Replacing iGen3's HELP iGen4, NexPress, Bizhub or Imagepress

[happywing]

We have two iGen3's in our shop. The lease's expire in December. This is an in-house shop and we don't expect our volumes to increase (1 shift, about 300,000 clicks-per-month). If justified, we can get what we want, including Xerox (at a Xerox price). Our floorplan options:

1. Xerox - 1x iGen3 and 1x iGen4. We would renew one of our old 3's and pay maintenance/clicks.
2. Ricoh/Kodak - 1x Nexpress SX3300 and 1x Ricoh C901
3. Canon - 3x ImagePress 7010vp
4. KM - 3x BizHub 8000c

With choice 1, we know what we're getting, but it costs. Choice 2 is not much cheaper, but we have no previous experience. Choices 3 and 4 would save a lot of money, but would a current "iGen3 shop" be satisfied with these smaller units?

 

[arossetti]

300m 11" clicks? What are you printing, books, manuals, forms, marketing collateral? Text weight, cover, mix? Binding? Multiple paper stocks per run?

but would a current "iGen3 shop" be satisfied with these smaller units?

Depends on what you are printing.

 

[happywing]

Of course, good questions...

Sizes
70%-80% 12 x 18
30% smaller custom sizes for booklets

Paper
80% on 80# matte text
10% on 80# matte cover
10% on 100# matte cover

The work type is advertising and information (brochures, flyers and saddle-stitch booklets). All of the binding is offline.

 

[c2k]

having run both igen3 and the nexpress. I personally prefer the nexpress because of the longer up-time as long as the operators up keeps the maintenance on the nexpress. It's a solid, sound machine and our nexpresses runs 1.5 to 2 million imps a month between the 2 nexpresses we have (2500 and 3000). However, our advantage is we have several kodak service reps who are close by us and the turn-around time for service is fairly quick. That's one thing you'd need to look into it.

the advantage of the nexpress is it uses the 5th color (RGB) to extend the color gamut if you have a picky client who are very picky with their colors.

However, I dont know what the igen4 has to offer because I've never worked on one.

 

[happywing]

The NexPress did look solid to me. If we go with a large machine, it will be between iGen4 and NexPress. I am still struggling with the idea of a multiple mid-sized (BizHub, ImagePress, etc.) configuration. We could save a lot of money with mid-sized, but the savings is bound to come at some sort of cost.

 

[c2k]

The NexPress did look solid to me. If we go with a large machine, it will be between iGen4 and NexPress. I am still struggling with the idea of a multiple mid-sized (BizHub, ImagePress, etc.) configuration. We could save a lot of money with mid-sized, but the savings is bound to come at some sort of cost.

just to help you w/ your decision..

the company shut down 2 Heidelberg SM52 6 color press and all of the jobs that used to run on that press now runs on the nexpress. I dont know what is your company background, but if you do outsource jobs to go on the litho press cuz of the run size, the nexpress will be able to handle it. As a matter of fact, there's a job that's running on the nexpress right now for 6 hours straight w/o any jams.

 

[kgemini22]

We have two iGen3's in our shop. The lease's expire in December. This is an in-house shop and we don't expect our volumes to increase (1 shift, about 300,000 clicks-per-month). If justified, we can get what we want, including Xerox (at a Xerox price). Our floorplan options:

1. Xerox - 1x iGen3 and 1x iGen4. We would renew one of our old 3's and pay maintenance/clicks.
2. Ricoh/Kodak - 1x Nexpress SX3300 and 1x Ricoh C901
3. Canon - 3x ImagePress 7010vp
4. KM - 3x BizHub 8000c

With choice 1, we know what we're getting, but it costs. Choice 2 is not much cheaper, but we have no previous experience. Choices 3 and 4 would save a lot of money, but would a current "iGen3 shop" be satisfied with these smaller units?

We have one C8000 now, and I have considered getting another more than once. For the price, it does more than enough, especially with the finishing options. We've ran the thickest card stock possible on the C8000 compared to any other ( You can trick the machine and forcing it but it handles the larger, just fine ) toner based machine we've come across. I also just got back from GraphExpo, as for the volume I don't think you need to stick with the iGen / Indigo level machines if your product solutions aren't expanding beyond what you traditionally have. Those machines, create more overhead, and really the "CPC" doesn't always justify the overhead difference unless you are running 500k-1million pages or so, from what I've studied. If it were me, and it's only going to be for in-plant, then multiple C8000's are the way to go. 3 of them will give you redundancy it doesn't appear you've had the luxury of having yet as well.

 

[arossetti]

So 600,000 8.5x11 equivalent clicks per month.

