Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??

rafe b wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:20:34 -0700, Tom Phillips
wrote:

You'll notice it isn't "rec.photo.digital.equipment,"
which is where a post on Epson printeers belongs, just
as rec.photo.darkroom is where posts on traditional
printing belongs...Read the charters, and then take
digital printer posts to the appropriate newsgroup...

Please killfile me, Tom. And I'll be returning the favor.

Favorite killfile here lately seems to be the charter...

In article qwZtf.788$eR.402@fed1read03,
"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.

Take a look at the Canon iP4200. It'll print at 9600x2400dpi.

Stewy wrote:
In article qwZtf.788$eR.402@fed1read03,
"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.

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?

In article oH3vf.7868$V.6468@fed1read04,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Stewy wrote:
In article qwZtf.788$eR.402@fed1read03,
"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.

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.

It's called specmanship.

Professionals know that 2880 x 1440 dpi is about all a printer,
especially a printer with several color load inks, needs. ALso, the 4800
is a 17" wide printer, designed with larger prints in mind, where people
will tend to observe them from a distance. However, at 2880 x 1440, it
will be quite difficult to see a 5670 dpi model and think it really
looks better.

2880 x 1440 dpi is photographic with Epson printers, and higher numbers
usually mean slower output,. more memory demands, etc. The driver in
the 2400 will probably not actually output at more than 720 or 1440 dpi
anyway, so the 5670 number is a bit of a dream.

Art

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.

TIA for any help...

Mark

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 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

Mark² wrote:

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...

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.

Stewy wrote:
In article oH3vf.7868$V.6468@fed1read04,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Stewy wrote:
In article qwZtf.788$eR.402@fed1read03,
"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.

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.

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

Mark² wrote:

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...

Mark² spake thus:

Stewy wrote:

In article oH3vf.7868$V.6468@fed1read04, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number wrote:

Stewy wrote:

In article qwZtf.788$eR.402@fed1read03, "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.

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.