Xerox versus Canon

[Craig]

Just keep pressing them and get an attorney involved if you need to. Been there, done that, my Canon only cost me $72,000.00 to sell back to the to break the lease.

 

[Dave at clg]

Just to give everybody an update on our quest. We have been checking a few references given to us by Canon and Xerox. Pretty much what I am reading here. One reference with a Canon just on the other side of town told us he loves the machine when it is running. Problem is keeping it running. Last week he was down for 2 days with the promise of 2 hour response time.

On the other hand the owner is still leaning towards Canon just for the fact that for the price, you are getting more features such as glass top scanning and a saddle stitcher. Canons click prices are cheaper also. Has anybody had any luck negotiating click charges?

 

[Craig]

We did on our black and white by locking in the rate of .003 for 20,000,000 or 5 years. How far off are they, when I was comparing a 7000VP to a 8000AP it was Canon at .045 and Xerox at .049... not to far off.

Also make sure you have 3 Phase power in your building for the Canon 7000VP, or you will have major electrical upgrades as well. Canon will not support a phase converter for the 7000VP.

 

[Dave at clg]

Thanks Craig, we have made some alterations to our Xerox proposal and we will see what they think. Talk to a few others and clicks seem to be pretty negotiable (especially these days).

 

[TnT]

I fully understand what you mean by get everything in writing, wish I had had your advice earlier.

That advice is sound no matter who you deal with, I'd also add get a tech in on the demo/sales process. Salesmen will tell you what you want to hear, when they do that, look at the tech, if he/she rolls eye, paralyzes with fear, you know there's a problem

We've had no end of problems with Xerox, not in the production space, (a 250), but it was sold to us as being able to duplex coated 170gsm stock, which it can't, and we battled for years with the machine.

We're looking at moving to the Canon 7000 or the KM c6500, (still awaiting the Xerox 700, joys of being in the 'Rest of the World'). Talking to someone using the Canon 7000, reliability is of serious concern. When it's working, it produces a nice print, but there in lies the trick, keeping it working. The KM 6500 produces a nice result, on a new machine, but on a machine 12-14 months old, the results were *very* different. That worries me. After my 2 years of headaches with Xerox, while their support was great until everything went pear shaped, trust is my big issue with them. The 700, (and no we're not looking at the 5000 and above, the machine needs to not use oil, I hate the sheen), would have to be an absolutely stellar machine.

 

[Craig]

That advice is sound no matter who you deal with, I'd also add get a tech in on the demo/sales process. Salesmen will tell you what you want to hear, when they do that, look at the tech, if he/she rolls eye, paralyzes with fear, you know there's a problem

We've had no end of problems with Xerox, not in the production space, (a 250), but it was sold to us as being able to duplex coated 170gsm stock, which it can't, and we battled for years with the machine.

We're looking at moving to the Canon 7000 or the KM c6500, (still awaiting the Xerox 700, joys of being in the 'Rest of the World'). Talking to someone using the Canon 7000, reliability is of serious concern. When it's working, it produces a nice print, but there in lies the trick, keeping it working. The KM 6500 produces a nice result, on a new machine, but on a machine 12-14 months old, the results were *very* different. That worries me. After my 2 years of headaches with Xerox, while their support was great until everything went pear shaped, trust is my big issue with them. The 700, (and no we're not looking at the 5000 and above, the machine needs to not use oil, I hate the sheen), would have to be an absolutely stellar machine.

Again, my point has been made. Don't buy an office copier and expect to run it as a production printer. In my OPINION the Xerox 700 and KM 6500 are high end office copiers. As for the fuser oil comments, no one who make them will answer this question. If fuser oil presents such a problem then why are the iGen and Nexpress still using it? Those machines alone have made far more prints than KM and Canon combined.

 

[TnT]

The point I'm making is don't believe the salesman, they were the guys who sold the office copier as an entry level production machine.

If fuser oil presents such a problem then why are the iGen and Nexpress still using it? Those machines alone have made for more prints than KM and Canon combined.

It depends on what you're printing, my customers hate the look fuser oil leaves, it doesn't matter who the manufacturer is.

