9880 or Z3100?

[JoelBelmont]

I know there are a lot of differing thoughts on this. Epson seems more tried, HP has a built in profiler (very nice).

Any thoughts on which 44" printer would be a better choice for B&W printing? I probably wouldn't need a lot of profiles... just a few to find something I like.

Thanks for your thoughts.

~Joel Belmont

[Bruce Watson]

I know there are a lot of differing thoughts on this. Epson seems more tried, HP has a built in profiler (very nice).

Any thoughts on which 44" printer would be a better choice for B&W printing? I probably wouldn't need a lot of profiles... just a few to find something I like.


Jury is still out on this. Some early thoughts. The HP printers don't use vacuum transport for the substrate. As a result, HP is picking up a reputation for leaving marks on the print, especially with the newer glossy surface papers. Innova is apparently trying to develop a paper just for HP with a surface that will resist marking by the printers.

That said, I've seen some early reports that Epson is making inks for the 9800/9880 printers that are not all pigment. They include some dye components. That said, it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference as pigments get smaller and dyes get better fade resistance. Anyway, one rumor has it that the "vivid magenta" inks have higher dye components. What this means to print longevity is anyone's guess at this stage. That and the fact that Epson still refuses to solve the matte/glossy black ink problem means that switching back and forth between matte and glossy papers is just prohibitively expensive.

The Canon printers like the iPF8000 have their own problems. Apparently it's quite difficult to get a good profile made because Canon set up their drivers with ink limits specifically tailored to the coatings on Canon branded papers. So if you want to use non-Canon papers you have to really work at it. And Canon still hasn't figured out how to sell and support these machines. The documentation is mythically bad for example. But they are supposed to be great machines.

Interestingly, all of them appear to make outstanding prints. All have comparable gamuts even though they have different numbers and colors of inks. I doubt you could go really wrong with any of them.

Now, for B&W. If you want the best possible B&W I'd look for a used Epson 9600 and use the Cone K7 inks. Currently the leader as far as I'm concerned. But until they produce a glossy set (and it's been "almost done" for like 18 months now), the K7s are restricted to matte papers. Not a bad thing, just a something to know.

If you want to use color inks to print B&W, or want to print on glossy papers, then you get into religious wars over which of the Epson, HP, or Canon printers makes a better B&W print. None of them are as good as the K7s IMHO, but all are good.

I know it's not very helpful, but that's how I see the state of wide format printing right now. I'm in the same boat BTW, waiting to see how this is going to shake out. At this point in time I'm waiting on the next generation of printers. Too many (unnecessary) trade offs right now.

[Ben R]

The Canon printers like the iPF8000 have their own problems. Apparently it's quite difficult to get a good profile made because Canon set up their drivers with ink limits specifically tailored to the coatings on Canon branded papers. So if you want to use non-Canon papers you have to really work at it. And Canon still hasn't figured out how to sell and support these machines. The documentation is mythically bad for example. But they are supposed to be great machines.


That is interesting. I use a 8000 at a friends shop and he gets really good service from Canon with technicians coming round the moment he even thinks he has a problem. This is the UK however, I've heard that it's notoriously terrible in the US. He prints on Kodak pro paper with the Kodak profiles and though I'm no expert the profiles seem to work very well with both colour and B&W.

[Bruce Watson]

That is interesting. I use a 8000 at a friends shop and he gets really good service from Canon with technicians coming round the moment he even thinks he has a problem. This is the UK however, I've heard that it's notoriously terrible in the US. He prints on Kodak pro paper with the Kodak profiles and though I'm no expert the profiles seem to work very well with both colour and B&W.

I should have said "build a good profile" where I actually said "get a good profile." Sorry for that. The problem in building profiles seems to be lack of control of the ink limits -- the only way to do this is by choosing the right "paper type" in the driver; there is no direct control.

As far as RIPs go, I've heard that Canon is being very choosy as to who it lets have access to the SDK for the printer. Rumor has it that's exactly one company, but I don't know which one it is. Other RIPs apparently drive the printer using the Canon supplied driver. This isn't good marketing in my book...

The good profiles seem to be RGB profiles, which for a CMYKRGB printer seems to be, um, limited. I'm sure there's gamut available from the inks that isn't available from a simple RGB profile. That said, the RGB profiles that exist are supposed to be excellent and give a gamut in the same range as the HPs and Epsons.

[JoelBelmont]

That and the fact that Epson still refuses to solve the matte/glossy black ink problem means that switching back and forth between matte and glossy papers is just prohibitively expensive.

I thought the 9880 fixed this...? I thought it allowed both to be installed, thus not needing a big ink dump to switch..?

~Joel

[Bruce Watson]

I thought the 9880 fixed this...? I thought it allowed both to be installed, thus not needing a big ink dump to switch..?

Sorry. They fixed it on the 11880, but not on the 9880 or the 7880. If they had fixed this I'd be looking to buy a 9880 this fall. As it is, I can wait.

[JoelBelmont]

wow. if that's the case, I might just look into an older one.

Why do you prefer the 9600 to the 9800? are the piezo inks not compatible with the 9800?

Thanks.

[Bruce Watson]

wow. if that's the case, I might just look into an older one.

Why do you prefer the 9600 to the 9800? are the piezo inks not compatible with the 9800?

With the K7 inkset there isn't a significant increase in print quality in moving from the 9600 to the 9800. If you are using the Epson inks, there is a significant improvement in color prints, and you can use the Epson inks to print B&W on glossy papers as well.

So if you are going to dedicate the machine to K7 inks, why not buy the cheaper machine? The money you save will just go to paper and inks, but at least you'll get more prints out of it! ;)

[Ted Harris]

Is anyone here actually using 9880? If so have you run enough prints to make any useful judgments or are we still speculating? I wasn't aware that they or the smaller ones were shipping yet in the US.

As for the z3100, I have now been running one for about six weeks and am very impressed with the quality of the prints. None of the printwheel problems. Stay tuned for more.

I was very impressed with the B&W output from the Canon x00 series and the x100 series should be even better, almost totally eliminating any gloss differential, etc. problems. I have a 6100 arriving next Wednesday and will make some comparison prints.

Joel, if I needed a new printer right now I'd get the z3100 PS without any hesitation. Having run wide format printers from all three of the players I think this is the best bet if the profiling does you some good; if not then I'd choose between the HP and the Canon.

[tim atherton]

ted, have you run any Crane Silver Rag on it for B&W? If so, how does it look?

tim

[JoelBelmont]

If you are using the Epson inks, there is a significant improvement in color prints.

How would the 9600 color ink set work for printing watercolor reproductions? Would it be as bit a difference between the 9800? That is about the only color work I would be doing...

[Bruce Watson]

How would the 9600 color ink set work for printing watercolor reproductions? Would it be as bit a difference between the 9800? That is about the only color work I would be doing...

Never done it -- I'm not qualified to answer that question. That said there appear to be plenty of 9600s still being used by print services bureaus, many (most?) of which are using them for art reproduction services.

[Ted Harris]

Joel, the z3100 does a beautiful job on watercolor and pastel gauche reproductions. I have done both with it. Same holds for the Canon wide formats. I have not done any on Epsons. In one instance the artists said she preferred the reproduction to the original.

Tim, I ran Silver Rag on my old Epson 4800 when Silver Rag came out and I was so unimpressed that I have not tried it again in the past year. I found the paper too yellow for my taste and too thin. I hav been waiting to try the comperable Innova paper until I had some substantial black and white printing to do that would be approriate. I have used other Crane papers for B&W printing and liked them a lot, Museuo II particularly.

[tim atherton]

Tim, I ran Silver Rag on my old Epson 4800 when Silver Rag came out and I was so unimpressed that I have not tried it again in the past year. I found the paper too yellow for my taste and too thin. I hav been waiting to try the comperable Innova paper until I had some substantial black and white printing to do that would be approriate. I have used other Crane papers for B&W printing and liked them a lot, Museuo II particularly.

really? I'd say it's a little on the warm side (but nowhere near as warm as say Polywarmtone FB)

And thin...? It's one of the thicker papers I use (okay, Museo Max is thicker), but on most desktop models you're better off running it through the direct feed rather than through the paper tray and you definitely need the paper setting at "Thick"

tim

[Doug Dolde]

Joe Holmes has a great write up on the new Epsons

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-epson11880.html

[Kirk Gittings]

Bruce's summary is pretty accurate by my experience.

Also.......Neither Canon nor Wilhelm have published the final test results on the Canon inks. Only "preliminary" tests have been published. The final report is long overdue. This is reaching a point of being more than suspicious. A friend of mine who runs the Canon reports fading in two months under fluorescents with Epson media (non-Canon)? I've seen the results, scary. The new HP inks, released near the same time as the new Canons, have had final tests published since April.

Wilhelm is not flawless, but he is a good starting point. I for one would not even consider a printer that did not perform well in the final Wilhelm tests.

I have been testing the HP with a friend who is a professional printer. Unfortunately we found significantly more metamorism than with his 9800 K3 Epsons on B&W. This is the second time I have seen this from two different Z3100. The Epson's have their issues as mentioned above, but for my money, unfortunately, they are still the best bet.

I have been wanting to replace my 4000 for some time, but I am tempted to wait for the next generation of printers.

[Ron Marshall]

Bruce's summary is pretty accurate by my experience.

Also.......Neither Canon nor Wilhelm have published the final test results on the Canon inks. Only "preliminary" tests have been published. The final report is long overdue. This is reaching a point of being more than suspicious. A friend of mine who runs the Canon reports fading in two months under fluorescents with Epson media (non-Canon)? I've seen the results, scary. The new HP inks, released near the same time as the new Canons, have had final tests published since April.

Wilhelm is not flawless, but he is a good starting point. I for one would not even consider a printer that did not perform well in the final Wilhelm tests.

I have been testing the HP with a friend who is a professional printer. Unfortunately we found significantly more metamorism than with his 9800 K3 Epsons on B&W. This is the second time I have seen this from two different Z3100. The Epson's have their issues as mentioned above, but for my money, unfortunately, they are still the best bet.

I have been wanting to replace my 4000 for some time, but I am tempted to wait for the next generation of printers.

Kirk, The data at the following link list the longevity of Lucia ink, mostly on Canon media, at over 90 years. So is the fading a problem with non-Canon media?

http://www.canon.ca/pdf/Official_Canon_WIR_LUCIA_Resistance_Result_April_07.pdf


Your friends' experiences with fading are very discouraging.

[Kirk Gittings]

Ron,

That is the preliminary data Wilhelm reported last February. Read it carefully. There is a slight of hand numbers game going on. It gives no final test results even on the Canon papers which should have reached their "endpoints" by March or so. The final test results have never been published and they are way overdue. The final HP data (tested around the same time) was published in April. Draw your own conclusions. It scares me off.

Even if the Canon papers work out, do you wnat to be limited to Canon media?

Yes I said:

A friend of mine who runs the Canon reports fading in two months under fluorescents with Epson media (non-Canon).

I got my moneys worth out of my Epson 4000. Yes it clogged occasionally but that was the only issue. I am looking for no clogging, better longevity, better color gamut (especially in the blues and reds) and no switching inks between mat and glossy in a 20" printer. Not much to ask for. The next generation maybe? The competition is fierce and should lead to good things.

[Don Miller]

I know there are a lot of differing thoughts on this. Epson seems more tried, HP has a built in profiler (very nice).

Any thoughts on which 44" printer would be a better choice for B&W printing? I probably wouldn't need a lot of profiles... just a few to find something I like.

Thanks for your thoughts.

~Joel Belmont

I have a 7800 and do not find the need to swap matte to photo black acceptable. I was primarily a matte printer when I purchased the 7800, and I still am. But there are too many good papers to be constrained by Epson's design. I expect the 9880 and the 7880 will be the last Epsons with this limitation.

All the printers show superb quality. With any new model or ink set I suggest watching for reports of clogging unless you are certain of printing at least weekly.

[billschwab]

Unfortunately we found significantly more metamorism than with his 9800 K3 Epsons on B&W....The Epson's have their issues as mentioned above, but for my money, unfortunately, they are still the best bet.I have a 7600 dedicated to BW (MIS Inks) and now a 9800 using the K3 set. I have been very impressed with its BW capabilities and much reduced metamerism. So much so, I have pretty much retired the 7600. It makes a mean digi-neg using QTR as well.

[QT Luong]

"One has to wonder if there will soon be an end to printer development, as the quality of the machines is getting to be so good that further improvements would seem to be impossible." http://www.josephholmes.com/news-epson11880.html

The outgassing problem, which is the single most time-consuming issue, hasn't been fixed yet.