Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: rafe b on 8 Jan 2006 16:31 On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 21:09:02 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see(a)sig.com> wrote: >"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote >> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >> >Arthur Entlich wrote: >> > > There is a certain irony that this business model is so well >> > > "designed" that by Epson offering perhaps $10-$20 actual cost worth >> > > of ink, they can make a person justify spending an additional $1000 or >> > > more on a printer. >> > It is worth every bit of that extra $1000 >> Though the 4800 is "industrial strength," when >> it's broken and out of warranty, you'll need >> an industrial-strength wallet to get it fixed... >> On the other hand, when my R1800 is busted >> and out-of warranty (I give it 18-24 months, at >> the outside) I have the option of just chucking it > >And when the R1800 hits the dust it's replacement will >be running rings around a "three year old clunker 4800". > >Odds are though, that by the time the 1800 wears out >the 4800 will have been long gone. A low end computer >product is made in high volume with mature technology, >proper tooling and a hefty respect for warranty >repair costs. > >IMHO, high end computer gear is not worth the money, it never >was and it never will be. > >Not called 'Bleeding Edge Technology' for nothing. Not quite the way I see it, at least with Epson's stuff. Epson's "bleeding edge" technology is generally found in their desktop printers, not in the Pro series. The Pro (4x00, 7x00, 9x00, 10x00) series is generally built with more conservative technology, but with a view toward heavy usage and ruggedness. Knock wood, that old klunker 7000 in my basement is still churning out beautiful prints, albeit with dye inks and dots a bit larger than Mark's 4800. I've never had a desktop printer, from any brand, last more than a couple years with hard use. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Mark? on 8 Jan 2006 17:01 Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: > "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote > >> BTW--The waste-ink "pad" on the 4000/4800 is a relatively HUGE >> "drawer" that pulls out easily (in about .5 seconds), and is >> designed to be replaced by the user. It is amazing how massive the >> thing is compared with the tiny little band-aid sized "pad" (as you >> appropriately called it) found in Epson's lesser printer [the 1270]. > Oooops, that may be because it spits a lot of waste ink and a 1270 > doesn't. Even with a very expensive razor it is still a blade > business. Yes. Of course that seems the obvious implication, though I've found it doesn't really seem to "fill" with ink, so much as its absorbtion capacity dwindles. That's the other aspect worth mentioning: Part of the reason for such a HUGE absorber is because when teh heads are cleaned/primed, that ink needs somewhere to be drawn TO so that it's no longer resting against the heads every time it parks there or is "cleaned." Without a huge section of absorbtion material, that ink quickly runs out of area to be drawn away TO. It's not as though it's just a dumping ground. It's sort of like using a large towel to clean up a large spill. That extra area of towel means the working surface of the towel maintains capacity to absorb...rather than just rub wetness around...because the mess has had somewhere to wick to. With my 1270, that little ink pad has no absorbing capacity left (and hasn't for years) because it's soaking wet all the time. Interestingly, it remains wet...NEVER drying--even after long periods on non-use. This means that instead of "cleaning" the head, it simply wipes goo around and ONTO the head. :) Perhaps this is partly what's helped my 1270 keep from clogging over the years...because the head can't dry out/clog when it's parked in big mess of wet goop! :) > > Sorry Mark, I don't want to disparage your printer, I am sure if > I played with it I would be filled with lust for the product. That's OK. I consider myself as a separate entity from my printer and other equipment (yes, that includes all my Canon gear)...so you can't offend me by "dissing" my printer. :) >I have > a whole storage room filled to the brim with old high-tech products. Me too. -I just threw a bunch of it away as I cleadned the garage yesterday. > Anybody have a use for a dozen IBM Professional Graphics Systems? I still had my old 386 (older stuff was long gone)....because it still ran beautifully...with it's 4 MB or RAM (which was a lot at the time) and 80MB hard drive. Compared with my older computers...I bought that 386 feeling like it was an unbelievable piece of high tech mastery! Heck...it once was just that. :) I felt it might be somehow appropriate to play a soft rendition of Taps on a bugle as I lowered it into the recyclable bin. :( On the other hand...I now have that space in my garage where I can keep OTHER dinosaurs of the technology age...until they get their own funeral. :) -Mark
