Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: C Wright on 1 Jan 2006 23:59 On 1/1/06 6:12 PM, in article 1136160732.657651.62170(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665(a)aol.com> wrote: >> Mark Anon writes ... >> >> Aside from the obvious difference in print output size, what are the _real >> quality_ differences between the new Epson 2400 and 4800 printers? > > I have the 2200 and 4000 models (one generation earlier) and there are > clear differences ... the Pro models are built to tighter tolerances > with less drift over time and less unit variation than the consumer > 2200/2400 models, so the ICC profiles tend to be more accurate ... I > can see this easily with mine ... the Pro models usually print much > faster ... the Pro models have 110 and 220 ml ink tanks for each color > so the cost per print for ink is a good deal less ... on the other hand > the smaller printers will print papers smaller than letter size and the > 4000 won't (dunno about the 2400 vs 4800 on this, assume it's the > same), so I can use the 2200 to print custom 7x10" cards or even > smaller ... not a problem with the 4000 but with the 4800 it will cost > you quite a bit in wasted ink when you switch the photo/matte black > inks ... smaller one fits comfortably on a desktop, the big one is huge > by comparison. > > I think you need to print a LOT and have a real need for 16x20" prints > to justify the 4800, but if you do that's clearly the one to get. > > Bill > Bill has about covered it. I will just add that if you know of a place where you can actually see a 4800 take a look and you will see that it is built to commercial strength. It is quite large and quite heavy (although not nearly as big as the 7800 and 9800). Epson pro printers are individually aligned at the factory so that any paper profile done on one 4800 will work equally well on any other 4800. Bill's assumption about the paper size limitation is correct; the smallest cut sheet that it will print on is letter size. There are ways, of course, to print more than one smaller image on a on a single sheet, you just need a paper trimmer to be able to separate them. It is a shock to spend the better part of $500 to replace all eight ink cartridges - more if you buy the 220 ml ones. On the other hand you can do a lot of printing before replacements are needed. I have not actually seen a cost study, but I am sure that in the long run buying the larger cartridges has to be cheaper. Chuck
From: rafe b on 2 Jan 2006 00:23 On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 04:59:01 GMT, C Wright <wright9_nojunk(a)nojunk_mac.com> wrote: >It is a shock to spend the better part of $500 to replace all eight ink >cartridges - more if you buy the 220 ml ones. On the other hand you can do >a lot of printing before replacements are needed. I have not actually seen >a cost study, but I am sure that in the long run buying the larger >cartridges has to be cheaper. Yes, a set of 110 ml carts for my 7000 costs... ka-ching... $225 or so. But the good news is that you can make a lot of really big, beautiful prints with 6 x 110 ml. of ink. I figure -- even using Epson branded ink, the 7000 costs about half as much (in ink) per square foot as a desktop model. The newer Epson pro models all take 220 ml cartridges. I just decided against a 4800. I figure for now I'll just have my big *archival* prints done via LightJet or equivalent. I can get it done locally and at "internet" prices. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Mark Anon on 2 Jan 2006 00:25 Hi Rafe, If you decided against a 4800, what are you using, or what do you plan to purchase in place of a 4800. TIA- Mark "rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:6pdhr1t2h1c4h6kpd4frptt7ne558kh9kk(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 04:59:01 GMT, C Wright > <wright9_nojunk(a)nojunk_mac.com> wrote: > > >>It is a shock to spend the better part of $500 to replace all eight ink >>cartridges - more if you buy the 220 ml ones. On the other hand you can >>do >>a lot of printing before replacements are needed. I have not actually >>seen >>a cost study, but I am sure that in the long run buying the larger >>cartridges has to be cheaper. > > > Yes, a set of 110 ml carts for my 7000 costs... ka-ching... $225 > or so. But the good news is that you can make a lot of really > big, beautiful prints with 6 x 110 ml. of ink. > > I figure -- even using Epson branded ink, the 7000 costs > about half as much (in ink) per square foot as a desktop > model. > > The newer Epson pro models all take 220 ml cartridges. > > I just decided against a 4800. I figure for now I'll just > have my big *archival* prints done via LightJet or > equivalent. I can get it done locally and at "internet" > prices. > > > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Mark Anon on 2 Jan 2006 00:33 Please let me clarify: I am a serious amateur (Nikon D2X for digital and Canham 5x7 large format for film), but by NO means am I a working commercial pro. I want to be able to print _professional quality_ prints that I can market sell but the volume of prints I might sell will NOT be large (as much as I'd like it to be otherwise... <s>) I just wanted to add this because it sounds like the 4800 is more geared (rugged build, higher cost of ink cartridges) towards a higher production volume environment than mine??? Mark "Mark Anon" <Anonymous(a)xyz.com> wrote in message news:eO2uf.1415$eR.754(a)fed1read03... > Hi Rafe, > > If you decided against a 4800, what are you using, or what do you plan to > purchase in place of a 4800. > > TIA- > > Mark > > > "rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message > news:6pdhr1t2h1c4h6kpd4frptt7ne558kh9kk(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 04:59:01 GMT, C Wright >> <wright9_nojunk(a)nojunk_mac.com> wrote: >> >> >>>It is a shock to spend the better part of $500 to replace all eight ink >>>cartridges - more if you buy the 220 ml ones. On the other hand you can >>>do >>>a lot of printing before replacements are needed. I have not actually >>>seen >>>a cost study, but I am sure that in the long run buying the larger >>>cartridges has to be cheaper. >> >> >> Yes, a set of 110 ml carts for my 7000 costs... ka-ching... $225 >> or so. But the good news is that you can make a lot of really >> big, beautiful prints with 6 x 110 ml. of ink. >> >> I figure -- even using Epson branded ink, the 7000 costs >> about half as much (in ink) per square foot as a desktop >> model. >> >> The newer Epson pro models all take 220 ml cartridges. >> >> I just decided against a 4800. I figure for now I'll just >> have my big *archival* prints done via LightJet or >> equivalent. I can get it done locally and at "internet" >> prices. >> >> >> rafe b >> www.terrapinphoto.com > >
From: rafe b on 2 Jan 2006 00:52
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:25:18 -0800, "Mark Anon" <Anonymous(a)xyz.com> wrote: >Aside from the obvious difference in print output size, what are the _real >quality_ differences between the new Epson 2400 and 4800 printers? > >The 2400 advertises much higher 5760x1440 dpi printing, but the 4800 at >2880x1440 is listed as a "Pro" model. What gives? > >Both use the new K3 inks. You won't observe a difference between these two in terms of print quality. The 4800 is a pro model, large and heavy, using large ink carts, and printing paper up to 18" wide. Compared to any desktop printer, it is built like a tank. Atlex sells the 110 ml. K3 carts for $69 each. That's approximately ten times more ink than your typical desktop printer, though. The 2400 is Epson's top-of-the-line desktop fine-art printer, and prints up to 13" wide. It takes itsy bitsy ink carts that hold a mere 11 ml or so of ink (per color.) Atlex sells these for a mere $11.20. That alone should tell you what you need to decide between these. That and the price difference, which is over $1000. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |