Epson P7500 printer review. [aka P7570] 24" 12 ink large format pigment ink printer.

Рет қаралды 8,944

Күн бұрын

Keith looks at print quality and ease of use for the Epson P7500 large format printer.
The P7500 (and P9500) are high end pigment ink printers...
The P7500 (known by other numbers, such as P7570 in the US) is currently top of Epson’s range of printers for photo and art printing.
The 12 ink pigment based printer is covered in more detail in Keith's main [written] review.
www.northlight-images.co.uk/e...
The review also has links to several additional videos looking at aspects using the printer for high quality printing.
00:00 Start
01:36 Size and moving the printer
02:40 Media
03:22 Connectivity
04:39 Controls
04:58 Reliability
06:29 Using the printer
07:20 Looking inside
07:45 12 inks
08:55 The inks and gamut
10:02 No more black in swap
10:15 Cleaning access
12:00 Media cutter
13:12 Borderless handling
13:55 The paper path
15:48 Loading roll paper
19:48 Feed adjustment
20:45 If this is your first big printer...
21:10 Unloading paper
22:14 Sheet feeding
24:10 When prints come out
25:20 Media thicknesses and custom media
27:05 Prints from the P7500
33:35 Is this the 'best printer I've tested" - it depends

Пікірлер: 53

@G.Menounos 2 жыл бұрын

Another one OUTSTANDING video... Thank you for that! We love you 😊 George from Greece

@KeithCooper 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks - that's appreciated!

@jefffenske1958 Жыл бұрын

I like how you say you'd prefer the larger 44" printer to make even bigger prints, which seems especially true if we leave Canon's full frame 3:2 aspect ratio, and shoot a lot of 4:3 or squarer images on the GFX 4:3 sensor. A 24" printer does create nice 24x36 inch prints in 3:2, but if we print 4:3, the maximum size is 24x30. 1:1 would only be 24x24. And if we want to also include a border, or need extra inches for a canvas wrap, the 44" would cover that. It's also only 70 pounds heavier; though, as you said this 24" is super heavy already. The history of the 3:2 aspect ratio is interesting. It wasn't chosen because it was the most pleasing aspect ratio. Quote from an article I just found, "What historic reasons are there for common aspect ratios?": _____________ "Thomas Edison's lab chose a 4:3 ratio for silent film, and it became the standard. … there's precedent in visual arts - analysis of several different datasets generally shows that *the most common aspect ratio for paintings is something close to 4:3, with 5:4 also popular."* "Oskar Barnack of Leitz invented a small camera using cinema film rolls, and chose to use a double frame - and a double-4:3 frame is 4:6 - which is to say, 3:2 when you turn it 90°. (Beware when searching for more on this; there's an oft-repeated article out there full of unwarranted golden-ratio mysticism. Not only is 3:2 not even close to the golden ratio, but, as noted under 1:1 below, historically artists have shown a preference for more-square formats which are even further from the golden ratio.) Japanese camera makers *Nikon and Minolta used a 4:3 format in their first 35mm film cameras,* but then switched to 3:2 along with everyone else - possibly for political reasons, but possibly just for convenience." "16:9 is the standard for HDTV, of course, and it was simply selected as a compromise format by the committee… it's not ideal for either the classic ratio [4:3] or common widescreen formats [more than 2:1], but sits in the middle" [end of quote] ____________ Micro-four-thirds is 4:3, and is not just a pleasing format visually, but makes more efficient use of lenses' image circle. When Canon and Nikon went to full frame digital from film, they could have easily changed to 4:3, but didn't. And when they went from SLR to mirrorless, again they could have changed to 4:3, once the 3:2 mirror box was gone. Or better yet, my dream, they could have used an oversized sensor, making full use of our expansive lenses' image circle. Now we have the GFX 100S in the pleasant and practical 4:3 ratio, on which we can use our full frame Canon lenses in any aspect ratios we'd like, except for extreme wide angle lenses with the 3:2 petal lens hoods. This is glorious! Finally, we're no longer stuck in the 3:2 box! Though, we can't get as much real estate out of smaller printers in 4:3, compared to 3:2. Larger printers make even more sense now.

@KeithCooper Жыл бұрын

Heretical note ;-) - I often prefer 3:2 for landscape all the way up to 2:1 For portrait mode I more prefer 4:3 Canon/Nikon/Kodak went to 3:2 digital purely because of 35mm film I suspect, so as not to frighten their 3:2 35mm film using customers - well Nikon hung back for a while, telling me when I got my Canon 1Ds that there wasn't really a need for 'full frame'

@jefffenske1958 Жыл бұрын

@@KeithCooper Keith, with the aspect ratios you like, it sounds like you would have benefited from Panasonic’s multi-aspect ratio sensor being implemented on full frame cameras. You could have used the entire image circle of your lenses to shoot portraits in 4:3 and landscapes in 3:2. Panos could have been cropped from the additional space 16:9 would have offered. This is especially important if we’re shooting wide angle lenses. We can get extra width out of them by using the entire image circle, which could be very helpful for your architectural photography. Shooting native 4:3 may not help much for portraits, since wide angle lenses aren’t normally used, so 4:3 can be cropped from 3:2. But that gives a slightly more telephoto effect that may not be wanted when using fixed lenses. Panasonic’s multi-aspect ratio design uses an oversized 3:2 sensor that is only 15% bigger than standard. Photographers are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars/pounds, but then wouldn’t be willing to spend a few hundred more for cameras in which they can only use the 3:2 area or their expensive and often heavy glass that we carry around? It’s probably too late for them to do this now. Sony’s mount especially has no room anything but 3:2. The great news to me is finding out we can use our SLR lenses on the GFX 100S to shoot in whatever aspect ratio we choose; though, the lcd isn’t set up to help us compose 35mm lenses in anything but 3:2, except for the 35mm lenses that do cover the entire sensor. The aspect ratios they do offer us on the GFX’s lcd could help us compose anyway images using 35mm lenses that don’t cover the entire GFX’s sensor though. Besides the shift lenses you’ve tested on the GFX 100S, there are others that cover the entire sensor, including Canon’s excellent 100-400mm IS II, if the rear baffle is pulled out, which can easily be done with two fingers, some have shown in the DPReview forums, which I would think would make it the dream telephoto for the GFX, except it wouldn’t be weather sealed at the converter. You may not be a telephoto guy, but many, including myself use teles for landscapes. I agree with you that 3:2 can work well for landscapes. Most of mine have been in 3:2, but some of that is because my viewfinder, our canvas is in 3:2, so that’s how we see. I wonder what percentage of 3:2 landscapes will be shot with the GFX 100S, since the viewfinder is 4:3, compared to landscapes shot in 3:2 FF cameras. 3:2 can often be better than 4:3, especially if the sky is dull. Though many landscape photographers use a white sky as negative space, especially in the squarer formats. Photography is supposed to be art. When they only give us a 3:2 canvas it stifles creative expression. Composition is often about how we feel about an image. Native 3:2 only has stifled artistic expression. The corporate executives making the decisions maybe were thinking about not shocking users by sticking with 3:2 for digital, instead of using more of the image circle with 4:3, but multi-aspect would have satisfied everyone. It just dawned on me that they may have also chosen 3:2 because of their emphasis on video for still cameras. 3:2 sits in the middle between 16:9 for video and the squarer aspect ratios for stills. Multi-aspect has been my dream, which we can now experience by using our 35mm SLR lenses on its oversized sensor; though, composition may be awkward and imprecise, unless our lenses cover the entire image circle. I would love to see Fuji offer a firmware update on the GFX 100S to offer more aspect ratio sizes between their Large and Medium options, for those who use full frame glass on their cameras that don't cover the entire frame. This could also attract more users too.

@KeithCooper Жыл бұрын

@@jefffenske1958 Thanks If I can get a GFX100S then I've a lot of lenses to test ;-) All depends on finances at the moment - our work levels are still not back to what we'd like.

@jefffenske1958 Жыл бұрын

@@KeithCooper I hope and pray you can get one - that business picks up. I'm going to make it happen for me, along the Laowa 15mm shift, especially because it covers the entire sensor and doesn't have a fixed 3:2 petal style lens hood that most extreme wide angle FF lenses have, sadly, and would have to be sawed off. Yikes! I'll use my Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 for wide angle. Fred Miranda forums are still running, and have a thread going on what FF lenses work with the GFX. It's pretty good, but they're mostly looking for lenses that fill the entire GFX's frame. You could maybe post some of your ideas there. I'm really excited about this camera, after having let myself be dormant for a number of years. Freedom at last! No longer being stuck in 3:2 - being able to use almost the entire image circle of the SLR glass we already own!

@KeithCooper Жыл бұрын

@@jefffenske1958 Thanks - I'll look again at FM

@shawnclark7325 2 жыл бұрын

Always love your videos your reviews are always detailed. Have you done the p600?

@KeithCooper 2 жыл бұрын

Yes - long before I started videos - remember the videos are mainly there to supplement the main [written] reviews ;-) www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-surecolor-p600-review/

@shawnclark7325 2 жыл бұрын

@@KeithCooper thanks big fan love your work.

@FotosyVideoelParaiso Жыл бұрын

Great video thx

@KeithCooper Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it

@bhovis Жыл бұрын

For practical reasons I don’t see one of those in my future, but it’s fun to daydream. Given my budget and available space, I’m actually quite happy with the Epson P700.

@KeithCooper Жыл бұрын

Yes - getting one of these is not a trivial matter ;-)

@evaotto4652 Жыл бұрын

Keith, I am thrilled with your videos! They are extremely informative and I like the way you explain things carefully and soberly. I have a question: I've had an Epson 9900 for years, which is obviously a great printer, but I'm thinking of replacing it with a smaller one. On the one hand, I too rarely need 44", and on the other hand, I've already had to have the print head replaced on the 9900 once because too many nozzles were clogged and couldn't be cleaned. This is very expensive and unfortunately the 9900 is known for it! And now the print head is slowly starting to clog again. The reason is possibly that I don't print that much anymore. The printer sometimes sits around unused for a month. Now my question: is the print head of the new Epson P7500 less prone to clogging in this regard?

@KeithCooper Жыл бұрын

Thanks Yes it is better, but no larger printer will appreciate being used that little. I'd like to make sure that any such printer was used (even if just for a nozzle check) every week or so. The biggest cause of premature printer failure I hear of from the manufacturers is lack of use. If I could put a big sticker on large printers it would be 'use me regularly'... ;-)

@rm2xy Жыл бұрын

That's a real monster of a printer and I was expecting a price tag of way more than 5000€ considering the wight of 120kg. You could even sleep in that thing I think. And if I compare the cartridge fill size and price of my epson r2000 with the p7500 it's not that expensive, it's even cheaper pro 1ml. I would have al lot fun with this printer when I could spare the money. Thanks for the review Keith.

@KeithCooper Жыл бұрын

Thanks - the P7000 is almost as good. I've a review from a while back [before I started doing videos] www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-surecolor-p7000-printer-review/

@user-ef7wl8mx2w 11 ай бұрын

Great videos and articles Keith, thanks a lot for all the well thought-out content. I use a P800 at work for proofing artwork and product designs for textile and plastic products. Naturally some colours cannot be reproduced accurately, especially light greens, violets, and orange-yellows. Is there a chance of this 12 ink technology coming in the next few years in a smaller printer - say P5000 or even P900 sized? While I would love to have a P7500 at work, I'm not sure my IT people would like the effect on their budget!

@KeithCooper 11 ай бұрын

Thanks You might see the changes in a P5000 successor - but that's some time off. I'd note that the P5000 does have a proofing option with a violet ink

@user-ef7wl8mx2w 11 ай бұрын

@@KeithCooper Thanks for the reply. I can imagine that since the P5000 is partially aimed at the proofing market it might get 12 inks in the successor. It would probably be the right size printer for my application at work (though space is no problem) - feeding one sheet at a time into the 7500 would not be ideal. In my case I don't need 100.0% colour accuracy, but I do need a bigger gamut for light-&-bright colours. I get tired of explaining "this colour is wrong, and this colour is totally wrong..." Would also love not to have to bother with black ink swaps - about half the media we use is matte. At home I have a P900 for photography. I have picture from it on my wall of a mountain sunrise with deep violet clouds - looks great. I just have to hope that the P800 becomes unservicable soon, and I can present the P7500 as "the only viable replacement - and look how much printer you get for your money! " Like you said in the video "Would I like one of these? Yes please!"

@AZJack 2 жыл бұрын

Hi Keith, I have an et-8550 being delivered in a few days. I like luster and Matt papers including some watercolor papers, can a dye ink printer do well on these papers?

@KeithCooper 2 жыл бұрын

Yes, with suitable icc profiles, see here: www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8550-printer-review/

@Zorrely021 2 жыл бұрын

I hope you will record review for canon pro 2000/2100. Keep doing a good job like always :)

@KeithCooper 2 жыл бұрын

Not likely I'm afraid - I reviewed the PRO-2000 in great detail in 2016. There is very little difference between it and the PRO-2100 www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-imageprograf-pro-2000-printer-review/ Remember - the videos are a new thing, and usually secondary to any written article ;-)

@Zorrely021 2 жыл бұрын

@@KeithCooper thak you very much.

