Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??

[Mark Anon]

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

 

[Bill Hilton]

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

 

[Mark²]

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...

 

[Jim]

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

 

[Benwa]

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.

 

[C Wright]

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

 

[rafe b]

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

 

[Mark Anon]

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

 

[Mark Anon]

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

 

[rafe b]

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

 

[Mark²]

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".

 

[rafe b]

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

 

[measekite]

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.

 

[C Wright]

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

 

[measekite]

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.

 

[Bill Hilton]

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/WideFormat/pgindex.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=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/ProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=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

 

[Prime]

measekite <[email protected]> posted the exciting message

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.

 

[Mark²]

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...

 

[measekite]

MOO IT IS DA BEEFER

measekite <[email protected]> posted the exciting message





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.

 

[Lady Margaret Thatcher]

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.

Who said anything about non-Epson inks.

Measkekite strikes again.