2 800's running 1 shift with 80% up time gets you 300,000 clicks per week. Why the over kill with 3 iGen's and or/equivalent? I would renew 1 iGen 3 and add an x800 or equivalent. Your electric bill will drop drastically with an 800 over an iGen. The power required for an iGen is roughly $3k per month per shift. Obviously that depends on your rates but.

 

[design]

Canon imagepress is an better choice if there no bigger size sheet printing requirement,machine is much reliable and productive

 

[soontobeexkonicauser]

C8000 would be a bad choice

C8000 would be a bad choice

Of course, good questions...

Sizes
70%-80% 12 x 18
30% smaller custom sizes for booklets

Paper
80% on 80# matte text
10% on 80# matte cover
10% on 100# matte cover

The work type is advertising and information (brochures, flyers and saddle-stitch booklets). All of the binding is offline.

The C8000's Achilles heel is large sheets. For that matter, any KM device seems to choke and puke more frequently when running large sizes. It also speed degrades dramatically on heavier stocks, averaging no more than 1000 sheets/per hour in net through put due to tray weight limitations, constant need for the machine to readjust, the additional dwell time added by the second heater on cover stock, etc.

Duplexing is also a huge speed degrade on the C8000. We have never been able to run any job at rated speed or close to rated speed. There was a white paper out on it that suggested it's net up time is about 47% and I would have to concur that number is not far off.

I would stick with the larger production units. It's not about electrical consumption, best quality, or capital cost. It's about how many sheets can you get through the press on a consistent basis at good quality and sell them. C8000 is not your best friend to accomplish that.

 

[design]

since you are going to run 12x18 mostly in mixed media setup canon C7010VP or VPS would be suitable for your requirement.It takes very minimal time to switch over different media.

 

[Toner4Brains]

The C8000's Achilles heel is large sheets. For that matter, any KM device seems to choke and puke more frequently when running large sizes. It also speed degrades dramatically on heavier stocks, averaging no more than 1000 sheets/per hour in net through put due to tray weight limitations, constant need for the machine to readjust, the additional dwell time added by the second heater on cover stock, etc.

Duplexing is also a huge speed degrade on the C8000. We have never been able to run any job at rated speed or close to rated speed. There was a white paper out on it that suggested it's net up time is about 47% and I would have to concur that number is not far off.

I would stick with the larger production units. It's not about electrical consumption, best quality, or capital cost. It's about how many sheets can you get through the press on a consistent basis at good quality and sell them. C8000 is not your best friend to accomplish that.

Do you own a C8000? This sounds off. There's no slow down related increased dwell time with 2 fusers - the reason there's 2 fusers is so that you can maintain speed across substrates (text weight uses 1 fuser, cover weight uses both, mixed media can run cover through both and text through 1).

There's also not a speed degradation in running 4/4 vs 4/0 aside from the fact that it runs at 50% of the sheet output which every digital press does when running 2 sided. There's only one speed degradation related to weight that the C8000 has and it is on 350 gsm which is a weight that not every digital press can even put through it. Absolute worst case scenario if you are running 2-sided 13x19 16pt board you will be running at 1000 sheets/hour. An iGen4 would be running the same sheets at 1800/hour. The C8000 will run 2100 4/0 12x18 100# cover sheets an hour.

To your point, dollar for dollar you are moving more sheets through the shop with as many C8000's as you can get for the price of an iGen4.

 

[arossetti]

We have yet to hear from the OP so I don't know if any of this matters but, instead of fighting over the c8000 and if it is a good printer I think the bigger issue is that he is using or wants to use 3 iGen's to complete 600,000 small clicks.

 

[Green Printer]

We have two iGen3's in our shop. The lease's expire in December. This is an in-house shop and we don't expect our volumes to increase (1 shift, about 300,000 clicks-per-month). If justified, we can get what we want, including Xerox (at a Xerox price). Our floorplan options:

1. Xerox - 1x iGen3 and 1x iGen4. We would renew one of our old 3's and pay maintenance/clicks.
2. Ricoh/Kodak - 1x Nexpress SX3300 and 1x Ricoh C901
3. Canon - 3x ImagePress 7010vp
4. KM - 3x BizHub 8000c

With choice 1, we know what we're getting, but it costs. Choice 2 is not much cheaper, but we have no previous experience. Choices 3 and 4 would save a lot of money, but would a current "iGen3 shop" be satisfied with these smaller units?

I would not recommend the c901. High maintenance. Run away and look at anything other than a c901.

 

[soontobeexkonicauser]

We have owned a C8000 for a year and half now with well over 2 million clicks and can confidently stand behind what we say is occurring in the field. Any stock above 80# cover slows down. Any stock run duplex, regardless of weight, runs slower than simplex speed, measuring in 8.5" by 11" "clicks"
I didn't go into other production issues with duplexig that are already documented on this site concerning skewing, page to page registration and inability to register front to back, but since these obviously weigh in on the discussion of what is a production machine and what is a copying device, they should be factored in as well. The Xerox, which has it's own issues, is still by far a production machine. The C8000, sadly, is a copying device. A really, really good looking copier, but still a copying device.

It is easy to get trapped into acquisition costs being the determining factor, but equating running 3 C8000's to one iGen4 is like trying to mow a lawn with 3 lawn mowers at one time against a tractor. I an not a big Xerox fan, but I would trust it's characteristics far better than the C8000 as a voice of experience. If you need to get 1,000,000 a month out, stick with other vendors. The C8000 is out of it's weight class. If you need less than 100,000 good prints off a month in a non-critical time factor process, the C8000 is a good choice.

Also, consistant quality is how you sell printing, the weakest point in the C8000. Critical color items, such as solid builds for corporate colors, will stray and streak, regardless of the best practices employed on the device. We are having to run it today in a 600 dpi stochastic mode, which places the quality level at the low end of the class, just to keep color from straying.

 

[jsmrekar]

igen4 is twice as fast as igen3. You can replace 2 3's with 1 4 or better yet a 150.

 

[KopyBoss]

Also, consistant quality is how you sell printing, the weakest point in the C8000. Critical color items, such as solid builds for corporate colors, will stray and streak, regardless of the best practices employed on the device. We are having to run it today in a 600 dpi stochastic mode, which places the quality level at the low end of the class, just to keep color from straying.

Are you using G7 calibration method? If not have your tech do the G7 calibration it will take care of the color shift. We run tons of corporate builds and after this calibration no issues with the color shifts.

 

[arossetti]

igen4 is twice as fast as igen3. You can replace 2 3's with 1 4 or better yet a 150.

What math are you using to calculate those numbers?

 

[jsmrekar]

What math are you using to calculate those numbers?

Tests on our igen vs. Running Tests in Rochester and El Segundo.

Math wont do it. You need to do real world tests.

The iGen3 has tremendously more maintenance & maintenance operations (see: Adjusting Print Quality)

Our runs are anywhere from 7,000 - 12,000 impressions of 14"x22" paper.

The igen3 runs at 1,000/hr
The igen4 runs at 2,000/hr

ipm is sales hype. iph is where your bread is buttered.

 

[soontobeexkonicauser]

I wish that sticking a G7 stake was the answer. As an offset/digital house, we support the G7 initiative, though we disagree with certain chromatic values in the magenta and the offsetting adjustment in cyan to compensate for it. It leaves a very thin line to hit without getting a green cast in your work, though that obviously serves as a wake up call to take a look at your system if it happens...

G7 and G7 digital are two different worlds and even deploying into G7 doesn't address the problem. The problem is that the red values of the C8000 and virtually any other digital device have been "chromed" to a much brighter red than true magenta. This is awesome for the creation of direct mail. It does mean that the red values, if they stray more than delta 2 or 3, will create a larger than normal visual discrepancy, and the non-process magenta means a chopping of the color spectrum available against certain offset colors. It also means I have availability of some color gamut I can't do in offset.
The C8000's controls will not control to delta 3, at least not in this machine. At current, it will not control to delta 5, which is a G7 requirement. This is with a statistically significant sampling base. If you just spot check it, you probably aren't getting a true reading, and in reality, aren't G7 compliant. I'm not saying your not compliant, just that digital devices propinquity to stray means you have to employ a similar or even greater sampling method than on offset. And digital company that says otherwise should be avoided like the plague.

And please don't feel I am against digital or really KM for that matter. Just that digital devices get sold as "presses" and they aren't.

FYI, our workaround to date on this has been to run the very crude 600 dpi only stochastic screening on board the Creo rip. It's a very bad workaround, but since we have been unable to get resolution from support in this area of the machines characteristics, but it's the only thing that has worked. It it won't work on non-solid build colors, as the dot routine is too rough for true images. Another sad shortfall on what could have been a great 2400 dpi machine. But, what do we expect from a copier company?

We run daily calibration, btw, so we have eliminated that as a fix for the color shift problem. It exists almost sheet to sheet in this case with certain colors and builds. We do deploy custom customer builds for certain jobs as well, as this is the only "workaround" for problem on the profile side.

Certainly wish I could spend more time running sheets than managing around problems, but it is what it is.