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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
rafe b wrote:
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. Just to be clear... The 4800 prints to 17" wide...not 18". |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:33:21 -0800, "Mark Anon"
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 $$ cheaper than the 2400. I expect with either one I'll be paying a small fortune for inks. C'est la vie. For the $1000 I've saved I can buy a lot of ink, or get a lot of LightJet prints made. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
rafe b wrote: On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:33:21 -0800, "Mark Anon" wrote: Please let me clarify: I am a serious amateur (Nikon D2X for digital and Canham 5x7 large format for film), but by NO means am I a working commercial pro. I want to be able to print _professional quality_ prints that I can market sell but the volume of prints I might sell will NOT be large (as much as I'd like it to be otherwise... s) I just wanted to add this because it sounds like the 4800 is more geared (rugged build, higher cost of ink cartridges) towards a higher production volume environment than mine??? Mark I ordered the Epson R1800, which seems more geared toward glossy papers. Plus, it's a couple hundred $$ cheaper than the 2400. I expect with either one I'll be paying a small fortune for inks. C'est la vie. For the $1000 I've saved I can buy a lot of ink, or get a lot of LightJet prints made. AND MAKE SURE NOT TO RISK A GOOD EXPENSIVE PRINTER ON NO NAME GENERIC AFTERMARKET INK WHERE THEY WILL NOT TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE GETTING. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
On 1/1/06 11:33 PM, in article sV2uf.1416$eR.735@fed1read03, "Mark Anon"
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 While Epson does not really say, I believe that their target market for the 4800 is someone like you. That is someone in a home/office environment who sells (or hopes to sell!) a few prints and likes to be able to print up to 16x20 for personal use. The high volume labs are going to buy the 7800 or 9800 for the larger sizes that they will produce. I would not buy the 4800 however if you will be switching a lot between the matte black and photo black cartridges. The printer wastes a serious amount of ink in making the switch. As you may have gathered from my previous post, I own a 4800 and my solution has been to print almost exclusively using the photo black cartridge. Most of the time I print on luster or satin papers that look best with the photo black. Additionally, when I feel a matte paper will look better, I can use Epson's Premium Semimatte paper which looks like a matte paper but is designed to print with the photo black cartridge. There are other solutions to this 'problem' as well using a RIP (Raster Image Processor) and the Phatte Black system, mentioned by someone else, or a variety of paper profiles designed for either the photo black or matte black cartridges. But that is another story! Chuck |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
C Wright wrote: On 1/1/06 11:33 PM, in article sV2uf.1416$eR.735@fed1read03, "Mark Anon" 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 While Epson does not really say, I believe that their target market for the 4800 is someone like you. That is someone in a home/office environment who sells (or hopes to sell!) a few prints and likes to be able to print up to 16x20 for personal use. I WISH THAT THE CANON I9900 WILL BE REPLACE BY A PRINTER THAT CAN GO TO 16X20 AND WILL HAVE ALL OF THE PIXMA FEATURES AND SELL FOR THE SAME PRICE AS THE CURRENT MODEL. The high volume labs are going to buy the 7800 or 9800 for the larger sizes that they will produce. I would not buy the 4800 however if you will be switching a lot between the matte black and photo black cartridges. The printer wastes a serious amount of ink in making the switch. As you may have gathered from my previous post, I own a 4800 and my solution has been to print almost exclusively using the photo black cartridge. Most of the time I print on luster or satin papers that look best with the photo black. Additionally, when I feel a matte paper will look better, I can use Epson's Premium Semimatte paper which looks like a matte paper but is designed to print with the photo black cartridge. There are other solutions to this 'problem' as well using a RIP (Raster Image Processor) and the Phatte Black system, mentioned by someone else, or a variety of paper profiles designed for either the photo black or matte black cartridges. But that is another story! Chuck |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
Benwa writes ...
I have the R2400 and the 7800 Pro. The print speed of a 13x19 is almost exactly the same between the two. Who cares? He's asking about the 4800 and it's about twice as fast as the 7800. As far as the "PRO" designation, Epson says the 2400 is designed for the pros. The 1800 is considered the home users version. No, Epson has a different "Professional Graphics" division ... here's the link to their products ... http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/W...seBVCookie=yes .... 4800 is on it, the 2400 isn't ... Here's the link to the 2400 class products, which includes their consumer-grade inkjets ... http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/P...=yes&oid=-8165 As for closer tolerences for the 4800 over the 2400, pure bs. No, it's well known by Epson users that the Pro models are built better and to tighter tolerances, with much smaller unit-to-unit variance ... as one example, here's a quote from their FAQ on the Pro models from the web site listed above for the Auto Head Alignment feature, which isn't offered on the cheaper consumer models ... "How accurate is the Auto Head Alignment and Cleaning Technology used by the Epson Stylus Pro 4800, 7800, and 9800? Very. In fact, although you can still perform these maintenance procedures manually, you will probably never be able to beat the accuracy of the whitebeam sensor technology inside the printer." Bill |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
measekite posted the exciting message
t: AND MAKE SURE NOT TO RISK A GOOD EXPENSIVE PRINTER ON NO NAME GENERIC AFTERMARKET INK WHERE THEY WILL NOT TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE GETTING. And make sure you order more than ten printers so that you can get statistical evidence that your aftermarket ink is really clogging the system. After all, according to measkite even if you buy 10 printers and use aftermarket ink with no problems, that doesn't mean he's wrong. His brain is a fog with his anal clog. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
rafe b wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:33:21 -0800, "Mark Anon" 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... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
MOO IT IS DA BEEFER
Prime wrote: measekite posted the exciting message et: AND MAKE SURE NOT TO RISK A GOOD EXPENSIVE PRINTER ON NO NAME GENERIC AFTERMARKET INK WHERE THEY WILL NOT TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE GETTING. And make sure you order more than ten printers so that you can get statistical evidence that your aftermarket ink is really clogging the system. After all, according to measkite even if you buy 10 printers and use aftermarket ink with no problems, that doesn't mean he's wrong. His brain is a fog with his anal clog. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 16:30:41 GMT, measekite
wrote: AND MAKE SURE NOT TO RISK A GOOD EXPENSIVE PRINTER ON NO NAME GENERIC AFTERMARKET INK WHERE THEY WILL NOT TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE GETTING. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com Who said anything about non-Epson inks. Measkekite strikes again. |
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 05:50 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 |