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".

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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.