If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
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... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
"Mark Anon" wrote in message news:qwZtf.788$eR.402@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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
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" wrote in message ups.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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 04:59:01 GMT, C Wright
wrote: It is a shock to spend the better part of $500 to replace all eight ink cartridges - more if you buy the 220 ml ones. On the other hand you can do a lot of printing before replacements are needed. I have not actually seen a cost study, but I am sure that in the long run buying the larger cartridges has to be cheaper. Yes, a set of 110 ml carts for my 7000 costs... ka-ching... $225 or so. But the good news is that you can make a lot of really big, beautiful prints with 6 x 110 ml. of ink. I figure -- even using Epson branded ink, the 7000 costs about half as much (in ink) per square foot as a desktop model. The newer Epson pro models all take 220 ml cartridges. I just decided against a 4800. I figure for now I'll just have my big *archival* prints done via LightJet or equivalent. I can get it done locally and at "internet" prices. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
Hi Rafe,
If you decided against a 4800, what are you using, or what do you plan to purchase in place of a 4800. TIA- Mark "rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 04:59:01 GMT, C Wright wrote: It is a shock to spend the better part of $500 to replace all eight ink cartridges - more if you buy the 220 ml ones. On the other hand you can do a lot of printing before replacements are needed. I have not actually seen a cost study, but I am sure that in the long run buying the larger cartridges has to be cheaper. Yes, a set of 110 ml carts for my 7000 costs... ka-ching... $225 or so. But the good news is that you can make a lot of really big, beautiful prints with 6 x 110 ml. of ink. I figure -- even using Epson branded ink, the 7000 costs about half as much (in ink) per square foot as a desktop model. The newer Epson pro models all take 220 ml cartridges. I just decided against a 4800. I figure for now I'll just have my big *archival* prints done via LightJet or equivalent. I can get it done locally and at "internet" prices. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
Please let me clarify: I am a serious amateur (Nikon D2X for digital and
Canham 5x7 large format for film), but by NO means am I a working commercial pro. I want to be able to print _professional quality_ prints that I can market sell but the volume of prints I might sell will NOT be large (as much as I'd like it to be otherwise... s) I just wanted to add this because it sounds like the 4800 is more geared (rugged build, higher cost of ink cartridges) towards a higher production volume environment than mine??? Mark "Mark Anon" wrote in message news:eO2uf.1415$eR.754@fed1read03... Hi Rafe, If you decided against a 4800, what are you using, or what do you plan to purchase in place of a 4800. TIA- Mark "rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 04:59:01 GMT, C Wright wrote: It is a shock to spend the better part of $500 to replace all eight ink cartridges - more if you buy the 220 ml ones. On the other hand you can do a lot of printing before replacements are needed. I have not actually seen a cost study, but I am sure that in the long run buying the larger cartridges has to be cheaper. Yes, a set of 110 ml carts for my 7000 costs... ka-ching... $225 or so. But the good news is that you can make a lot of really big, beautiful prints with 6 x 110 ml. of ink. I figure -- even using Epson branded ink, the 7000 costs about half as much (in ink) per square foot as a desktop model. The newer Epson pro models all take 220 ml cartridges. I just decided against a 4800. I figure for now I'll just have my big *archival* prints done via LightJet or equivalent. I can get it done locally and at "internet" prices. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:25:18 -0800, "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. 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. Compared to any desktop printer, it is built like a tank. Atlex sells the 110 ml. K3 carts for $69 each. That's approximately ten times more ink than your typical desktop printer, though. The 2400 is Epson's top-of-the-line desktop fine-art printer, and prints up to 13" wide. It takes itsy bitsy ink carts that hold a mere 11 ml or so of ink (per color.) Atlex sells these for a mere $11.20. That alone should tell you what you need to decide between these. That and the price difference, which is over $1000. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Head Leak on Epson C62 ? | Davy | Printers | 33 | June 26th 05 01:38 PM |
wanted: service manuals ricoh | FutureChild | Printers | 14 | March 30th 05 07:25 PM |
FS PRINTER PARTS trays fusers drums printheads -- oki fujitsu hp genicom epson ibm dec jetdirect laserjet lexnmark qms okidata ml320 mannesmann tally printonix tektronix qms toshiba zebra otc ibm lexmark intermec dec compaq montreal canada toronto o | [email protected] | Printers | 1 | March 15th 05 06:50 AM |
EPSON TM88 Thermal printers: How do I download images (logo) | Thys de Wet | Printers | 0 | May 14th 04 10:01 AM |
Why are Epson inkjets crap when used by uneducated users? | devans | Printers | 0 | April 21st 04 01:25 AM |