A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Printers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 2nd 06, 12:25 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 06, 01:12 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 06, 01:16 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 06, 03:04 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 06, 04:41 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 06, 05:59 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??

On 1/1/06 6:12 PM, in article
, "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.

Bill

Bill has about covered it. I will just add that if you know of a place
where you can actually see a 4800 take a look and you will see that it is
built to commercial strength. It is quite large and quite heavy (although
not nearly as big as the 7800 and 9800). Epson pro printers are
individually aligned at the factory so that any paper profile done on one
4800 will work equally well on any other 4800. Bill's assumption about the
paper size limitation is correct; the smallest cut sheet that it will print
on is letter size. There are ways, of course, to print more than one
smaller image on a on a single sheet, you just need a paper trimmer to be
able to separate them.
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.
Chuck


  #7  
Old January 2nd 06, 06:23 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 06, 06:25 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 06, 06:33 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 06, 06:52 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.