Really need feedback from Xerox 700i users (trying decide between C6000 and 700i)

[tysus]

Hi,

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this!

I have been trolling these forums for weeks now, and am still at loss wether to go with the Konica Minolta bizhub C6000 or the Xerox 700i.

A little background...I own an Advertising Agency, and we decided to invest in a local Print Shop. At the time, three years ago, most of our work was offset, but some of our clients were looking for Short-Run solutions. The shop was using a Xerox 242. We're running between 15,000 to 25,000 colour impressions a month, 90% of which is 110lb, 300GSM stock, 12" x 18" stock.

Over the years, the demand for short-run has increased extensively. The 242 was a great little work-horse, but the quality isn't there for most of our larger clients. Even after several calls to Xerox service, the machine still produces mottling and very noticeable banding on prints with a 100% coverage. These results simply aren't acceptable for graphics work.

I was approached by Konica Minolta last month and they put together a great package for the bizhub c6000. I've done comprehensive testing, with multiple substrates/papers, and have to admit - the results were impressive. The text, even at 4-points, was crisp and easy to read. Gradients, both colour and greyscale, were rendered flawlessly, and the machine itself just looked sturdier. What's more, it handled some 130lb offset paper we put through it with ease (I realize the CED only reates it for 300GSM). Overall, this would be an easy sell to my clients.

Last week my Xerox rep caught wind of the KM deal, and countered with great offer on the Xerox 700i. While I have an excellence relationship with Xerox, I'm really uncertain about this machine. I've read so many bad reviews and horror stories regarding the previous incarnation of the machine, the Xerox 700, that I'm really at a loss. This coupled with the shoddy, unreliable output of the 242, makes me question weather I wan to remain with Xerox. Will it be the same for the 700i? Is the 700i just a 242 with more "bells and whistles?"

I would really appreciate any feedback from 700i users - especially those who print quality-critical graphic documents. Can this machine compete with the C6000 in terms of text sharpness, gradients, and overall output quality? Is it able to produce consistent, quality results, over time?

(For example, the 242 was great for the first 6 months, then quality dropped and has never returned - despite 2 complete rebuilds of the machine.)


Cheers!!!

Please read my UPDATE 2 findings on page 2 to see what I purchased.

 

[airyk]

semi unrelated, but wouldn't your Xerox rep let you demo the 700i so you can see for yourself?

 

[tysus]

Hi Airyk,

Actually, I have a demo set-up for tomorrow afternoon; I'll be testing the same file and paper I used with the C6000. Of course, these are demo machines - both KM and Xerox, are always going to have them fine-tuned for these purposes. I'm guessing tomorrow's tests on the 700i will look great.

What I really wanted was feedback from users who've spent time with the product. For example, Konica provided me a list of several users who had the C6000 installed for three months or longer; everyone of them had nothing but great things to say about the product and their service.

I asked my Xerox from the same, but haven't received anything. I thought I'd give the forums a try with the hope that someone out there had experience with the machine.

 

[design]

Xerox 770,700i and 550 all same engine with different speed.700 series only advantage u get is autoduplexing in 300gsm.

 

[Kunnajar]

Xerox 770,700i and 550 all same engine with different speed.700 series only advantage u get is autoduplexing in 300gsm.

550/560 is NOT the same engine as 700i/770. There are lots of different discussions about the two engines, so you should be able to find out that those are not the same engines.

My customers with the 700i are extremely pleased with the quality, productivity and service of the machine. One of my customers is running over 120 000 prints per month (SRA3) and has had no problems with the machine so far (even though the machine is not made for those kinds of volumes). The particular customer has a Double OHCF, IOT, Light production finisher with bookletmaker and square fold trimmer.

Overall it is a great machine and I, as a sales REP, am extremely pleased with it. Also i think the new external EFI Fiery System 10 is extremely fast, easy to use and the colors are amazing.

