Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Mark Anon on 1 Jan 2006 18:25 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: Bill Hilton on 1 Jan 2006 19:12 >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
From: Mark? on 1 Jan 2006 19:16 Bill Hilton 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. Have you heard about "phatte" black ink for the 4800? -It sounds like a real solution to the ink-swap problem. -Makes me wish my 4000 was a 4800, since neutral B&W printing is a real pain...
From: Jim on 1 Jan 2006 21:04 "Mark Anon" <Anonymous(a)xyz.com> wrote in message news:qwZtf.788$eR.402(a)fed1read03... > 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? There is a lot more to being a "Pro" model than dpi. The 4800 is a much sturdier device. Jim > > Both use the new K3 inks. > > TIA for any help... > > Mark > >
From: Benwa on 1 Jan 2006 22:41
I have the R2400 and the 7800 Pro. The print speed of a 13x19 is almost exactly the same between the two.As far as the "PRO" designation, Epson says the 2400 is designed for the pros. The 1800 is considered the home users version.As for closer tolerences for the 4800 over the 2400, pure bs.Yes the cartridges are larger on the 4800, for good reason.I buy the 220ml cartridges and use them in my cis with my 2400.What it all boils down to is, buy the size of printer you really need. Myself, I don't see any use buying the 4800 to gain a couple of inches. The 7800 made more sense for my use! There is more of a difference between the 2200 and the 4000 than there is between the 2400 and the 4800. I can use the same ICC profiles on my 7800 and 2400.As for the Phatte Black thing goes, it is no big deal to me.I print mostly matte, on larger sizes. "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:1136160732.657651.62170(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >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 > |