@lifeofservice-lu3hh 2 ай бұрын

Hello Sir, your videos are incredibly helpful so THANK YOU! I i recently purchased an epson 7570, after watching your video im a little concerned now. The unit I bought is a demo unit from a reputable company but the order hasnt been finalized yet. All in the cost would be right around 2100 USD with 7 inks about 75% or better and the rest between 25-50%. Ive never printed anything although I love photography and would like to get into actually creating my own prints. understanding you have no idea about the unit specifically im looking at, would you purchase a demo unit from a reputable company for under 1/2 of retail? or are these machines so sensitive that you would pass on it? Thank you for the help. My current thought is ill be using it to primarily use it for printing canvass, understanding the cutter isnt the best for this application what would you recommend to use in addition (preferably an inexpensive option that would do a good job. Or would you just go with a new canon pro 2100 for 2500 USD?

@KeithCooper 2 ай бұрын

Ah - all depends on just how it's being shipped and how much use it's had. I'd want some form of warranty... Just make sure it gets enough use, if you get one. Have you seen my detailed written review of the 7500 [detail is never in the videos] www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-surecolor-p7500-printer-review/ I'd treat 2nd hand printers the same as I would buying a 2nd hand cae Get a good roller cutter or if the price bother you, some wallpaper scissors ;-)

@lifeofservice-lu3hh 2 ай бұрын

@@KeithCooper thank you very much, ill see about a warranty and how they plan to ship it, worst case ill go with the canon.

@ZeeKay80 Жыл бұрын

Keith my local lab has EPSON P20000 on the floor and I can submit print orders for it. I have to upload my images to their website for them to print. So I do not have direct control of the print dialog box. I do, however, would like to use it for make large prints. How would I setup my workflow to format for that printer so that I can get accurate color? Thanks in advance!

@KeithCooper Жыл бұрын

Ah, see my P20000 review for more about it. www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-sc-p20000-printer-review/ It's the printer I suggest to people who carelessly ask me for my recommendation without specifying a budget or size [it's too big to fit in my house] ;-) Key is a good (wide gamut pref) monitor which has been calibrated/profiled. I'd also want to know if they supplied profiles for proofing.

@petermartin6298 Жыл бұрын

Hi Keith perhaps you can help with this issue. I am using a new p7500 and the ink deposit is heavy on settings over quality setting of 600dpi. The prints come off the printer really wet with ink if I use the hi quality setting. I am using a satin paper. Is there a way of reducing the ink deposit. Thanks!

@KeithCooper Жыл бұрын

Sounds like a media setting mismatch - not something I noted at all. The main [written] review has more info. Unfortunately the printer went back to Epson, so I can't test it.. I'd suggest asking on the printing forum at Luminous Landscape.

@petermartin6298 Жыл бұрын

Thanks Keith

@martinvangog1912 Жыл бұрын

The SC P7500 cost in the Netherlands round € 3000. A cartidge a 700 ml cost round € 300. So 1 total refill (12*) kost € 3600. ⁉️

@KeithCooper Жыл бұрын

Yes - that is a lot of ink - and a lot of prints. You can of course use 350ml carts for colours which go down slowly. I never said it was cheap... just very nice to use ;-)

@stefanheintz3385 5 ай бұрын

Hallo Mr. Cooper, one question: What size ink cartridges are supplied with the SC P7500 and are they fully filled or only partially filled, as is usual with Epson? Thank you very much.

@asimchaudhry 2 ай бұрын

hi im planning to buy a used one of these off someone who hasnt used it much for the last couple years. I think its been stood without being used for a while.. Would it be ok or would it be better to buy a new one? The price of the used one is 3000£

@KeithCooper 2 ай бұрын

If there is one thing that doesn't do these printers much good, it's lack of use. I would be extremely careful forking out £3k if I couldn't test it thoroughly AND get some form of warranty

@asimchaudhry 2 ай бұрын

@@KeithCooper Thank you for replying. You make great videos very helpful

@asimchaudhry 2 ай бұрын

@@KeithCooper what do you think of the Canon Image PROGRAF PRO-4000 ?

@KeithCooper 2 ай бұрын

@@asimchaudhry A very good printer - see this from when it first came out www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-imageprograf-pro-2000-printer-review/

@abrarsalembnashour4524 10 ай бұрын

How many pages I can print with the kit of inks

@KeithCooper 10 ай бұрын

On a P7500?? What does a 'page' mean in this context? It's a large format printer - no-one really gives ink usage in 'pages'. 'Lots of them' is all I could say - I don't tend to get printers for long enough to do this sort of testing.

@KeithCooper 10 ай бұрын

UPDATE: Epson UK has an ink cost calculator which might be of help www.epson.co.uk/en_GB/lfpinkcostcalculator