Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Stewy on 4 Jan 2006 23:15 In article <qwZtf.788$eR.402(a)fed1read03>, "Mark Anon" <Anonymous(a)xyz.com> wrote: > Aside from the obvious difference in print output size, what are the _real > quality_ differences between the new Epson 2400 and 4800 printers? > > The 2400 advertises much higher 5760x1440 dpi printing, but the 4800 at > 2880x1440 is listed as a "Pro" model. What gives? > > Both use the new K3 inks. > Take a look at the Canon iP4200. It'll print at 9600x2400dpi.
From: Mark? on 5 Jan 2006 02:15 Stewy wrote: > In article <qwZtf.788$eR.402(a)fed1read03>, > "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. >> > Take a look at the Canon iP4200. It'll print at 9600x2400dpi. What media do you print on that you believe takes advantage of that dpi?
From: Stewy on 5 Jan 2006 04:23 In article <oH3vf.7868$V.6468(a)fed1read04>, "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > Stewy wrote: > > In article <qwZtf.788$eR.402(a)fed1read03>, > > "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. > >> > > Take a look at the Canon iP4200. It'll print at 9600x2400dpi. > > What media do you print on that you believe takes advantage of that dpi? Here in Japan there are plenty of high resolution papers to choose from, unfortunately many are unavailable in other countries just as Ilford papers are hard to get in Japan.
From: Arthur Entlich on 5 Jan 2006 08:16 It's called specmanship. Professionals know that 2880 x 1440 dpi is about all a printer, especially a printer with several color load inks, needs. ALso, the 4800 is a 17" wide printer, designed with larger prints in mind, where people will tend to observe them from a distance. However, at 2880 x 1440, it will be quite difficult to see a 5670 dpi model and think it really looks better. 2880 x 1440 dpi is photographic with Epson printers, and higher numbers usually mean slower output,. more memory demands, etc. The driver in the 2400 will probably not actually output at more than 720 or 1440 dpi anyway, so the 5670 number is a bit of a dream. Art Mark Anon 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. > > TIA for any help... > > Mark > >
From: Arthur Entlich on 5 Jan 2006 08:43
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. Of course, if you are to use OEM inks in the less costly 2400 or R1800 anyway, indeed the prices are what they are, and the ink cost therefore is a real consideration. However, that doesn't alter the fact that this ink is unbelievably overpriced. One caveat. If you are not producing large quantities of large prints, keep in mind the Ultrachrome inks tend to have quality loss issues after 6 months to a year, so you want to be sure you will use them up in that period of time on open cartridges, or that savings on ink may be reversed. Further, as mentioned, if you will be moving between the Photo/glossy and Matte black inks often, the cost of lost ink plus replacement waste ink units will rapidly eat up all your savings. Art Mark? wrote: > 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. > > > On the other hand... The 4800 comes with about $400 worth of ink right in > the box. > -This makes it's somewhat steep price not so outlandish after all... > > |