Xerox 700 or Docucolour 5000

[random]

Random, you have to have your head where the sun doesn't shine if you think that looks like offset, it's not even close. Looks like an office copier printing on gloss stock to me, no depth in the print just one flat, dull printed page. I would think the 700 would print much the same with the oil-less toner, but I will see at GraphExpo. I guess there is a reason the production presses use fuser oil after all.

Don't remeber saying it looked like offset but I hear it so often during the day maybe I did. (Xerox) Production presses use oil at the moment because they couldn't work out how to stop the paper wrapping around the upper fuser roller without lubrication. Then much to xerox's suprise people wanted a non-shiny streak free finish. So senseing that they can't actually tell the market what they should have anymore they created the 700.

Lets be real if they didn't have the c6500 as a threat then the 700 would never of happend, this has been documented on many sites on the web. If you listen to the 700 sales pitch they say there customers demanded more of an offset finish. So to me this is saying there current range doesn't offer this ala 5000/7000/8000.

The other benefit of no fuser oil is being able to print letter head to go thru another printer without repeating down the page and also lamination. But you still can't laminate 252 prints hilarious!

Hey craig, when was the last time you picked up a magazine coverd in fuser oil? Imagine the ecological disaster.

 

[lfelton]

Hmmmm... much fun as it seems to be for Craig & Random to rag on each other, there's a few points (myths??) that need clarity...

Lamination #1. It's just plain wrong to say that you can't laminate the output from a Xerox 252. We've done many tens of thousands. You just need high nip pressure and the right type of laminate.

Lamination #2. You can't reliably laminate output off of a 650x (or a X 2xx or 700 for that matter) without taking some precautions. The toner incorporates it's own "wax polymer" lubricant (I'm sure Random will pick me up if I have the terms wrong) and standard adhesive doesn't much like sticking to this much more than it likes fuser oil. The difference is, it's not a flood covering on the sheet. That means that if you have heavy toner coverage, you will have lift or silvering without taking precautions (see #1).

Like Litho? We run litho and digital, Xerox and KM. Neither is the same as litho, full stop. The KM is closer on most stocks. That's just the way it is.

Letterheads on KM. I've heard this before and the bottom line is: if it fuses on, it can fuse right back off again, depending on fuser temps. The "official" statement from KM as given to me is "not laser guaranteed". It's a shame as I'd love to shift the ultra short runs off of litho.

Sorry to contradict you both, but at least I'm an equal opportunities offender.

 

[Craig]

Hey craig, when was the last time you picked up a magazine coverd in fuser oil? Imagine the ecological disaster.

It's a shame I didn't keep the issue's so I could be more exact, but if memory serves me correctly Graphic Arts Monthly had a cover printed on a NexPress 3000 that was showing it's ability to print outside the normal color gamut in oranges. A year or so they had another cover with a rocket on it with an excellent show of variable data usage that was printed on an iGen.

Must have been like another Exxon Valdez spill...

I was not dogging the 6500, I was just pointing out my observations with prints I have seen from it, when printed on coated stock they just lack that "pop" that I see from other production devices.

In my opinion the Xerox 700 was made to compete in price with the 6500 as an entry level production device. (I hate to even refer to it as that, more like a heavy business color device... like the 6500 in my opinion.)

 

[random]

Hmmmm... much fun as it seems to be for Craig & Random to rag on each other, there's a few points (myths??) that need clarity...

Lamination #1. It's just plain wrong to say that you can't laminate the output from a Xerox 252. We've done many tens of thousands. You just need high nip pressure and the right type of laminate.

Lamination #2. You can't reliably laminate output off of a 650x (or a X 2xx or 700 for that matter) without taking some precautions. The toner incorporates it's own "wax polymer" lubricant (I'm sure Random will pick me up if I have the terms wrong) and standard adhesive doesn't much like sticking to this much more than it likes fuser oil. The difference is, it's not a flood covering on the sheet. That means that if you have heavy toner coverage, you will have lift or silvering without taking precautions (see #1).

The fact of the matter is that the laminate will have problems sticking to anywhere the wax is, otherwise it would stick in the fuser. I have just seen that people who have a 252 and a 65 have better luck with the 65 when in comes to laminate on the same thing.

As for the valdez type fuser the oil is everywhere even industrial laminaters won't stick to that stuff.

Must have been like another Exxon Valdez spill...

In my opinion the Xerox 700 was made to compete in price with the 6500 as an entry level production device. (I hate to even refer to it as that, more like a heavy business color device... like the 6500 in my opinion.)

The magazine comment was refering to an entire magazine printed with the aid of fuser oil. That wouldn't happen because real printing presses don't use oil except to lube the bearings.

What in your opnion is a 5000AP Craig? I mean it's slower than a 700 or 65 yet Xerox class it as a Production printer? Duty cycle? This is a mythical figure that could not possibly be reached unless the machine is running 24/7 and what if it did hit the duty cycle? It's going to anyway wether it be in a month or a year.

 

[Craig]

The 5000AP does not slow down on heavier weights, it was the entry level production printer until Xerox had to come up with something cheaper than the 6500 just to compete with the price point. Does the 6500 slow down when it prints is max. gsm? I can't seem to find that information in any brochures. The 700 does and the brochure plainly states that, I can only assume the 6500 and 6501 does too. So if you are comparing the 3 machines... 6500, 700 and 5000AP, and the majority of your prints are on 220gsm and higher, than the 5000AP would be more productive at 25 ppm 12x18 300gsm vs 15 ppm 12x18 300gsm for the 700 (no one knows the 6500 production speed at this time, until you get one I guess)....correct????

If duty cycle was "mythical" than why would EVERY manufacturer print it??? If your logic is correct than the 700 and 6500 should be able to print the same monthly volume as an iGen or Nexpress or Indigo or my 8000AP for the love of Pete. It tells me as a consumer that if my monthly print volumes exceed the printed duty cycle then I need to look at, 1 - a larger device or, 2 - multiple devices to split the volume.

Oh, and who would be foolish enough to think an entire magazine would be published on a digital device when the run is the size of GAM, or QP?

 

[random]

Well the 5000AP has a duty cycle of 500,000 pages per month. So assume we have 4 weeks in a month 20 days in that month we actually have the shop open 500,000 / 20 = 25000 sheets per day. So lets say we have an 8 hour day 25000 / 8 = 3125 sheets per hour or 52 sheets a minute considering the speed of the 5000AP flat out is 50 pages a minute this seems to me a slightly mythical target. I don't think anyone would buy a colour press that was double click SRA3 so mathmatically hitting 500,000 a month would be impossible or as I like to put it mythical.

If you want the speed of a c6500 all you need to do is ask. Konica is not like Xerox, just because you ask a question you will not be sued for appearing as if you might possibly consider buying a machine.

C6500 (not sure yet on C6501)
125-210gsm speed drops to 45ppm
211-300gsm speed drops to 35ppm

700 Speed
51 ppm (177-256 g/m2 uncoated, 106-176 g/m2 coated)
35 ppm (257-300 g/m2 uncoated, 177-300 g/m2 coated)

700 only duplexs to 220gsm tho!

You could get two c6500 for a price of a 5000AP so really you lose nothing.

Oh, and who would be foolish enough to think an entire magazine would be published on a digital device when the run is the size of GAM, or QP?

ummmmm no one? Everyone knows real printing presses don't use fuser oil.

 

[lfelton]

Random - I think your calculations are slightly off, or maybe I am misunderstanding them.

Xerox duty cycles are quoted on A4 (or US equivalent). This is exactly the same case with K-M. Therefore the duty cycles for the 5000 are 250,000 SRA3 per month and the 6501 is 150,000 SRA3 per month.

Single shift is generally accepted as 21 x 8 hours per month = 168 hours. 168 hours at 25ppm is 252000 impressions. I don't think there's any mystery or coincidence over the numbers. Xerox are simply saying you can run a 5000 all day every day for normal single shift work. I'm certain that they would be equally happy if you ran some other shift pattern that put more clicks through!

The KM does not have the same duty cycle and the "Konica Konfidence Guarantee 5 year Exchange Scheme" only covers machines running within the 150K SRA3 clicks per month. That's not to say it's not as good or better that a 5000 in other ways, it just means that - according to the manufacturer - it's not designed to be run for a full shift for 5 years.

As far as the ppm speed goes on the 6501, we've only put a few 10s of thousands through it due to delivery/installation problems, but from our timings you appear to be right on the money.

 

[Craig]

If you want the speed of a c6500 all you need to do is ask. Konica is not like Xerox, just because you ask a question you will not be sued for appearing as if you might possibly consider buying a machine.

Why not just publish the speed? Maybe it keeps people from realizing it's only 65ppm on text weight paper. Where did the suing comment come from?

You could get two c6500 for a price of a 5000AP so really you lose nothing.

Accept quality!

Thank you Ifelton for getting the numbers correct! Random you are correct, not only can you buy 2 KM's for the price of a 5000AP, but you will need both of them to do the work of one 5000AP as well.

 

[TnT]

Accept quality!

See now this is where you run into problems, it depends on what you are printing. Having trialed prints from most big presses, (and we specialise in images), the xerox oil based machines get universally panned for their quality, primarily because of the oil, the sheen it puts on the prints, regardless of how good the specifics of the print are, (skin tones, highlights, shadows etc), is totally disliked by customers. If they won't pay, the print is worth nothing.

EA/Vtoner/WhateverKonicaCallIt is perceived as better quality. Then it comes down to whether people like the offset look or not.

I've put the output from an 8000ap, Imagepress 7000VP and the c6500 side by side and put it under customers noses. They never pick the xerox print. You can argue technicalities all you like, but in the end, the customer is the ultimate gauge.

 

[random]

Why not just publish the speed? Maybe it keeps people from realizing it's only 65ppm on text weight paper. Where did the suing comment come from?

Ok - your challenge should you accept it. Give us all the link to 700 print speeds. I have heard more stories of Xerox dragging people into court than anyone else.

Thank you Ifelton for getting the numbers correct! Random you are correct, not only can you buy 2 KM's for the price of a 5000AP, but you will need both of them to do the work of one 5000AP as well.

Yeah right, the 5000 was such a pile of crap nobody round these parts is going to buy a AP for fear of being burnt again. So unfortunatly this assumption will never be proven.

 

[Craig]

Ok - your challenge should you accept it. Give us all the link to 700 print speeds. I have heard more stories of Xerox dragging people into court than anyone else.

Yeah right, the 5000 was such a pile of crap nobody round these parts is going to buy a AP for fear of being burnt again. So unfortunatly this assumption will never be
proven.

http://www.office.xerox.com/latest/X70BR-01U.pdf"
Last page of the PDF, Left Column it spells it all out easy enough for even you to understand.

I gather you live in Konica Minolta fairy tale land where the only devices that work have a Konica Minolta label on them . Do you get up in the morning a salute your President Yoshikatsu Ota, gather your family around for a Konica Minolta approved breakfast, while singing the Konica Minolta anthem? Sounds like your neck of the woods is the USSR... oh wait that's Russia now..... Red China, or North Korea would work too. I bet you even have on Konica Minolta underwear.

I know it sounds hard to believe but there are other solutions that do not include Konica Minolta, they are not the end all be all for digital printing, neither is Xerox, or Canon, or HP, or Xeikon, or Oce. These are manufactures of devices that we as consumers need to find the one that best fits our needs.

 

[Craig]

See now this is where you run into problems, it depends on what you are printing. Having trialed prints from most big presses, (and we specialise in images), the xerox oil based machines get universally panned for their quality, primarily because of the oil, the sheen it puts on the prints, regardless of how good the specifics of the print are, (skin tones, highlights, shadows etc), is totally disliked by customers. If they won't pay, the print is worth nothing.

EA/Vtoner/WhateverKonicaCallIt is perceived as better quality. Then it comes down to whether people like the offset look or not.

I've put the output from an 8000ap, Imagepress 7000VP and the c6500 side by side and put it under customers noses. They never pick the xerox print. You can argue technicalities all you like, but in the end, the customer is the ultimate gauge.

Which print was picked the most? Also how many prints were run from the 8000AP and which front end was it printed from and was it in All Weights Mode or not when the prints were produced?
If the customer is always correct... which I agree to some extent, then why are my offset competitors coming to me for short run color work that is too small for their Heidelberg's? They are telling me that their customer's don't know if it came from me or them. It's been almost 10 months since our install and we have over 800,000 prints, 65% is for the trade, without 1 complaint of oil or sheen.

 

[TnT]

Which print was picked the most?

Canon

If the customer is always correct... which I agree to some extent, then why are my offset competitors coming to me for short run color work that is too small for their Heidelberg's?

Because you're not doing Photobooks. If you were, 65% of your market would be complaining about the oil. The other 35% would just never come back.

 

[random]

If the customer is always correct... which I agree to some extent,

Says it all really.

Because you're not doing Photobooks. If you were, 65% of your market would be complaining about the oil. The other 35% would just never come back.

lol so burnt, hmm maybe my maths will be right here, if canon was first and customers don't want an oily mess then that would make km second and ummm xerox, yeah xerox would be third, or last depends how you look at it. Lucky Ricoh don't have the c900 out yet or they would be 4th.

Oce? yeah they are the ones eating into xeroxs mono market.

 

[matnic]

Didn't expect so much hostility about the 700 when I brought it back up, though I do see us getting off topic a bit...

I have to say that the quality on the 3535 is not bad, though the registration is not great and running 12x18 or anything more than 60# card has to be run thru the bypas, 20-30 sheets at a time is a pita. No oil for fusing, as will be the 700. I have run many letterhead jobs with no problems from the customer printing on it. We have tried laminating some menus, and that didn't work, as has been mentioned.

Someone asked for the CED for the 700, so here it is (see attached). Got it from our salesman.

needless to say, it still hasn't been delivered. Was supposed to be early november, then they screwed up the order, then mid October, then they forgot something, now maybe this thursday or friday, though we won't know until wednesday late in the day! Thats bs, but oh well.

I have a few other documents for the 700 including the ced for the CREO, if anyone needs some info on them.

 

[TnT]

Excellent, thanks for that matnic. I think we're up for a launch of this machine in about 4 weeks. Our Xerox sales guys have been touting this as the solution to the issues I was having. On the surface of the CED at least it appears to be able to handle the stock I need to run with adequate registration.

 

[Craig]

TnT, just make sure you go over the CED very well. Don't expect the machine to operate at it's maximum range all the time. If you plan on having a lot of volume at 220 gsm and above you will be pushing the machine to run at it's max. and should expect more service calls. Remember to keep in mind the "Center Line" paper that the CED is based on 90 gsm uncoated and 120 gsm coated 8.5x11. If you are like me and run 12x18 270 gsm all day long you may want to buy for the future, and get a larger machine.

I made the mistake once before and got a machine that fit my needs at the moment and found a year later my volume increased as did the type of paper my customers wanted and the machine no longer could handle it.

 

[TnT]

Yeah we've been burnt by the same issue already. The CED will be given the fine tooth comb treatment, as will the lease contract, and this time I'll be having KPI targets and clauses built in.

That is if we even decide this is the machine for us.

 

[geoman]

Hi guys, I was running a 700 today. I loaded 300gsm gloss coated into tray "7" (bottom left large capacity tray) and ran approx. 1000 SRA3 sheets duplex.
It performed faultlessly. No jams, no issues. Registration is very good, but I'll comment on this in greater detail i another post. More later...

George

 

[PaulJ]

I will be going to demo both KM6501 and Xerox 700 again and at the minute I'm 60-40 in favor of the Xerox. One of the many deciding factors will be the after sales, support and service. I know from previous experience that the Xerox support is second to none but I know nothing about KMs support. I would rather hear from actual KM users about this (sorry Random).