Thanks for the follow up.
Similar to my own results.
The only other machine I checked and really liked was the Ricoh 751.
I have a xerox 700 in our print shop. For us the quality is great, we run a lot of 300g duplex (loaded as 220g) no problems.
The only thing is reliability. we have 3 KM machines that run 500k print between service (except for drum, fuser, transferbelt). The xerox is more around 10k / service call.
At the moment I am buying a KM Bizhub Pro 7000. It is not that i dont like the xerox. I just think it will be too much with two very fragile machines.
I have a feeling that the registration is better on the xerox, but not sure.
After reporting my findings to Xerox, they've arranged a test with their new Xerox 770. They've suggested the quality of output will be improved due to 770's Automated Color Quality Suite (ACQS) with its inline spectrophotometer. I'll report my test results after the demo.
Off topic, I'm very impressed with the amount of time Xerox has spent trying retain us as customers. We're by no means a big account and if the 770 produces results that even approach the C6000, I'll be sticking with Xerox.
hopefully you will be singing the same song . . . 110,000 impressions from now . . . keep us abreast.
(I'm sorry - but this is going to be a long post)
I finally managed to get in to see the 770!
I was impressed 770's inline spectrophotometer, and the colour results seemed much more consistent than the results of 700i. It's possible the tests on the 700i wan't properly calibrated the day I tested it.
At first glance, I was seeing the same mottleing issues in the greys on the 770, and was pretty disappointed;as I've mentioned in previous posts, a big part of me wants to stay with Xerox and I was hoping the 770 would produce. I spent most of the night with a light table, my trusty loop, and good dose of caffeine.
The first test I was to compare the results of 770 against the actual file on my Mac Pro, with a recently calibrated Cinema Display monitor. I was throughly impressed with how close the two were. It was literally like I dragged the my monitor output on to a piece of paper. Still there were some quality issues with the 770 output, and the mottling in the greyscale was bothersome.
After a few hours of comparison I noticed some oddities. In some tests, the Xerox 242, out registered crisper text details than both the 700i and 770. This didn't make any sense. I couldn't imagine the Fuji engineers would spend millions on developing an entry-level production machine that produced results that were inferior to a previous generation office product. More and more of these oddities began to creep up before I experienced a "eureka!" moment.
You see, we'd played around with our 242's EFI settings to produce, what I deemed, the "best quality" from a graphics standpoint. Sure this slowed down the machine a bit, but I found the results better looking than default EFI settings. Knowing my application use, I assumed the Xerox specialists would set both the 700i and 770 EFI in a similar manner - apparently I was wrong - dead wrong.
At this point, it was just a theory. I called my Rep and shared my findings with him. He immediately booked me another appointment with the specialist and I was to Xerox for the third time in a week. I arrived with an arm full of output sheets and began a fairly lengthy conversation with the specialist.
I showed her the output from the various machines and highlighted the issues where I thought Xerox had a quality loss. One particular file was a photo of an interior of classic 50's car. On the Xerox 700i and 770 tests, there was some pixilation along dashboard elements and steering elements - this appeared smooth on KM c6000 results. She explained because the Xerox outputs at 2400dpi, versus the 1200dpi resolution of the KM, certain image details would become more visible - actually more representative of the source file. She said the KM's 1200dpi appeared smoother because it wasn't interpreting all the data the 770 did. She excused herself, took my USB, and returned with some of sample files - this time printed on Xerox 7700 (I believe it was upres'd to 1200dpi for her test).
I was shocked. Not only was she right, the test results from the 1200dpi 7700 looked nearly identical the KM c6000. The grey's were smooth, with no visible mottling and the pixelated edges on the image of the car were smooth. Anyway, she set me loose on the 770's EFI's fiery and I began to print out my results. It didn't take me very long before I had the 770 producing the results I wanted. We were able to drastically reduce the mottling in the greys by enabling the 700's internalgloss-mode, not to be confused with the gloss-mode setting on Fiery's, but this did create some noticeable scratching on the paper - especially with full coverage.
I was very encouraged at this point, thanked the specialist, and my rep who present through this process, and rushed back to the studio. The first file I opened was the photo of the car. Indeed, the specialist was right. The Xerox 770 had interpreted every visible detail correctly, even the bad ones, with almost perfect clarity. The original image did indeed show some pixelation around the steering column and dashboard. Again, I was throughly impressed with the colour output of the 770 when compared to our monitor output.
In conclusion, I liked both machines. It's really amazing how some images look better at 1200dpi compared to 2400dpi, but beauty is subjective. In the end, I want accuracy for both me and my clients. While I think the KM is a sturdier machine, that features a far more robust fuser, I'm going to stick with Xerox and purchase the 770.
I do recommend anyone considering this combination of machines, or any other, make sure your testing process is exhaustive; take nothing for granted and don't trust your eyes at first glance. Make sure the machine, RIP's, and any other hardware attached represents your workflow. (In my case, I didn't care about speed, but rather quality). Don't make snap judgements or rush into a purchase. Keep reviewing the output, comparing the results, until you've absolutely determined the best fit for you and your clients. You'll know it's right when both your head and your heart start to agree.
Cheers and good luck!
Last edited by tysus; 03-29-2012 at 08:15 AM.
I'm probably picking up an old thread but I have to add my two cents. We got a Xerox 700i last Feb 2012. We got ANOTHER Xerox 700i in April. We lost our Fiery RIP yesterday and since April I think we've needed the machine serviced at least 30 times, absolutely no exaggeration. I've personally lost hours at work because the machine has been down and there's been nothing for me to do. I cannot explain to you how much I loathe this machine.
Xerox 700 and 770 are garbage.
registration is a joke on both
worst I have ever seen.
Xerox 770 or 700 registration cant be accurate since they using roller paper pick up machanisam.canon has edge over them since it uses suction feeding machanisam with tight registration.Also color variation will not occur in long runs as the engine has better aircirculation system to exhust the heat generated inside the machine
Kinda accurate, but the feed mechanics only go so far. Once the paper is released from the pull out mechanism it still needs to travel several feet before it is imaged. So you need some type of mechanical registration guide to properly align the sheet before it is imaged.
Originally Posted by design
is really usefull all you did to decided which machine to buy.
i will like to know which rip has each printer, now i am deciding to buy a xerox 770 or a konica c6000, the xerox they are offering a a xerox free flow rip and the c6000 they offer me with an internal konica rip.
i really dont know if the konica will have the same results with an internal rip.
We want to replace the DC 250 we have had for 6 years.
thank you for your helpfull comments.
Originally Posted by tysus