Kodak NexPress vs. Xerox iGen3

[htollvr]

I often hear people talk about the Kodak NexPress and the Xerox iGen3 as being in a class by themselves. Sometimes grouped with HPs and Xeikons, but when I hear chatter, more often, I hear them being discussed as a pair. Or maybe I'm imagining it.

Or is there something about these two presses that sets them apart from the other presses in the production class?

Thanks,

Heidi Tolliver-Nigro

[Printologist]

I would lump three: NexPress, iGen3, and Indigo. Yes, they certainly are in a class of their own. Each are flag-ship products from: Kodak, Xerox, and HP, respectively.

What makes them similar to each other is often distinguishes by their price points, technology, and applications. They are all pricey to own and operate. They require a considerable amount of volume (like 100M+ to 1,000M) a month to justify ownership. The technology between each is very different from each other and different from mid-range digital presses. In a way, each one reinvents digital printing and they do it well. In fact, they all have started to turn heads and convince even printers that digital may be able to compete with conventional printing from the quality perspective on some applications. All three can produce POD, VDP, Trans-Promotional, and specialty products.

If you want to get *really* technical, you can read more about the technology differences on our new blog http://lifeofprint.com/. Its a new blog dedicated to digital printing technology. We cover topics like this one all the time. All the bloggers, are technologists or press owners, like myself.

Regards,
Printologist

[htollvr]

Interesting that you didn't include Xeikon in the list. Xeikon is much faster than the slower HP machines (160 ppm vs. 34 - 68 ppm). And between $400,000 - $800,000, they certainly aren't inexpensive to purchase. Any reason you didn't include Xeikon in that group?

Heidi Tolliver-Nigro

[LoneGoose]

> They require a considerable amount of volume (like 100M+ to 1,000M) a month to justify ownership

I agree that they require high volume to justify ownership, but a typical speed for these machines might be 2500 A3 impressions per hour; working 24hrs per day, they could never produce anywhere close to 100M per month!

[JRV]

Actually, I think Printologist meant 100 thousand to 1 million impressions per month. Cut sheet equipment, with the possible exception of HP Indigo, is very capable of producing this range of volume - there are hundreds of customers around the world doing just that. The reason the NexPres/HP/Xerox equipment isn't often compared to Xeikon, is that these are cut-sheet equipment (except for some HP models), and the Xeikon line is roll-fed. There is a large application difference between the two, with roll feed being much more productive when you aren't changing paper stocks often, and cut-sheet making more sense when you are...or when you have more than one stock within a job. Make sense?

Edited by: JRV on Feb 28, 2008 7:56 AM