From: Mark? on 8 Jan 2006 17:05 rafe b wrote: > On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 21:09:02 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see(a)sig.com> > wrote: > >> "rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote >>> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >>>> Arthur Entlich wrote: >>>>> There is a certain irony that this business model is so well >>>>> "designed" that by Epson offering perhaps $10-$20 actual cost >>>>> worth of ink, they can make a person justify spending an >>>>> additional $1000 or more on a printer. >>>> It is worth every bit of that extra $1000 >>> Though the 4800 is "industrial strength," when >>> it's broken and out of warranty, you'll need >>> an industrial-strength wallet to get it fixed... >>> On the other hand, when my R1800 is busted >>> and out-of warranty (I give it 18-24 months, at >>> the outside) I have the option of just chucking it >> >> And when the R1800 hits the dust it's replacement will >> be running rings around a "three year old clunker 4800". >> >> Odds are though, that by the time the 1800 wears out >> the 4800 will have been long gone. A low end computer >> product is made in high volume with mature technology, >> proper tooling and a hefty respect for warranty >> repair costs. >> >> IMHO, high end computer gear is not worth the money, it never >> was and it never will be. >> >> Not called 'Bleeding Edge Technology' for nothing. > > > Not quite the way I see it, at least with Epson's stuff. > > Epson's "bleeding edge" technology is generally > found in their desktop printers, not in the Pro series. > > The Pro (4x00, 7x00, 9x00, 10x00) series is generally > built with more conservative technology, but with a > view toward heavy usage and ruggedness. > > Knock wood, that old klunker 7000 in my basement > is still churning out beautiful prints, albeit with dye > inks and dots a bit larger than Mark's 4800. Except I actually have the 4000. :) I'd love the 4800 for black & white (which is troublesome using ultra chrome inks), but I wouldn't like the black-ink swapping costs when switching from matte to luster, etc....and yes, I've heard of the "phatte black" alternative that supposedly avoids this... >I've > never had a desktop printer, from any brand, last > more than a couple years with hard use. That seems to be what I hear too, though I have a cheapie HP that's even older than my 6 year old Epson 1270...and it still sees use at work. Amazing, really. I think it's 8 years old...and still going strong. -Mark
From: Nicholas O. Lindan on 8 Jan 2006 19:35 "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote > With my > 1270, that little ink pad has no absorbing capacity left (and hasn't for > years) because it's soaking wet all the time. Interestingly, it remains > wet...NEVER drying--even after long periods on non-use. This means that > instead of "cleaning" the head, it simply wipes goo around and ONTO the > head. :) Perhaps this is partly what's helped my 1270 keep from clogging > over the years...because the head can't dry out/clog when it's parked in big > mess of wet goop! :) By George I think you've got it! I have this almost permanently clogged Epson on which I keep cleaning the head cleaning pad -- I've just been making it worse [though I can't see how it gets much worse]. I think I will splash on some anti-freeze [propylene glycol, TTTT] and see what happens... -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
From: Mark? on 8 Jan 2006 20:21
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: > "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote > >> With my >> 1270, that little ink pad has no absorbing capacity left (and hasn't >> for years) because it's soaking wet all the time. Interestingly, it >> remains wet...NEVER drying--even after long periods on non-use. >> This means that instead of "cleaning" the head, it simply wipes goo >> around and ONTO the head. :) Perhaps this is partly what's helped >> my 1270 keep from clogging over the years...because the head can't >> dry out/clog when it's parked in big mess of wet goop! :) > > By George I think you've got it! I have this almost permanently > clogged Epson on which I keep cleaning the head cleaning pad -- I've > just been making it worse [though I can't see how it gets much > worse]. I think > I will splash on some anti-freeze [propylene glycol, TTTT] and > see what happens... Anti-freeze? Perhaps just a few head-cleaning/purgings would work, as this would only goop it up with ink...rather than introduce anti-freeze(??). Never heard of that... :) Anyway...I don't know for sure, but the *possible* benefits ofa goopy pad regarding the clog issue does make sense...especially since I've been so utterly clog-free for so long. I'll be interested to hear how it goes with your printer, though it'll be hard to tell in the short term. :) |