Need a new aqueous printer. Should I make the move from Epson to Canon?

[Kaylene]

I currently have two Epson Stylus Pro 9900s and an Epson Stylus Pro 7800. One of the 9900s is 13 years old and needs at least one new printhead. So I need to buy another large format (44"). I'm debating about switching over to the Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-4100. I see that you can change out the printheads yourself, it has a built-in hard drive, and I can add a second media roll holder. I have checked the ink cost and it is pricier than Epson (about $315 vs. $245 each), but I believe it can use all the same paper media. The hard drive sounds great, but I wonder really how much I'd use it anyway. So, if I stay with Epson, it looks as if there are maybe two contenders (not sure what the difference is). There is the SureColor P9000 Commercial and the P9570. I work at a college and print many posters and indoor banners; but also fine art and photographic prints. Can anyone give me advice or any experiences they've had with these printers to help me decide which to go with?

I also hear a lot of talk about using a RIP or Fiery, but I've never used one and have no idea if it'd be any benefit to me. I am a graphic designer that has built up this design/print shop on my own for the past 20 years. It seems to be working fine, but I've had to learn it all on my own as no one else on the campus has any experience. So if you have any suggestions, that'd be welcomed too.

 

[Billct2]

I've been using HP aqueous for many many years. Right now have a Designjet z6200 and a 6610. They are workhorses, easy to maintain. Printheads swap out easily and the ink is reasonable, plus there are aftermarket inks available. We mostly do cheap paper posters on them but I have done photographic quality prints and they looked fine to me. Even ran some canvas material for giclee once.

 

[electricfly]

What is your volume of print, any mounting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kaylene]

I print about 2000 large format posters/banners a year. We print on plain paper, satin poster paper, polypropylene, enhanced matte, vinyl banner, and adhesive vinyls. Yes, we mount quite a few posters as well. I have a hot roll laminator and mounter and we also mount using self-adhesive foam core too.

 

[Kaylene]

I print about 2000 large format posters/banners a year. We print on plain paper, satin poster paper, polypropylene, enhanced matte, vinyl banner, and adhesive vinyls. Yes, we mount quite a few posters as well. I have a hot roll laminator and mounter and we also mount using self-adhesive foam core too.

What is your volume of print, any mounting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BigNate]

We were very happy with our Canon 8300ipf... not quite an apples to apples comparison, but it lasted for 8 years of heavy service. It has always been installed in a climate controlled room. The image quality was awesome, the speed was pretty quick, especially when you consider it would cut to size most of our posters - these were mostly for inside classroom use, so the aqueous printing was just fine. We now print on an HP 700w and I miss the days when finished posters come off the press! (now we print roll to roll and have another step to cut out posters.)

I cannot compare to the Epson, I have heard both good and bad things about them (actually about most printers.... figure out which problems you want to own and then buy the printer with those problems - no printer comes without quirks.)

 

[Asuma01]

Why are you using an aqueous printer if none of the media you are printing on is fabric?

 

[Kaylene]

Why are you using an aqueous printer if none of the media you are printing on is fabric?

My boss, who originally was the head photographer, chose the first printer - an Epson Stylus Pro 9600 - as he thought many people would want large photographs. I started creating posters and ended up using it on a daily basis so they moved it into my office. It worked great for all I did so I just continued using Epsons. Other than clogging issues, the Epson is wonderful. I had just read about how the new Canon has stepped up their game and thought that now might be a good time to change - especially since I would be able to change the printheads when needed.

Not sure about printing on fabric. The only fabric like media that my vendor sells for the Epson is polyselect fabric (which I used for traveling conference posters and table runners) and maybe canvas materials? I haven't seen people using these for printing on fabrics...

 

[Humble PM]

I've gone from an Epson 10000 >9800 > Canon 8300 >8400. Output results between modern Canon and Epson machines are virtually indistinguishable, and they will all print on the same media. For what you're doing, I'd definitely go for a take up roll - unattended printing is a joy I long for.

I've always printed with a rip, using Fiery Xpress for the last decade. Takes a little getting used to, then makes life way simpler. Was planning to go to Fiery XF for the next machine, but that seems to be discontinued, so looking around at Caldera amongst other options. Many dealers will throw in the RIP if you ask, and I'd seriously look at an extended warranty - again for these machines 3years is often something the dealer may have room for adjustment on.

Do you have inhouse calibration kit? Allows you to get the best from the colour, and to get prettty close between different print stock.

If you're on a PC, ther Canon tracking application lets you keep track of material and ink costs, if you need to bill out to other departments. I've got one folder on the current machine, and that has files from many years ago, that I never use, but never got round to deleting. If you have regular things that you need to reprint, it could make sense, but the rip makes it unneeded.

Last time I looked, the Canon machines were physically smaller than the Epsons - the new 6100 (60") is a couple of inches wider than my current 44", should space be a factor.

 

[electricfly]

Have you looked into other print technology?
Who prints your outdoor stuff for the college.
If your happy with the color output using a rip will help on gang prints and workflow. If not happy with color a rip will help with calibration and possibly profiling


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Humble PM]

If you're not printing day/week in and out, then from what I understand, there is a big advantage with aqueous. I had no concerns about our Canon Ipf when we closed for over 2 weeks this Christmas.

Another advantage of the Canon is that the rolls load from the front, rather than over the top with the Epson, which just makes it easier on the back... Down side, it doesn't have a straight through print path, but you've not mentioned printing to poster board, and you've got a laminator there already.

Outdoor work tends to be viewed from a further distance, which equals larger rolls, which may not fit with the rest of the kit. With a laminator, you can easily turn a whole range of aqueous materials into 2-5 year outdoor. Yes, material options are fewer, and materials cost more, but exterior doesn't sound like the bulk of the work...

 

[ColorCrest]

I currently have two Epson Stylus Pro 9900s and an Epson Stylus Pro 7800. One of the 9900s is 13 years old and needs at least one new printhead. So I need to buy another large format (44"). I'm debating about switching over to the Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-4100.

It s seems you're in a very good position to take advantage of an opportunity to learn about another machine and maker; Canon. I recommend you seize the day. I'm not saying Canon is superior or not because that's what you may decide if you choose to experiment. Let us know in the future whichever way it goes.

I also hear a lot of talk about using a RIP or Fiery, but I've never used one and have no idea if it'd be any benefit to me.

You should know an actual RIP can take over full control and override the factory settings of both the Epson and Canon printers. That's not something you likely want to do at this point and it would also require some other rather costly tools such as a spectrophotometer along with software and more ancillary bits. Instead, I recommend you look into Qimage software as a first step in learning production printing for aqueous printers. It costs only $100 (or $250 for commercial, multi-machine, Mac and PC use) which is well worth learning. Qimage will use the printer's existing driver and factory calibration but enable many features for optimal resolution, print yield using image layout, trim marks, color management, etc. It's not a Postscript RIP but one can use Photoshop for that task which is a tool you likely already have.

Good luck.

 

[Kaylene]

I would like to get a latex printer at some point, but $20K is a little too steep right now. The latex printer would be for outside banners and window graphics since it prints white. Neither is of utmost importance at the moment. Outside prints are usually laminated, but most of my prints are for inside. The printers were incredible during the first year of COVID. I was out of the office for about 6 months and when I came back, they all worked fine. No clogging. Thinking the RIP isn't for me. If I have smaller posters/photos that are being printed, I just lay them out in InDesign to fit the paper roll. But mainly the posters are close to 24, 36, and 42 inches wide - so we just change the paper rolls. Haven't really had color issues. The Epson is great at that. I'm really feeling like going with the Canon, but I don't like the more costly ink - I'll have to compare other items like the length of life, warranties, speed, etc.

 

[JPR-5690]

We had a Canon ipf9400 for 4-5 years and only had to replace one of the printheads one time.

When it came time to replace it we went with a HP Latex 560 and a Canon pro-4000.
We moved all production for outdoor materials to the HP and even do basic posters on the HP as well.
Heads up - its really difficult to run paper medias on the HP latex printer because of the heat.

We've had the pro-4000 for 3-4 years now and I've never had a single issue.
We rarely use the take-up unit because we mainly use the printer for fine art prints which are usually short runs.
The awesome part is that the unit can be -either- a take-up roll or a secondary input roll which means you can have your two most common materials loaded and not have to switch rolls as often.
I've never used the hard drive on the 9400 or the pro-4000 so dont have any input on that aspect.

The other great thing about the pro-4000 is that Canon designed it to be used without a RIP.
You can install media profiles onto the printer using the Canon software and as long as you choose the correct media settings when printing from the postscript driver the color comes out beautifully.
You dont have to use Canon branded media - you can use any aqueous compatible media and if the paper mftr doesn't supply a profile there are a zillion generic media profiles already installed on the printer.

The ink tanks last a LONG time and the "Canon Accounting Manager" software now works on Mac too.

 

[Artbox]

We have used Epson 9800, 9900, 11880 and Canon 9400 and 4000pro. We printed a lot on all of these machines and I'd say Canon ipf over Epson Aqueous for reliability, economy and ease of head replacement. The newer Epson series seems to have improved somewhat but they lost me over head clogging, ink waste and cost to repair in our area. Canon is plug and play and durable. I prefer the 9400 over the 4000 but for what you are doing Canon aqueous is perfect especially if you are in a closed office with vapour issue that could come with other types of machines.

 

[T Nichols]

Posted this in another thread a while back:
I beta tested the first Epson (dye) printer in the US for Fuji/Hunt who was distributing. The 9000, later upgraded to 9500 (pigmented dye). Last I heard, it was still running in Tennessee. After that one, I purchased a 9600 and it lasted about 6 years, 9800 4 years, 9890 1yr 2months til the heads died. I have always worked them to death, so no sitting-around-ink-related problems. Got a Canon ipf8400s on a great deal and it has been running mostly problem free since 2015. Have replaced heads a few times, but it just runs. I think the Epson produced a better image, especially black and white, but I have had no downtime with this machine and I have probably initiated 2 manual cleanings since I've had it. My girlfriend has a Canon Pro4000 (next generation from 8400s and has had more problems, but nothing major. The Canon was faster at somewhat equivalent quality settings. It is still running great.
If I thought it would last longer, I would be more interested in Epson again.
BTW, I have 2 Fuji photo printers made by Epson that get a lot of use. Both of the printer's heads died during Christmas, of course. One was a 2017 with no previous problems and the other was mid 2020. I am kind of interested in the new Epson-branded generation of these printers, but am concerned about their reliability/longevity.