 

[paulica]

Hi,

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this!

I have been trolling these forums for weeks now, and am still at loss wether to go with the Konica Minolta bizhub C6000 or the Xerox 700i.

A little background...I own an Advertising Agency, and we decided to invest in a local Print Shop. At the time, three years ago, most of our work was offset, but some of our clients were looking for Short-Run solutions. The shop was using a Xerox 242. We're running between 15,000 to 25,000 colour impressions a month, 90% of which is 110lb, 300GSM stock, 12" x 18" stock.

Over the years, the demand for short-run has increased extensively. The 242 was a great little work-horse, but the quality isn't there for most of our larger clients. Even after several calls to Xerox service, the machine still produces mottling and very noticeable banding on prints with a 100% coverage. These results simply aren't acceptable for graphics work.

I was approached by Konica Minolta last month and they put together a great package for the bizhub c6000. I've done comprehensive testing, with multiple substrates/papers, and have to admit - the results were impressive. The text, even at 4-points, was crisp and easy to read. Gradients, both colour and greyscale, were rendered flawlessly, and the machine itself just looked sturdier. What's more, it handled some 130lb offset paper we put through it with ease (I realize the CED only reates it for 300GSM). Overall, this would be an easy sell to my clients.

Last week my Xerox rep caught wind of the KM deal, and countered with great offer on the Xerox 700i. While I have an excellence relationship with Xerox, I'm really uncertain about this machine. I've read so many bad reviews and horror stories regarding the previous incarnation of the machine, the Xerox 700, that I'm really at a loss. This coupled with the shoddy, unreliable output of the 242, makes me question weather I wan to remain with Xerox. Will it be the same for the 700i? Is the 700i just a 242 with more "bells and whistles?"

I would really appreciate any feedback from 700i users - especially those who print quality-critical graphic documents. Can this machine compete with the C6000 in terms of text sharpness, gradients, and overall output quality? Is it able to produce consistent, quality results, over time?

(For example, the 242 was great for the first 6 months, then quality dropped and has never returned - despite 2 complete rebuilds of the machine.)

Cheers!!!

Hello

Wether it's the KM or the Xerox, you'll find both satisfied and unsatisfied customers. If you have the volumes, than you won't have problems. But, and there's a big but:

Don't buy a machine like the 700 for a print shop. The rule is that you have to use the machine in relatively long printing stints, to have the reliability 2 mil prints later. If you constantly warm it up, 100 times a day, for 3 color copies, which are generally what the print shops are doing, than you will definatelly not be doing your volumes, and at the same time destroying your machine.

Production machines are made for production, for print shops it's better to use high end office series.

 

[arossetti]

If most of your work is heavy weight printing going to sensitive clients I would steer away from the 700i. The color variance from inboard to outboard is very large on heavy weight stock. I'm talking from a 700 perspective so I may be off base with the 700i but I don't think anything has changed between the two machines to fix that issue. I run my 700 a lot with zero issues but a lot of my work I put on it is text weight or non-critical work. I have an 800 that I run the rest of the color work on.

 

[Joe Duffy]

Hi Airyk,

Actually, I have a demo set-up for tomorrow afternoon; I'll be testing the same file and paper I used with the C6000. Of course, these are demo machines - both KM and Xerox, are always going to have them fine-tuned for these purposes. I'm guessing tomorrow's tests on the 700i will look great.

What I really wanted was feedback from users who've spent time with the product. For example, Konica provided me a list of several users who had the C6000 installed for three months or longer; everyone of them had nothing but great things to say about the product and their service.

I asked my Xerox from the same, but haven't received anything. I thought I'd give the forums a try with the hope that someone out there had experience with the machine.

If you have too ask and wait, he is not very hungry. What I have seen, the back to back registration on the 6000 is better than the 700i, the color is more consistant, especially over longer runs. I did not do any finishing off either.

 

[tysus]

Hi guys,

Thanks for your feedback!!! It's really appreciated.

I finally managed to get an appointment to test the 700i.

The same test was run with KM bizhub c6000, and the Docucolor 242, external EFI Fiery and GRACoL, with the following parameters:

1) A file created internally, in Illustrator 5.5, (CYMK, PDF, Prepress), that contained; 12 vector graphics; a 4K colour photo to test flesh tones; a 4K black & white photo to test greyscale; 11 greyscale swatches from producing black at 5%, 10%, 20%, etc. to 100%K; and Avenir "Quick Brown Fox..." text test with small-caps and all-caps at 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4pts.

2) Paper tested comprised of; Cougar Digital Uncoated 80t, 80c, an 100c; Mohawk Via Felt Pure White 100c (offset not digital); Mohawk Vellum Kraft 80c (offset not digital); McCoy Digital (both silk and gloss) 80t, and 100c; and Hammermill Color Copy Digital 28t, 100bright (used to test EFI uncoated Pantones). With the exception of the Hammermill, all paper was printed on 12" x 18".

Following the test, I compared the results, then conducted a single-blind test using the Cougar 100c output (3 pages from the each machine tested) with 4 designers, and 5 office workers. I simply asked them which output they preferred.

Testing the 700i:
When I showed up to the meeting and handed the tech the paper samples, she immediately looked the Mohawk Laid and Kraft and said, "the machine probably won't run these, but we'll try anyway." I purposely placed these papers in the stack as I knew they were not meant for digital presses. I saved those for last.

During the testing, the 700i produced 5 false jams with the stock. For those unfamiliar with the problem, the Printer registers a jam but, when the High-Cap tray is opened, there is no visible sign of a jam. The same issues with our 242 High Capacity Feeder. Xerox techs have suggested the problem stems from everything from humidity issues to not enough stock in the feeder. As our printer is located in an environmentally controlled room, I'm guessing the issue is either poor design or a bad sensor. Regardless, it was discouraging to see the issue still exists on one of their flagship products.

Everything went smoothly, for a while, before the machine actually experienced a real physical jam - on the Cougar uncoated 80c stock. Following the jam, the tech aggressively removed the paper, (I actually think there was a bit left behind in the roller), and readjusted the printer profile for uncoated stock. After that, we tested the Mohawk Laid and Vellum Kraft, which pulled without incident.

Lastly, I asked the tech to run Pantone Uncoated swatches, 8 x 8 - on the Hammermill stock, before calling it day.

Comparing the Results:
I tested the output under a number of lighting conditions including daylight (6500K), fluorescent (5000K), and incandescent (2700K).

Both text and images were noticeably crisper and more refined on the C6000 compared with 700i. One of the vector files had a very slight damask overlay in the backgrounds. This was clearly noticeable on the C6000, barely noticeable on 700i, and not at all noticeable on the 242 output. What's more, the greyscale charts produced by the 700i were muddy and yellowish compared to the smooth and more precise looking results of the C6000.

Another factor was the construction of the KM - it's built like a truck compared to the plastic, toy-like feel 700i.

Conclusion:
I've had a hit and miss relationship with Xerox in the past, but they've recently put a lot more effort into building a stronger partnership with us. Also, I really like our Sales Rep - he's gone to bat for us a few times and he's there when we need him, or have an issue that techs claim is "our fault".

Part of me hoped the 700i was going to produce comparable results to the c6000 - sometimes it's easier to stick with a supplier you know (and trust - for the most part). The results, however, were not in favour of 700i. The proof was, literally, on the paper.

 

[arossetti]

Great write up!

 

[Joe Duffy]

Thanks for the follow up.
Similar to my own results.
The only other machine I checked and really liked was the Ricoh 751.

 

[nemprint.dk]

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.

 

[tysus]

Update:

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.

 

[pnamajck]

hopefully you will be singing the same song . . . 110,000 impressions from now . . . keep us abreast.

 

[tysus]

Update 2:

(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!

 

[Designia]

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.

 

[Digital Insight]

Xerox 700 and 770 are garbage.

registration is a joke on both

worst I have ever seen.

Junk boxes.

Avoid.

 

[design]

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

 

[Craig]

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.

 

[lavero]

hi
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.

Hi guys,

Thanks for your feedback!!! It's really appreciated.

I finally managed to get an appointment to test the 700i.

The same test was run with KM bizhub c6000, and the Docucolor 242, external EFI Fiery and GRACoL, with the following parameters:

1) A file created internally, in Illustrator 5.5, (CYMK, PDF, Prepress), that contained; 12 vector graphics; a 4K colour photo to test flesh tones; a 4K black & white photo to test greyscale; 11 greyscale swatches from producing black at 5%, 10%, 20%, etc. to 100%K; and Avenir "Quick Brown Fox..." text test with small-caps and all-caps at 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4pts.

2) Paper tested comprised of; Cougar Digital Uncoated 80t, 80c, an 100c; Mohawk Via Felt Pure White 100c (offset not digital); Mohawk Vellum Kraft 80c (offset not digital); McCoy Digital (both silk and gloss) 80t, and 100c; and Hammermill Color Copy Digital 28t, 100bright (used to test EFI uncoated Pantones). With the exception of the Hammermill, all paper was printed on 12" x 18".

Following the test, I compared the results, then conducted a single-blind test using the Cougar 100c output (3 pages from the each machine tested) with 4 designers, and 5 office workers. I simply asked them which output they preferred.

Testing the 700i:
When I showed up to the meeting and handed the tech the paper samples, she immediately looked the Mohawk Laid and Kraft and said, "the machine probably won't run these, but we'll try anyway." I purposely placed these papers in the stack as I knew they were not meant for digital presses. I saved those for last.

During the testing, the 700i produced 5 false jams with the stock. For those unfamiliar with the problem, the Printer registers a jam but, when the High-Cap tray is opened, there is no visible sign of a jam. The same issues with our 242 High Capacity Feeder. Xerox techs have suggested the problem stems from everything from humidity issues to not enough stock in the feeder. As our printer is located in an environmentally controlled room, I'm guessing the issue is either poor design or a bad sensor. Regardless, it was discouraging to see the issue still exists on one of their flagship products.

Everything went smoothly, for a while, before the machine actually experienced a real physical jam - on the Cougar uncoated 80c stock. Following the jam, the tech aggressively removed the paper, (I actually think there was a bit left behind in the roller), and readjusted the printer profile for uncoated stock. After that, we tested the Mohawk Laid and Vellum Kraft, which pulled without incident.

Lastly, I asked the tech to run Pantone Uncoated swatches, 8 x 8 - on the Hammermill stock, before calling it day.

Comparing the Results:
I tested the output under a number of lighting conditions including daylight (6500K), fluorescent (5000K), and incandescent (2700K).

Both text and images were noticeably crisper and more refined on the C6000 compared with 700i. One of the vector files had a very slight damask overlay in the backgrounds. This was clearly noticeable on the C6000, barely noticeable on 700i, and not at all noticeable on the 242 output. What's more, the greyscale charts produced by the 700i were muddy and yellowish compared to the smooth and more precise looking results of the C6000.

Another factor was the construction of the KM - it's built like a truck compared to the plastic, toy-like feel 700i.

Conclusion:
I've had a hit and miss relationship with Xerox in the past, but they've recently put a lot more effort into building a stronger partnership with us. Also, I really like our Sales Rep - he's gone to bat for us a few times and he's there when we need him, or have an issue that techs claim is "our fault".

Part of me hoped the 700i was going to produce comparable results to the c6000 - sometimes it's easier to stick with a supplier you know (and trust - for the most part). The results, however, were not in favour of 700i. The proof was, literally, on the paper.