iPF6100+vs+HP+Z3100+vs+Epson+7880

=How does the iPF6100 compare to the HP Z3100 and Epson 7880?=


 * Problems with iPF6100**: Covered in the Known Problems section of the Wiki.


 * Problems with HP Z3100:** [|Weak reds], especially on matte papers. Pizza wheels/roller marks on gloss papers experienced by some (update 12/8/07: hardware fix will be made available free by HP per this [|LL thread]). Ink overspray with heavy/continuous use. Firmware/drivers not mature yet, although [|Firmware version 6] released end of October, 2007. See also the HP Z3100 Wiki to help with your purchase decision.


 * Problems with Epson 7880:** Substantial ink wasted in swapping photo black and matte black. Unknown at this time whether it will be less than the 90 ml needed for swap on Epson 7800. Significant potential for clogging, especially if not used regularly (based on Epson 7800 experience), with subsequent waste of ink and time.

in my tests, 1.5 for darkest prints || About 2 ml/sq. ft. || About 2 ml/sq ft. || Yes if printing from Photoshop through regular 8 bit driver || Yes || Yes || 250 years under glass ||  || a minor but very annoying problem) ||  || Good ||
 * ===Feature=== || ===Canon iPF6100=== || ===HP Z3100=== || ===Epson 7880=== ||
 * Ink Wasted to switch blacks || None || None || 90 ml / 90 ml ||
 * Time to Switch black ink || None || None || 20 minutes / 20 minutes ||
 * Cost of Roundtrip Switch || None || None || $68.40 ||
 * Roll Feed Motorized || Yes (makes loading the roll extremely easy) || Yes ||  ||
 * Roll Length Tracking || Yes (prints barcode & reads it when roll reloaded) ||  ||   ||
 * Roll and sheets loaded at same time || No (roll unloads automatically when use top manual feed) || No ||  ||
 * Top Load Manual Feed || Yes || Yes ||  ||
 * Front Load Manual Feed || Yes ||  ||   ||
 * Minimum Paper Size || 8 inches wide (11 inch length for top feed) || Letter/A4 ||  ||
 * Maximum Print Length (roll) || 59 feet (50 feet from printer driver) || Up to 300 feet (OS dept) ||  ||
 * Maximum Print Length (top feed) || 62 inches ||  ||   ||
 * Maximum Print Length (front feed) || 36 inches ||  ||   ||
 * Maximum media thickness || 59.0 mil || 500 gsm ||  ||
 * Media Thickness (roll) || 3.1-31.4 mil || Up to 19 mil ++ ||  ||
 * Media Thickness (top feed) || 3.2-19.6 mil ||  ||   ||
 * Media Thickness (front feed) || 19.6-59.0 mil ||  ||   ||
 * Size of Ink Cartridges || 130 ml (starter cartridges 90 ml) || 130 ml (starter carts 69 ml) || 110/220 ml ||
 * Cost of Ink per ml || 58 cents || 38 cents (if bought in twin pack at itsupplies) || 48cents/39 cents ||
 * Ink use (ml/square ft) || [|About 0.5-0.8 ml per LL] 0.8-1.1
 * Ink wasted on cleaning || About 2.5 ml per day with low use (per iPF5000) ||  ||   ||
 * Print Using Qimage || Works fine through driver, can't be used with plugin || ? || Yes ||
 * Clogging Problems || None reported || None reported || Unknown ||
 * Weight || Approximately 145 lbs with stand || 143 lbs with stand || 131 lbs ||
 * Size (H X W X D) in inches || 46.3 X 39.1 X 35.2 || 49.7 X 41.2 X 26 inches || 46 X 46 X 40 ||
 * Gamut || Better dark blues and medium greens ||  || Better warmer colors ||
 * Grayscale Range ||  ||   ||   ||
 * Quality of B&W Prints || Very good, extremely neutral, very little bronzing ||  ||   ||
 * DMax on Harman FB Al Gloss ||  ||   ||   ||
 * DMax on HPR || 1.58 per Outback Photo review || 1.70 per LL thread ||  ||
 * Ink Water Resistant ||  || Yes. || Yes. ||
 * Gloss Differential & Bronzing || Bronzing almost completely eliminated || Almost none ||  ||
 * Relative Rendering Intent has Blackpoint Compensation Available || NO for plugin; workaround available;
 * Paper Transport Issues Causing Smuding/Head Strikes ||  ||   ||   ||
 * Longevity of prints || No data available; approx. 95 years for iPF5000 || 100 years bare bulb
 * Quantity/Quality of supplied profiles || 17 profiles for Canon papers made with Xrite Profilemaker ||  || Excellent ||
 * Time to print at highest quality ||  ||   ||   ||
 * Printer stand || Standard || Standard || Standard ||
 * Interface || Ethernet, USB 2.0 || Ethernet, USB 2.0 || Ethernet, USB 2.0 ||
 * Standby power consumption || < 6 watts || 27 watts || < 5 watts ||
 * Standby noise || None detectable || Fan runs continuously + ||  ||
 * Sound level || 49 dB ||  || 50 dB ||
 * Consistency Between Printers || Canon claims < 2 delta E with calibration ||  ||   ||
 * Quality of Manufacturer website || Poor (but Wiki sufficient, so this is
 * Documentation ||  || Excellent per LL || Very Good ||

+ Comment from Paul Butzi: "This fan runs constantly. It is by no means a noisy fan, but it is far noisier than it needs to be. And it runs all the time, even when the printer is in ’sleep’ mode. It runs day and night. Did I mention that this fan runs non-stop, 24/7, constantly?"

++ Comment from Avalan: "I printed on breathing color chromata canvas - 20.5 mil - with no problems or head strikes."


 * Comments from Wayne Fox on [|LL forum thread] about iPF6100 vs HP Z3100:**

The real question being asked here is a Canon ipf6100 vs. an HPz3100. Canon sent me an ipf6100 about 10 days ago, and have enjoyed seeing what the printer can do. I spent about 2 weeks with a 44" z3100 a couple of months ago, and currently own 2 Epson 3800's, a 4800, and a 9800. I ordered the Epson 11880 immediately upon reading about it, and after examining prints made on the 11880, the 9880 and 9800 as well as Canon printers at photoshop world, I am excited about this new printer. I also still have an ipf5000 Canon sent to me shortly before they were introduced and tested it for a few weeks back then.

So I'm sort of an Epson guy, but I've had a chance to play in depth with all of them. From that perspective I will say I believe the 6100 is an outstanding printer, and I'm getting gorgeous prints ... every bit as good as my 3800. Not better mind you, but side by side it is incredibly difficult to find any difference, especially one significant enough to base a purchase decision on output quality alone. The new black inks do make a difference, and black and white prints I did on Museum Etching look really nice on both printers. I see less grain and smoother transition detail than I remember with the ipf5000.

My personal feeling is that I like the output from the Epson and the Canon better than the z3100. The HP is a great printer, but I found it more challenging to maintain delicate transition details, and struggled with reds, especially rich reds. The gloss optimizer is nice if you do a lot of photo papers, but gloss differential and bronzing really isn't much of an issue for any of these printers now.

I mentioned a few days ago (I believe in this thread) about challenges using the front loading manual feed for thicker material on the ipf6100. I finally did figure it out and now I'll admit it isn't that bad, so my only criticism of the Canon ipf6100 is again in documentation (it shouldn't have been that hard to figure out). The user interface for printing is still a struggle (let's be honest, printing interfaces should be better for all printers, but I think Canon is the worst of the 3). That being said, it is better than the ipf5000, and once you figure it out isn't an issue.

One final opinion when comparing the z3100 to the 6100 (or the Epsons for that matter) is in regards to the onboard eyeone and self profiling. While I commend HP for the idea, and I know everyone is excited about it, I personally think profiling is going in a different direction. The self-calibration of the new Canon printers seems insignificant, but in reality it is a big deal. It puts them at a level that Epson seems to have achieved, especially with the 3800, that being the printers are very consistent. It isn't that the printer is consistent with itself, it is consistent with other printers. Paper makers will be able to provide canned profiles that are equal to or better than you can make for yourself. I believe the Canon is consistent enough that most of the good media out there will have canned profiles very quickly. So it just doesn't seem to be worth the extra money to buy one in the printer. 5 years ago this would have been remarkable, but seems unnecessary now.

Please understand this printer may have issues that no one knows about ... it's too new. So my comments are regarding output quality, not build quality. It could very well be the roll feed system of the printer is flakey and a month or two from now the net will be full of people upset that they bought the printer based on what someone said. I will say the printer seems well built, and I had very little trouble loading paper with very few skewing errors, even with the front manual slot (once I finally figured how to use it with my preferred paper choices.) As far as build quality it isn't new, it is pretty much identical to the 6000, so instinct tells me it's going to be fine. But no one knows right now, so if that worries you, I guess you can wait or look at other makers.

Finally I do have a couple of broad recommendations. If you don't need roll feed, don't switch between photo blacks too often and only need a 17" printer, the Epson 3800 is a strong contender. Beautiful quality, and I have 0 clogs in over 2 months between 2 printers. If you need roll feed and need to switch blacks more than occasionally, the Canon would be my choice. I've heard the new 80 series reduces the amount of ink it takes to swap, but it will still take more than the Canon (which doesn't require any). If you are the rare user that prints on heavy stock ... especially heavy roll stock, the straight through paper path design of the 7880 is something you should look at closely ... the Canon does present some challenges there.