Ricoh Aficio MP C7501 versus Canon imageRUNNER
ADVANCE C9075: Which Product is Right for You?
By George Mikolay, Senior Product Editor, A3/Copier
MFPs, November 23, 2010
Advances in digital print technology continue to nip
at the heels of the offset world and run lengths continue to trend downward.
When you then add to the equation the wide array of products hovering between
the high-end office and CRD and print-for-pay space, it’s more and more of a
challenge to determine which products best suit customers’ applications.
BLI recently completed lab testing on the Ricoh
Aficio MP C7501SP and Canon
imageRUNNER ADVANCE C9075 PRO. With rated speeds of 70 ppm in color and
75 ppm in black, these models bridge the gap between higher-end office
equipment and Ricoh’s Pro series of products and Canon’s imagePRESS family of
production devices, respectively. As expected, with a lower price tag come
certain sacrifices; both models slow down significantly when running
heavier-grade media and coated stocks, plus the devices contain more plastic
components than a production purist would like to see. However, both models can
and do play well in select CRD and print-for-pay environments-where plain 20-
to 28-lb. bond paper workflow is the norm, but volume and finishing demand make
the workload unsuitable for the front office.
So which product is right for you and the applications
you are running? While both models are designed for volumes between 30,000 to
150,000 impressions per month, the imageRUNNER ADVANCE C9075 is more ruggedly
constructed to survive the rigors of the back office with its greater diversity
of media demands and higher month on month volumes more effectively than the
C7501SP. For example, while both models feature dual scan document feeders to
scan both sides of an original in one pass, the Canon model’s feeder has a
capacity of 300 sheets versus the Ricoh model’s capacity of 150 sheets. Maximum
paper capacity is also higher on the Canon model, and the 6,000-sheet capacity
production-class LCT includes air-assist technology to aid successful feeding
when heavy media and coated stock is required.
A deeper look at productivity results of both models
strengthens the Canon model’s case, at least when running documents containing
a mix of color and black pages in auto-color mode, as tested running speeds
when both copying and printing multiple sets is faster than that of the Ricoh
model. Of note is that the Ricoh model is actually more productive than the
Canon device when copying and printing multiple sets in black. In addition,
depending on your job mix and volume, the frequency of waste toner tank
replacement on the Canon device could result in more service calls than BLI
would like to see out of a product in this high-end segment (note that at press
time, we learned that Canon is addressing this issue by implementing a design
change that will allow higher-volume customers who wish to do so to
empty the waste toner container themselves). The Ricoh model also looks like
the better choice for the shorter run lengths that you’re more likely to find
in the office space. For example, performance in BLI’s job stream test, which
simulates real-world usage in an office environment, is much better on the
Ricoh model than the Canon model.
Dig deeper by reviewing both of these reports on bliQ,
and stay tuned for additional product testing in the higher-end space as we
help you determine which products are best for you.
Twitter
