New Canon 1110 versus Xerox Nuvera 100

[Sterling]

We are trying to get off the fence between the new Canon 1110 and the Xerox Nuvera 100 production unit.

From a price standpoint, the Canon is a little less expesnive that the Nuvera.

For me, the main advantage of the Canon is that it employs an image transfer belt for thicker medias. It can handle and autoduplex up to 110 lb. coated cover. Of my concerns though is that this is a new product for Canon and has yet to be out in the market place. I am also concerned about what Canon's service will be like through the local dealer. Canon is saying there response time is 2 hours (compared to Xerox's 4 hours), but I don't know whether this is true or not.

For me, the main advantage of the Xerox is image quality and the service. Of my concerns though is that the Nuvera will only autoduplex up to 80 lb. coated cover and then the CED comes with all sorts of caveats, etc... with regard to the heavier paper.

Thoughts???

 

[GregNac19]

We are trying to get off the fence between the new Canon 1110 and the Xerox Nuvera 100 production unit.

From a price standpoint, the Canon is a little less expesnive that the Nuvera.

For me, the main advantage of the Canon is that it employs an image transfer belt for thicker medias. It can handle and autoduplex up to 110 lb. coated cover. Of my concerns though is that this is a new product for Canon and has yet to be out in the market place. I am also concerned about what Canon's service will be like through the local dealer. Canon is saying there response time is 2 hours (compared to Xerox's 4 hours), but I don't know whether this is true or not.

For me, the main advantage of the Xerox is image quality and the service. Of my concerns though is that the Nuvera will only autoduplex up to 80 lb. coated cover and then the CED comes with all sorts of caveats, etc... with regard to the heavier paper.

Thoughts???

Just a simple question. What do you need to auto duplex with coated stock in just B&W? Would manual duplexing be out of the question. It might run faster on either machine at that heavy of weight.

 

[Sterling]

On the B&W side, our need is two fold: (1) we are out of capacity with our current machines (so we have a need from a pure volume standpoint and we would like a machine to have an AMV high end of at least 1MM ppm) and (2) as I have posted on another thread we have a major client asking us to do B&W variable data work on 80 lb. coated cover pre-printed offset shells for their loyalty programs. Given the variable piece on both sides and the run volumes, we are uncomfortable with manual duplexing.

 

[GregNac19]

On the B&W side, our need is two fold: (1) we are out of capacity with our current machines (so we have a need from a pure volume standpoint and we would like a machine to have an AMV high end of at least 1MM ppm) and (2) as I have posted on another thread we have a major client asking us to do B&W variable data work on 80 lb. coated cover pre-printed offset shells for their loyalty programs. Given the variable piece on both sides and the run volumes, we are uncomfortable with manual duplexing.

Have you looked at the Nuvera 288? It is more pricey however it would eliminate over half the time to do the job. It has two print engines inside the machine so you auto duplex at the same speed as simplex rated speed!
the machine rated to 144ppm or 288 impressions a minute. I do not know how fast that will be with 80lb coated stock.

 

[Moonshadow]

Canon 1110

Canon 1110

I want to know if it's possible to put a feeder? Or, if we can print on enveloppe of different sizes?

Thank you to inform me soon as possible!

 

[X33]

For me, the main advantage of the Xerox is image quality and the service. Of my concerns though is that the Nuvera will only autoduplex up to 80 lb. coated cover and then the CED comes with all sorts of caveats, etc... with regard to the heavier paper.

Xerox tells you straight in paper what the machine can or can't do. You should get a CED from Canon too.

 

[Damianc]

Hi Sterling,

FYI:Xerox states that “coated papers
under 120 gsm may experience degraded performance.”
(ref. Xerox Nuvera EA specification sheet)

In addition, according to Xerox “Coated stocks may exhibit issues such as higher jam
rates, smearing, loss of halftone image quality, mottle and light solid areas.”
(ref. Xerox Nuvera 100/120/144 EA Customer Expectation Document)

Unless Xerox has made some improvements I'm not aware of, the above holds true. The iP 11XX series prints well on coated and light stocks.

P.S. I work for Canon.

 

[gato]

hi Sterling
he have four imagepress 2 x 1125 and 2x 1135 and the resoult is very good, we personalize pre-printed sheets for six clients and the wtih canon the resoult especially on 270g was best, single ans duble side.

for us was the best choise..

 

[mtroy]

We have a 1110P on order, to be installed before end of the year. I compared Xerox 4112, KM 1051, Ricoh 1107 with the Canon. Reasons we chose the Canon: Local service I can trust, paper handling, image quality, lowest click charges (.0033). The Canon costs more but is in a different leaque than the others especially in paper handling - air/vaccum feed - and image quality, which is truly amazing. Xerox kept telling us they have higher resolution than the Canon, but their image quality (the surface) looked mottled, shiny - in short, like a copier, where the Canon just looks smooth, even, and in my opinion, far superior. We're getting inline pro puncher, inserter, saddle finisher and the J100 rip. We do a lot of mailing b/w jobs - saddle newsletters, plus lots of coil-bound books. Can't wait.

 

[RobertK]

We are also currently looking into a new B&W production printer. Currently we have the Xerox 4110 for 3,5 years.

The last half year the machine is a constant headache. Service calls almost every week, ranging from all sorts of issues.

99% of the work we do is 4-up duplex book printing. So we really want the 13x19,2 inch size and this is limited to a few machines on the market for our volume of around 100-150K.

And we want to print all the paper we use in offset. Currently the 4110 is very limited and only runs our 80+ gsm uncoated media.

I had demo of the Canon 1110 yesterday.. what a beast! It so silent with the air feeding and spits out 80 gsm coated like its nothing. And quality is great, more offset like.

But Xerox is now telling the new 4112/4127 should be no problem and will resolve all my current issues..AND run coated media. And money talks, because its half the price of the Canon. I will do some testing in January.

Any people who have also looked into this? And can give me an idea what to expect with the Xerox 4112?

 

[mtroy]

RobertK,

Our quote was less expensive for the Canon 1110P than the Xerox 4112, and the click charges were WAY less for the Canon. Negotiate and tell them what YOU want. Ever heard of Larry Hunt? Google him - great resource for copier pricing.

Good luck!

mtroy

 

[RobertK]

RobertK,

Our quote was less expensive for the Canon 1110P than the Xerox 4112, and the click charges were WAY less for the Canon. Negotiate and tell them what YOU want. Ever heard of Larry Hunt? Google him - great resource for copier pricing.

Good luck!

mtroy

That cant be! I would guess your quote for the 4112 was way to expensive ;-) Canon 1110 is in the league of Xerox Nuvera. And i know the Nuvera is also twice the price of the 4112. Never heard of Larry Hunt, i will google him.

 

[Stochastic]

Well I guess it comes down to how well you know your print engine, workflow and stocks.
the 4112 is highly "tweakable", just depends on how much time you are willing to invest in understanding the machines features and limitations (as with any device).

 

[[email protected]]

Old thread I know but still relevant

Old thread I know but still relevant

Nice discussion in this thread so here's my two pennies...maybe it will help somebody out as all these models are still available.

First, the Xerox 4110/4112/4127 should not really be compared to the Nuveras or the Canon IR or IP 110/7110/125/150/etc.

The 4110/4112/4127 are more the higher end of what I call the office segment. That means they're best for internal printing, quick copy shops, etc. They can run a lot but not all day every day...at least they aren't made for that. They would be more equivalent to an Canon ir 7095/105/7105.

The Nuveras (actually I think the docutechs were by far superior and they should bring them back), would be more comparable to the IR or IP 110/7110/125/150/etc which are actually made by Kodak. The Kodak line (and they used to distribute through Heidelberg) were the digimaster series and are still available. These are the "digital presses." In other words, beefed up laser copiers/printers designed to do millions a month and run all day every day for the most part. Also, the OCE' (now owned by canon) Varioprints would be in this league as well as Konica Minolta's 120-135ppm digital printers.

Here's how to consider the cost factor: based on an estimated volume what will my total cost be (machine plus click charges).

Here's how to consider the service factor: you're going to have to use your own and other people's experience. Whether I like one brand better over another makes no difference, the truth is in different locations, Xerox service may be better than Canon and vice versa. The relationship you build with the technician(s) is what will make a good or bad experience.

Here's how to consider the quality factor: run several in depth test runs with each machine. Make sure you're the one actually getting to use the machine. Use a wide variety of jobs, samples, file types, etc. Don't just run a few hundred or thousand, I mean really work the thing. As much as these machines cost it is nothing to do a good thorough sampling. Also, be REALISTIC. What is REALLY going to be the bulk of the work you do on the machine. If you're doing a small amount of extra heavy stock for instance just outsource it to a press. Also, assume the sales person is full of sh*t. They may be biased, they may be lying, or telling the truth, who cares...see the actual results on quality and the actual figures on cost.