 

[Craig]

The point I'm making is don't believe the salesman, they were the guys who sold the office copier as an entry level production machine.

I'll give you a big AMEN to that. They will tell you what you want to hear, it now becomes our problem to fish through the crap, for the truth.

 

[random]

Again, my point has been made. Don't buy an office copier and expect to run it as a production printer. In my OPINION the Xerox 700 and KM 6500 are high end office copiers. As for the fuser oil comments, no one who make them will answer this question. If fuser oil presents such a problem then why are the iGen and Nexpress still using it? Those machines alone have made far more prints than KM and Canon combined.

Man, get with it. How much do you think it would cost to retrofit an IGEN or a Nexpress to run the EA toner? I will be happy to put my money on the fact the next high volume engine out of Xerox will not have fuser oil. The technology is dead. The fuser in a valdez machine is hugely exspensive in comparison to a non oil device. It is just pure economics they keep with the current fuseing arrangement until the the product dies.

As TNT says nobody likes an oily over staturated braille like xerox print.

 

[Craig]

Man, get with it. How much do you think it would cost to retrofit an IGEN or a Nexpress to run the EA toner? I will be happy to put my money on the fact the next high volume engine out of Xerox will not have fuser oil. The technology is dead. The fuser in a valdez machine is hugely exspensive in comparison to a non oil device. It is just pure economics they keep with the current fuseing arrangement until the the product dies.

As TNT says nobody likes an oily over staturated braille like xerox print.

iGen 4 ... still has oil, Nexpress 3000 .... still has oil.

My office copier comment is not related to the fact that a machine does or doesn't use fuser oil, you are the one who doesn't get it. Look at the devices they are fast plastic. They are not built to take the abuse of constant use, AND heavy cover weights. The paper decks on my 8000AP weigh more than your 6500's print engine. Look at the rated average monthly volumes they are very, very light production or high end office copiers. There is a reason they are less expensive... they use cheap parts to make them. Your get what you pay for, cheap is good but good ain't cheap!

 

[random]

When you have seen a c6500 please come back and comment.

 

[TnT]

The c6500 is not without it's issues, no digital printer is. Unfortunately I'm finding more and more it's not a case of basing a purchase/lease of a machine on what it can do, but what it can't do.

The problem we are seeing now is peoples expectations of what a digital press can do, has well exceeded what a digital press is capable of. The salespeople are basing everything on expectation, not reality.

 

[random]

I'm not saying the c6500 is without fault. But when someone tells you there pf unit is over 360 kgs they really are living in another world.

 

[Craig]

I agree with TnT, I will add to that by saying call these devices a "Digital Press" was a mistake. An offset press will run forever with very little service calls. Our digital devices are quite the opposite when you think of it from a down time perspective. "Digital Press" leads folks to have a false sense that these are presses, but reality will set in and you will find that all the production devices require a fare amount of maintenance from both the operator as well as the tech.

Random, you do act as if the 6500 is the end all to digital printing, THAT is what I enjoy pointing out as completely wrong. It is nothing more than 1 more tool the consumer has in their box to solve a need. It may very well serve as a great entry level production device for one's needs, but it is not the answer to mine. No way would it handle what I run on a daily basis, without far more maintenance from a tech. I leased what I did because I was tired of having a tech in my shop 2 or 3 times a week. I am very happy I did too. I will be a GraphExpo on Monday, you better believe I will spend time at the KM booth with my head inside a 6500.

 

[TnT]

Craig is exactly right. It's horses for courses, as much as each manufacturer would like to think they have the silver bullet solution to digital printing, the reality is they don't.

Digital print may be out of it's infancy, but if that's so, it's definately entering toddler years. Lots of sulking, not doing what it's told and stamping of feet screaming 'I don't wanna, you're not the boss of me'

 

[Dave at clg]

Hello all,
Just thought I would give an update. We did purchase the Xerox 7000AP. I think the big sticking point in all the research was the poor service by Canon. I hope this helped others out there, it helped me. Thanks again for everyones input.
Dave

 

[Craig]

Dave, all I can say is enjoy! If you have anything that comes up let me know, I'll see if I can help.