possible of the black ink in the system before changing rolls.

Quote
How to change the photo/matte ink in the Epson 7600 and 9600 printers without using the costly Epson draining procedure:

1 – Make sure your printer is not switched on
2 - Open the ink cartridge lever in the ink cartridge bay
3 - Replace the photo black cartridge with the matte black cartridge (or vice versa)
4 - Leave the ink lever open !
5 –Using the printer control panel go into Maintenance Mode 2 by by switching power ON while pushing the 'Paper source', 'Cut/Eject', and 'Paper Feed down' buttons.
6 - Press the 'Paper Feed down' button until you see "SERVICE CONFIG" on the display - press the 'arrow right' button. It then shows 'XXD' in the lower part of the display.
7 - Press the 'Paper Feed down' button until you see "NPD" - press 'arrow right' button. A value of '1' appears in the display.
8 - There are 3 possible value settings for NPD:
0 - no ink check
1 - pigmented ink (there should be s star "*" at this setting)
2 - dye inks

9 - Change NPD setting to '0' (no ink check) and press "Enter" - a star should now show next to the '0' value
10 -Switch printer off
11 - Switch printer on
12 - Close the ink lever in the ink cartridge bay
13 - Printer and driver shows the matte black ink is installed (or photo black ink)

You can use the same procedure to switch from matte black to photo black or from photo black to matte black.
What happens is that once you change the ink in that way the printer
re-sets the 'NPD' value back to '1' the next time you switch on the
printer in the normal way (non maintenance mode).

At that point the previous black ink, either matte or photo black, has not been flushed our of the printer. Here is what you need to do to flush the remaining ink:

The 7600 uses approximately 10 to12 ml of ink before the previous black ink is flushed out.
1 - Create a 23"x 40" image in Photoshop and fill it with pure black (RGB 0,0,0).
2 - I use inexpensive matte paper and print that image at 720dpi.
3 - When you look at the finished print you will see that 2/3 of the print is photo ink as it looks a little bit dull and the rest of the print shows the nice dark matte ink.
4 - When this image is done printing the ink line is charged with matte black (or photo black).
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9164



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2007, 08:09:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On the other hand, I think it's fair to remind everyone that the 3800 is a relatively new printer (less than a year old) and sometimes clogging behavior becomes more nasty as the print head ages. So time will tell.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a 3800 and 4800. Never a clog on the 3800 and I prefer the dither and print quality on the 3800.

So if you have both, you'll get a better idea what the newer 3800 technology brings to the party.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
frankric
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2007, 08:50:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray

The so-called 'South African' method of PK/MK ink swap you describe does *not* work with the x800 series. I looked into it very carefully after I replaced my 4000 with a 7800.

My (expensive) solution was to buy Image Print and use their Phatte Black system. I was (and still am) very peeved to have had to spend the additional money to have the flexibility I believed it should have had out of the box.

Ironically the 4000 of course had PK & MK installed, but I never used glossy media with it as I found the bronzing and gloss differential with that printer to be unacceptable.

I'm sure that one printer dedicated to each black ink is a workable solution for high volume users. But not for me, or I suspect many other users.

Regards

Frank
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2007, 10:12:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray

The so-called 'South African' method of PK/MK ink swap you describe does *not* work with the x800 series. I looked into it very carefully after I replaced my 4000 with a 7800.

My (expensive) solution was to buy Image Print and use their Phatte Black system. I was (and still am) very peeved to have had to spend the additional money to have the flexibility I believed it should have had out of the box.

Ironically the 4000 of course had PK & MK installed, but I never used glossy media with it as I found the bronzing and gloss differential with that printer to be unacceptable.

I'm sure that one printer dedicated to each black ink is a workable solution for high volume users. But not for me, or I suspect many other users.

Regards

Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank,
That's very puzzling indeed. The fact that the South African method works (in previous and similar models at least) indicates that there's no major technological design problem in simply flushing out of the system the black ink only.

Simply including an additional cartridge which is always in place, does not eliminate wastage since the nozzles for the inactive cartridge still have to be routinely cleaned at the same time as all the others.

Perhaps the simplest explanation is the correct one. Epson makes its profits from the sale of ink (and paper of course).
« Last Edit: July 26, 2007, 10:14:17 PM by Ray » Logged
dilip
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2007, 10:57:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have a 3800 and 4800. Never a clog on the 3800 and I prefer the dither and print quality on the 3800.

So if you have both, you'll get a better idea what the newer 3800 technology brings to the party.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


After reading Michael's comments on the x880 family of printers, I have to say that I'm surprised to see that they don't have the same autoswap mechanism as the 3800.

With regard to clogs, I have had my 3800 for 6 months.  For the last 3 months I've been renovating and traveling.  Tonight was the first print run in almost 3 months.  A quick check revealed no clogged heads.  I was impressed.  Hopefully at least the new head sealing parking mechanism is employed in those new printers.

--dilip
Logged
frankric
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2007, 10:59:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray

The South African method took advantage of a service menu selection which existed due to the x600 series being able to use either dye or pigment inks. This does not apply to the x800's which use ultrachrome only. I imagine Epson were also keen to discourage users poking around in the service menu.....

The only sensible solution is a 9 channel printhead and I doubt that there was any technical reason not to use one on the x800's. I imagine it was a purely economic decision to continue using the 4000 printhead rather than going to the extra cost of developing a 9 channel version. A very cynical and arrogant decision in my view.

I'd say that they were fortunate that no real competition existed at the time. It remains to be seen how much they will suffer from cotinuing this ridiculous situation for the x880 series now that there are reasonable alternatives.

Regards

Frank
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2007, 03:43:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I imagine it was a purely economic decision to continue using the 4000 printhead rather than going to the extra cost of developing a 9 channel version. A very cynical and arrogant decision in my view.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It was neither "cynical" nor "arrogant" but strictly based on economics...it's simply not practical to produce a nine channel print head. The 3800 doesn't even have one, it's 8 channels with 9 lines and you must purge the head when swapping. The economics to add a single channel are out of line with the return on the costs. It would have made more sense to go from an 8 to 12 channel head-which is what Canon and HP did to leapfrog Epson. But in their case they HAD to make the jump in order to equal or slightly exceed Epson's pigment gamut..and both HP and Canon are taking it on the chin because they are "buying" their way into the market by eating the costs associated with jumping from 8 to 12 channels.

The 11880 was designed to carry both K inks like the 3800 so there are 9 inks onboard but only 8 channels in use at one time. The reissued 7880 and 9880 are modified heads to accommodate the vivid magenta inks and there is no place to put a 9th ink cart.

You can build all sorts of conspiracy theories if you like but a lot of the limitations come from the extremely expensive costs of R&D and manufacturing. The 7/9800 and now the 880 series (except for the 11880) are incremental design and manufacturing changes. Nobody was complaining when the first 7600 and 9600 printers came out with the then breakthrough pricing...(about 1/2 the cost of previous printers) but Epson is not in a position to completely and radically redesign their printers every 3-4 years. It takes time to recover the cost of design and development. The 3800 _WAS_ a major NEW design and the 11880 (64") is also a new design...

I suspect when you see the next round of newly designed 24" and 44" printers they won't look like the 3800/11880 either.

But seeing cynicism and arrogance is in itself, cynical and arrogant (and a bit ignorant of the cost of doing business).
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2007, 04:57:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It was neither "cynical" nor "arrogant" but strictly based on economics...it's simply not practical to produce a nine channel print head. The 3800 doesn't even have one, it's 8 channels with 9 lines and you must purge the head when swapping. The economics to add a single channel are out of line with the return on the costs. It would have made more sense to go from an 8 to 12 channel head-which is what Canon and HP did to leapfrog Epson. But in their case they HAD to make the jump in order to equal or slightly exceed Epson's pigment gamut..and both HP and Canon are taking it on the chin because they are "buying" their way into the market by eating the costs associated with jumping from 8 to 12 channels.

The 11880 was designed to carry both K inks like the 3800 so there are 9 inks onboard but only 8 channels in use at one time. The reissued 7880 and 9880 are modified heads to accommodate the vivid magenta inks and there is no place to put a 9th ink cart.

You can build all sorts of conspiracy theories if you like but a lot of the limitations come from the extremely expensive costs of R&D and manufacturing. The 7/9800 and now the 880 series (except for the 11880) are incremental design and manufacturing changes. Nobody was complaining when the first 7600 and 9600 printers came out with the then breakthrough pricing...(about 1/2 the cost of previous printers) but Epson is not in a position to completely and radically redesign their printers every 3-4 years. It takes time to recover the cost of design and development. The 3800 _WAS_ a major NEW design and the 11880 (64") is also a new design...

I suspect when you see the next round of newly designed 24" and 44" printers they won't look like the 3800/11880 either.

But seeing cynicism and arrogance is in itself, cynical and arrogant (and a bit ignorant of the cost of doing business).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130192\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Some good comments.  Michael's brief review was very well stated as well, and I appreciate the insight as to what has changed, as well as the significance of the 11880.  The comment on the design change to reduce head clogs shows they are trying hard to address this issue, which is a big one to many.

This has to be an expensive head to make, and thus instead of starting with a 17" printer, they wisely chose a new wide model, knowing that the entry price is not an obstacle for those that can use this large of printer.

We will most likely be bringing a new 11880 in when they become available, since we have been evaluating >44" printers lately anyway for some of our needs.  Fortunately I'm lucky enough that I'll get it in my office for about a month before I need to deploy it.  Sounds fun

As you mentioned the production costs of the new head is likely to drop (hopefully quickly) and Epson is most likely working hard on the next iteration 48-78-98 (49xx,79xx,99xx??) printers to deploy as soon as those costs come down sufficiently.  The dual line mk/pk concept of the 3800 I personally feel is quite acceptable.

I haven't thought about the idea that HP and Canon may actually be losing money to buy business with their new expensive heads.  Makes sense, though, and can't really fault them for that.  Interesting thought though.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2007, 05:39:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I haven't thought about the idea that HP and Canon may actually be losing money to buy business with their new expensive heads.  Makes sense, though, and can't really fault them for that.  Interesting thought though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't quote the person who I talked to and I can't indicate the company he's with nor of course give his name, but let's just say he's knowledgeable with the costs associated with the development and manufacturing of multi-color print engines for photo printers. He judges the original Canon 5000 as selling for less than the total cost of the components and manufacturing. So, Canon was actually selling them at retail for less than it cost Canon to develop, manufacture and distribute. The same applies to HP.

Now, will their costs go down? Sure. . .as they sell and manufacture more and more printers, they can spread the cost of development out over a longer period of time and the unit cost of components will go down thereby reducing the effective cost/printer. But, that's over time. Right now, they're lost leaders.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 05:41:38 PM by Schewe » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad