Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Mark? on 5 Jan 2006 10:43 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 $1000 if you want ultra chrome, larger prints, serious longevity, and industrial-strength product build.
From: Mark? on 5 Jan 2006 10:45 Stewy wrote: > In article <oH3vf.7868$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. I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of dpi that high.
From: measekite on 5 Jan 2006 11:18 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. > > Of course, if you are to use OEM inks YOU NEED TO PROTECT YOU BIG INVESTMENT > 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 $400 worth of ink >> right in the box. >> -This makes it's somewhat steep price not so outlandish after all... >>
From: David Nebenzahl on 5 Jan 2006 16:24 Mark? spake thus: > Stewy wrote: > >> In article <oH3vf.7868$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. > > I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of > dpi that high. Right; seems to me the fibers in the paper are going to be *much* coarser than that claimed high resolution. Anyone know for sure? -- The only reason corrupt Republicans rule the roost in Washington is because the corrupt Democrats can't muster any viable opposition.
From: rafe b on 5 Jan 2006 17:16
"David Nebenzahl" <nobody(a)but.us.chickens> wrote in message news:43bd8deb$0$6018$822641b3(a)news.adtechcomputers.com... > Right; seems to me the fibers in the paper are going to be *much* coarser > than that claimed high resolution. Anyone know for sure? You're not printing on fibers. There are about a half-dozen layers on top of the fiber, and you're printing on the topmost of those. It's likely to be kaolin or microcrystalline, or maybe a swellable polymer. But definitely not fibers. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |