Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon iPF8400/9400/6400 launched in Japan  (Read 17369 times)
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2012, 10:27:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Yup, that would be nice, too, but how about a 17 incher with the exact same 8400/9400 ink set, so photographers could prep files to their liking in the comfort of a small office or studio not wide-format friendly, and job the "perfectly proofed" image file out to a calibrated service provider owning an 8400 or 9400, thus having complete confidence in how the print would come out?
I can only think that Canon must not have felt the 5100 was successful enough to continue development on, or they probably would have updated it by now. The 5100 was a great printer, the only real downside was that it was substantially larger/heavier than other 17" printers. But I have no idea how successful it was sales-wise (at least, before they started practically giving them away with the discounts and rebates).
Logged

aaronchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2012, 12:30:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I've talked to several people from the canon management group, and feels like non of them has an interest on 17" wide printer.

aaron
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2911


« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2012, 03:52:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Ink sales probably never were like the ink sales of the larger models. The printer's price had to fit the 17" market that already had two competing models and the price of the two exchangeable heads was sometimes pretty close to the iPF5000-iPF5100 price. It still had to get service and heads had to be exchanged in warranty. Probably the results were in red numbers all the time.

I think a model based on the Pro 1 but with the iPF8300/8400 ink set would make a better chance. Improved sheet feeding on one of the larger models would then be nice too.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piëzografie,giclée
www.pigment-print.com



Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2012, 06:48:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I've talked to several people from the canon management group, and feels like non of them has an interest on 17" wide printer.

Canon management group? What's that? Canon is interested in re-inventing the 17" printer. Takes time though.
Logged

aaronchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2012, 07:24:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Canon management group? What's that? Canon is interested in re-inventing the 17" printer. Takes time though.

Can't say too much who they are, but they are Japanese. Anyway, when we had a conversation about the 17, they said they don't really know what's the purpose for them to make one in that size.
24 and 44 are much more reasonable to sell since output company can buy 4-10+ printers in one of a time, even press printing company would need at least a 24" machine for digital proofing use.
17" machine might be just for a low usage photographer in they eyes.

aaron
Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2012, 02:40:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree. Never understood why anyone would buy a 17" printer in this day and age. Just buy at least a 24". Seems like a no brainer.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2911


« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2012, 02:47:27 PM »
ReplyReply

For me it does not have to be a 17" inkjet printer but it would be nice to have a printer that feeds from a stack of sheets. If possible 70x100 cm sheets with dual sided coating. If not asked too much then auto duplex printing would be nice too. The only printers that came close were 17¨ models.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

340+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
update july 2012: Moab changes, paper sorting by name
Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2012, 02:56:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you guys have it all wrong. 17inch printers are the new 13inch. When Epson had the 3000 out 10 years ago, its primary market was prepress and small workgroups. Dot size was HUGE by comparison with these modern printers. Then the 4000 came out and it did very very well in the market. Then all of a sudden after the 4800 and 4880 units were out there the 3800 showed up. Guess what? The UPS guy could now do deliveries and not a freight company that had to put the larger units on a palette.

The 3880 with rebates often goes for around $1000. I am just using round numbers, but $1200 is more likely on a daily basis. If the R3000 sells for $800, and the 3880 ships with around $400 worth of ink, it is easy to defend buying the 3880 for $200 to $400 more.

The 17 inch market is rather large, to be honest. There is a huge gap between 13inch models and 24" floor standing models. Don't always think that high volume, prepress or some other business environment always drives sales. Look at the history of the 17" format. It originated from 17x22" sheets, which is 4-up of 8.5x11. This allows somebody to proof 4 letter size pages at a time before publication. It's a pretty awesome format, actually. 12x18 prints on 17x22 or A2 sheet sizes is a very nice looking fine art print with ample what around the edges.

We will see more 17inch printer offerings. It just takes time, and Canon *is not* ignoring this market.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
keith_cooper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 470



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2012, 02:59:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd say that 17" is an important market, as shown by Epson's products - the "I'd just get 24 inch" misses the point that printers like the 3880 are about as big as many people want to fit in their offices/homes/budget.

This gap in Canon's range is an interesting one, and having chatted with lots of people from the consumer imaging and LF printing parts of Canon, I'm of the opinion that there is a bit of a cultural gap between the groups back in Japan, particularly when marketing are involved...

With the consumer print side we get the Pro-1 (and below) and a very different approach to marketing printers, compared to the large format side of the business, which is corporate sales minded and has a solid dealer network and supply chain that if not entirely set in aspic, doesn't show the flexibility you see in the 'consumer' chain (which includes pro camera kit) - people that sell photocopiers and office print solutions tend to have different customer and business relationships.

It's this corporate setup that puts the 5100 at the bottom of one range, and just outside another. Compare with Epson, where at one level there is a more homogeneous feel to the range (or at least the gap isn't so obvious).

Note, that I'm in the UK, so I'm just reflecting my own thoughts on what I've found in Europe ;-)
Logged

Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1739


WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2012, 04:53:21 PM »
ReplyReply

17 inch printers will always be the best option for those of us with limited space and who are not doing printing as a full time business.  My 3880 sits right on top of a nice Ikea cart with drawers that hold 13x19 inch paper.  One of my friends has a 24 inch Epson and it is huge by comparison.  I really don't see any need to print beyond 17x25 (I cut sheets from roll paper which isn't too difficult since the papers I like to print on don't come in this size here in the US) and if I did, I would outsource the job.  I have a couple of artist friends that I have printed for and they have never needed anything bigger. As Andy notes, printers such as the 3880 are easy enough to move around and for a single person to set up.
Logged

aaronchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2012, 03:01:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with all of you guys, as a photographer, I always like to have a 17" printer sitting right next to me when I need to do my small proofs and my book printing.
But how many photographers are buying these machines right now.
Epson has already took the market with 2 different models and if this market is not as big as Alan said, how much money would be wasted into R&D and production.
Canon is not a stupid company but we all know that to ask a giant to take one step forward is always not a easy thing to do.
Just like their camera line, if they are already making good money with a good market sharing, why would they take a risk to provide something extremely new to the market.
Personal usage in photo printing market it's small, compare to the industrial field, 24 and 44, or even 60 can do a much better job in that field.
Canon acquired OCE and they just announced their LPF and OCE with merge together, feels like Canon does want to become another HP.
Kodak rather sell their digital and film pattern and keep the digital printing as their new major business.
As we can see, printing market is huge, still and everyone still wants to have a bit on this big pie.

Aaron
Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2012, 01:31:35 PM »
ReplyReply

If you're talking about budget, 17" really doesn't make sense. Sure, it's a little cheaper buying it initially, but now you're locked into printing on sheets. Any money you save on the initial purchase price is quickly burned up in buying sheets. Rolls of media are much more economical than sheets. And when your customer asks for a 20x24, or 24x30, of that shot they like, you can deliver it. If you don't have the space for a wide format printer, you don't have the space. But I don't think it's cheaper to run a 17" than a 24". I think it's probably more expensive.
Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2012, 10:36:24 PM »
ReplyReply

huh? A 17" printer for $1000 to $1200 is smaller, easier to operate and cheaper than 24" printers. There are many people who print on cut sheets and cut sheets only. I own many many different printers, and even though I have the budget for many printers I have an enormous need for a desktop printer that can print small stacks of paper.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2012, 02:34:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Smaller? Yes. Cheaper to operate? Don't see how. Mainly because for the most part you're stuck printing on sheets, or a few 17" rolls that are available, and sheets are almost always more expensive than rolls. For example, 50 sheets of 17"x22" Hahnemuhle Baryta is $305.68 from IT Supplies. That's $2.35 / sq. ft. But a 24"x39' roll of the same paper is only $151.68. That's only $1.94 / sq. ft. The roll is significantly cheaper than the sheets. That adds up to big $$$ over the life of the printer. But the main reason I would encourage anyone who is going to spend $1300-$1500 on a 17" to spend an extra $1,000 for at least a 24" is you only have to sell a few 20"x24" or 20"x30" or 24"x30" prints and you more than pay the difference. At the end of the day, though, it is each to his own. If you're happy, that's all that matters.
Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2012, 07:14:26 AM »
ReplyReply

You are completely missing my point. But that's ok. $1200 is much less expensive than buying a $3,000 printer. Simple math. Yes, operation is less expensive if using roll paper, but many people, myself included, do not like the inherent curl of cut sheets for fine art prints. When I print big I prefer to print on LARGE cut sheets, like Moab Entrada Bright 300gsm 36x48" cotton sheets. And printing on a 24" printer for cut sheets is a pain in the butt, especially if a print job involves anything more than 1 sheet.

The conversation is really about 17" printers. I do consulting for Moab Paper, help out with their customer support and let me tell you that 17" printers are much more popular than 24" or 44" printers from people who email in for some assistance. I probably have a good pulse on what goes on in the printing industry across both consumer and professional users. I go out to professional studios all of the time to do color / output consulting and I see quite a bit.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2911


« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2012, 04:30:02 AM »
ReplyReply

As long as we do not get printers that can print images simultaneously at both sides of dual side coated paper transported from rolls, there will be a need for sheet printers working from paper stacks. The 17" models did at least cover that kind of jobs. I would not object to a printer that can use larger sheets doing the same jobs but they are not common either.

Whether it is economic or not I know enough photographers that are happy with a 17" running sheets only. Their need for larger prints is not happening every week and the ease of handling sheets + the system of fixed prices for their sizes makes the economy of larger roll media prices far less important.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piëzografie,giclée
www.pigment-print.com


Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2012, 06:12:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been talking around what I really would like to see in the marketplace. Something like an enlarged iPF5100 that can handle 24" rolls, as well as a removable paper cassette that mounts to the front. Heck, sell the cartridge for $1000. Whoa cares. It would consolidate 2 printers into one, it would up sell many 17" printer customers and save space for those who need both types of printers.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2012, 11:19:24 AM »
ReplyReply

A few more details about the x400 printers:

All of the x400 printers are designed to print closer to one another out of the box. The "Calibration Link" feature in the MCT tool allows you to monitor this across a network of x400 printers. Although they are advertising accuracy within a Delta E of 2.0, they are internally seeing 0.6 consistently. The new MCT tool is a little more friendly about allowing you to perform the calibration on any paper type, not just a few of their paper types. This is intended to allow 3rd party paper companies to make profiles that can be used with any of the x400 printers. All 3 printer widths now have the same carriage, carriage speed and print speeds. So all of the printers are faster but the 6xx0 printers are faster by a larger margin.

Although the inks are the same as in the x300 printer, the ink cartridges are physically different and backwards compatible with the x300 printers. X300 ink cartridges are not compatible with x400 printers, however.

The LUTs for each paper type are a little different than with the x300 printers. This allows for even greater smoothness, linearity and gamut - all by modest amounts.

The MCT tool will allow for a proprietary profiling process with the 6450sp using the spectrophotometer (which is basically an i1Pro2 - newer than what Epson and HP are using). These profiles are not ICC profiles and can be used with any of the x400 printers. Naturally you can make your own profiles externally as use them as you always have.

Nice to see all these refinements. Seems like they're really focusing on improving final print quality with the current generation hardware. They've come along way since the x000 printers. Now that the Pixma, iPF and Oce groups have all been merged I'm excited to see what might come next. Although we won't see anything for a while, I suspect having all their inkjet technology under one roof will lead to good things.
Logged

Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2012, 11:32:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Canon acquired OCE and they just announced their LPF and OCE with merge together,

Canon's talented PIXMA group swallowed up both Oce and the iPF group. An exciting time over there with lots of talent coming together under one roof. Big changes to happen not soon but down the line. 
Logged

Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 28, 2012, 12:38:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon's talented PIXMA group swallowed up both Oce and the iPF group. An exciting time over there with lots of talent coming together under one roof. Big changes to happen not soon but down the line.  

Speaking of PIXMA - by any chance, do you happen know what's the PIXMA Pro-1 ink formulation? Is it LUCIA EX with LGY, CO instead of G,B or maybe the whole inkset is reformulated?
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad