C1 imagepress copy quality question

[kingpd@businessprints.net]

Re: C1 imagepress copy quality question

I usually give Canon rave reviews but I have to give them thumbs down for the C-1. Mostly was their lack of foresight for the industry and this product and who was going to use it and how much.

It may have great quality but it was made too slow for who was going to be using it. They should have made parts last longer for more of a moderate production environment and they should have anticipated it being used for higher coverage percentages.

I remember reading studies on coverage usage before and typical office environments on color average 12-25% or so. Commercial printers and copy shops are much higher. The latter of which are the ones that are going to buy the c1s. 6% coverage is typical for a b/w document not a color document unless it's a letterhead.

Unless Canon wasn't expecting these machines to be used so much, I don't understand why the drums are good for like 150k or less. How do they go from drums that rate for 5 million down to low hundred thousand? Is it really a cost issue? As far as I know there shouldn't be any difference between b/w and color other than the pigment color in the toner as far as the toner/drum/developer are concerned.

[Penvy]

Re: C1 imagepress copy quality question

on the new drum please change the seals with the new upgrade seals that do not put as much pressure.

Canon knew that the side seals were too hard on the drum surface and that would wear out the drum faster than the actual print!

Not Kidding!!!! what a mess they have with this.

A quick temp fix on the drum that will get you 5-10K more is use Teflon tape just on the outside edge with the overwrap following the correct spin.
P

[mark921]

Re: C1 imagepress copy quality question

Yep, i installed the new seals. a year ago or so, i had a drum do what Teckat suggested and it was a real mess. Started pulling developer in very strange ways...

Havent tried the teflon tape, but it makes a lot of sense.

We have 3 of these beasts, and its a major challenge to maintain properly. Once we got past all those E020 errors, and set up very strict service schedules, they have actually been decent units...but then again, we keep rebuilt sub assemblies on hand for quick replacement. I feel bad for techs who must maintain these units in the field, especially when dealing with printers.

[mark921]

Re: C1 imagepress copy quality question

I usually give Canon rave reviews but I have to give them thumbs down for the C-1. Mostly was their lack of foresight for the industry and this product and who was going to use it and how much.

It may have great quality but it was made too slow for who was going to be using it. They should have made parts last longer for more of a moderate production environment and they should have anticipated it being used for higher coverage percentages.

I remember reading studies on coverage usage before and typical office environments on color average 12-25% or so. Commercial printers and copy shops are much higher. The latter of which are the ones that are going to buy the c1s. 6% coverage is typical for a b/w document not a color document unless it's a letterhead.

Unless Canon wasn't expecting these machines to be used so much, I don't understand why the drums are good for like 150k or less. How do they go from drums that rate for 5 million down to low hundred thousand? Is it really a cost issue? As far as I know there shouldn't be any difference between b/w and color other than the pigment color in the toner as far as the toner/drum/developer are concerned.

Toner coverage on the C1 in a print per pay environment will NEVER be 6% or lower. Peak quality is too good, and the printer will leverage that quality but selling more and more copies. Very good, yet very bad at the same time. If dealers are going to place these machines in that environment they need to expect issues...serious issues.

[kingpd@businessprints.net]

Re: C1 imagepress copy quality question

I've heard good things about the imagepress c7000/6000 series. Were these redesigned with the idea in mind that they'll be printing very high coverage most of the time?

I know of companies that use those and xerox equivalent rather than their real presses to print catalogs and magazines, which are almost always 90-100% and full bleed.