Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Mark? on 2 Jan 2006 06:22 rafe b wrote: > 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. Just to be clear... The 4800 prints to 17" wide...not 18".
From: rafe b on 2 Jan 2006 08:43 On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:33:21 -0800, "Mark Anon" <Anonymous(a)xyz.com> wrote: >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 I ordered the Epson R1800, which seems more geared toward glossy papers. Plus, it's a couple hundred $$ cheaper than the 2400. I expect with either one I'll be paying a small fortune for inks. C'est la vie. For the $1000 I've saved I can buy a lot of ink, or get a lot of LightJet prints made. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: measekite on 2 Jan 2006 11:30 rafe b wrote: >On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:33:21 -0800, "Mark Anon" <Anonymous(a)xyz.com> >wrote: > > > >>Please let me clarify: I am a serious amateur (Nikon D2X for digital and >>Canham 5x7 large format for film), but by NO means am I a working commercial >>pro. I want to be able to print _professional quality_ prints that I can >>market sell but the volume of prints I might sell will NOT be large (as much >>as I'd like it to be otherwise... <s>) >> >>I just wanted to add this because it sounds like the 4800 is more geared >>(rugged build, higher cost of ink cartridges) towards a higher production >>volume environment than mine??? >> >>Mark >> >> > > >I ordered the Epson R1800, which seems more geared >toward glossy papers. Plus, it's a couple hundred $$ >cheaper than the 2400. > >I expect with either one I'll be paying a small fortune >for inks. C'est la vie. For the $1000 I've saved I can >buy a lot of ink, or get a lot of LightJet prints made. > > AND MAKE SURE NOT TO RISK A GOOD EXPENSIVE PRINTER ON NO NAME GENERIC AFTERMARKET INK WHERE THEY WILL NOT TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE GETTING. > >rafe b >www.terrapinphoto.com > >
From: C Wright on 2 Jan 2006 11:38 On 1/1/06 11:33 PM, in article sV2uf.1416$eR.735(a)fed1read03, "Mark Anon" <Anonymous(a)xyz.com> wrote: > 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 > While Epson does not really say, I believe that their target market for the 4800 is someone like you. That is someone in a home/office environment who sells (or hopes to sell!) a few prints and likes to be able to print up to 16x20 for personal use. The high volume labs are going to buy the 7800 or 9800 for the larger sizes that they will produce. I would not buy the 4800 however if you will be switching a lot between the matte black and photo black cartridges. The printer wastes a serious amount of ink in making the switch. As you may have gathered from my previous post, I own a 4800 and my solution has been to print almost exclusively using the photo black cartridge. Most of the time I print on luster or satin papers that look best with the photo black. Additionally, when I feel a matte paper will look better, I can use Epson's Premium Semimatte paper which looks like a matte paper but is designed to print with the photo black cartridge. There are other solutions to this 'problem' as well using a RIP (Raster Image Processor) and the Phatte Black system, mentioned by someone else, or a variety of paper profiles designed for either the photo black or matte black cartridges. But that is another story! Chuck
From: measekite on 2 Jan 2006 11:42
C Wright wrote: >On 1/1/06 11:33 PM, in article sV2uf.1416$eR.735(a)fed1read03, "Mark Anon" ><Anonymous(a)xyz.com> wrote: > > > >>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 >> >> >> > >While Epson does not really say, I believe that their target market for the >4800 is someone like you. That is someone in a home/office environment who >sells (or hopes to sell!) a few prints and likes to be able to print up to >16x20 for personal use. > I WISH THAT THE CANON I9900 WILL BE REPLACE BY A PRINTER THAT CAN GO TO 16X20 AND WILL HAVE ALL OF THE PIXMA FEATURES AND SELL FOR THE SAME PRICE AS THE CURRENT MODEL. >The high volume labs are going to buy the 7800 or >9800 for the larger sizes that they will produce. >I would not buy the 4800 however if you will be switching a lot between the >matte black and photo black cartridges. The printer wastes a serious amount >of ink in making the switch. As you may have gathered from my previous >post, I own a 4800 and my solution has been to print almost exclusively >using the photo black cartridge. Most of the time I print on luster or >satin papers that look best with the photo black. Additionally, when I feel >a matte paper will look better, I can use Epson's Premium Semimatte paper >which looks like a matte paper but is designed to print with the photo black >cartridge. >There are other solutions to this 'problem' as well using a RIP (Raster >Image Processor) and the Phatte Black system, mentioned by someone else, or >a variety of paper profiles designed for either the photo black or matte >black cartridges. But that is another story! >Chuck > > > |