Epson 2400 or HP B9180?

[louise]

I'm a part-time photographer looking to upgrade my HP 8250
so that I can make larger prints.

I've narrowed my choices to the above two printers.

The Epson has the advantage of being considered the
"photographer's" printer - but it also has the reputation of
using large quantities of ink and therefore, being quite
expensive to operate. It is also a design from a few years
ago. I've read that Epsons are very prone to clogged heads.

The HP is a new printer using Vivera inks (which I like on
my 8250). HP is not considered the best for photographers,
but this model is seen as trying to break into Epson's
market. Supposedly it is not so wasteful of ink, but is
also very picky about which photo papers it can handle - not
so for Epson.

Thoughts - experiences?

The price of both machines is close enough for that not to
be a factor for me.

Louise

 

[measekite]

I'm a part-time photographer looking to upgrade my HP 8250 so that I
can make larger prints.

I've narrowed my choices to the above two printers.

The Epson has the advantage of being considered the "photographer's"
printer - but it also has the reputation of using large quantities of
ink and therefore, being quite expensive to operate. It is also a
design from a few years ago. I've read that Epsons are very prone to
clogged heads. That is what I have heard.

The HP is a new printer using Vivera inks (which I like on my 8250).
HP is not considered the best for photographers, but this model is
seen as trying to break into Epson's market. Supposedly it is not so
wasteful of ink, but is also very picky about which photo papers it
can handle - not so for Epson.

If you are willing to limit your larger print to a maximum of 13x19 then
you should look at the Canon Pro 9000, a dye based printer with
reasonable fade resistance, vivid color, and infrequent or no clogging
when using Canon ink. The end results actually look better than Epson
or HP and the printer is much faster as well. This printer received
editors choice awards in PCMag and PCWorld.

 

[Jan Alter]

I'm a part-time photographer looking to upgrade my HP 8250 so that I can
make larger prints.

I've narrowed my choices to the above two printers.

The Epson has the advantage of being considered the "photographer's"
printer - but it also has the reputation of using large quantities of ink
and therefore, being quite expensive to operate. It is also a design from
a few years ago. I've read that Epsons are very prone to clogged heads.

The HP is a new printer using Vivera inks (which I like on my 8250). HP
is not considered the best for photographers, but this model is seen as
trying to break into Epson's market. Supposedly it is not so wasteful of
ink, but is also very picky about which photo papers it can handle - not
so for Epson.

Thoughts - experiences?

The price of both machines is close enough for that not to be a factor for
me.

Louise

Hi,

I do not have either printer, but have been printing since 1990 and have
been currently using an Epson R1800 for the past two years with satisfying
results. I also take care of more than 80 printers at our school. The R2400,
I believe, has been around for about a year and a half and uses the the
Ultrachrome K3 pigment inks. From what I have read from several worthy
sources, these inks are some of the least clogging among Epson's varieties.
For my own clogging issues (and I'm using a different variety of Ultrachrome
inks) I've had very little issue with clogging and only print every few
weeks.
A difficulty with the R2400 is the capacity of the cartridges, in that
they each only hold 13 cc of ink. That makes them somewhat costly to use.
The R1800, among others, uses that same cartridge, so I'm familiar with how
often one will be needing to replace them, which is often if you intend to
do a fair amount of printing on a regular basis. There are a couple of ways
around this, but it involves going to third party ink. You will get varying
opinions on this forum to how good they are compared to OEM, but from what
I've gathered there are some very high quality inks sold in bulk that will
do a very satisfactory job in addition to saving you a small fortune to the
cost of the ink. I do use third party inks and have been very satisfied with
the results in printing.
If doing a lot of printing consider a CIS (continuous ink system), which
uses outboard bottles of ink. And if you are simply wanting to save money
but don't do a lot of printing, then consider using spongeless cartridges
with third party ink. These cartridges are not made for every printer, but
you happen to be considering an Epson model that they are made. They will
also fit several other Epsons as well. What is very encouraging about
spongeless cartridges is that they are exceptionally easy and quick to
fill.. One can refill and reset the chip in less than 3 minutes. With a chip
resetter the pcb (printed circuit board) is reprogrammed and the cartridge
is ready to re-use. What is additionally satisfying is that no empty
cartridge is thrown into a landfill. As for the other model printer you're
considering I know nothing about the HP 8250 you are considering.
What you have said is thatthe HP is 'new' and that tells me generally to
not buy it until it's been around for awhile to see what positive and
negative features it has proven to offer from others who couldn't stand to
wait or were happy guinea pigs with their money.. If you could delay your
purchase for six months then you'd be able to research what others have
found about this printer to make a more knowledgeable decision.

Good luck in your decision making.
Oh, one more caveat. Our resident troll, mease-something, will extol the
non-virtues of third party ink on a somewhat biased basis. Just be aware.

 

[Jim Ford]

Louise:

Please be aware that the words 'of, salt, pinch, a, large, take' (but
not necessarily in that order), should be foremost in your mind when
reading posts by measekite!

Many on this NG have kill-filed him, but I haven't. I find it mildly
entertaining when the fool jingles his bells, gurns and waves his
bladder around.

Jim Ford

 

[measekite]

Jan Alter wrote:

"louise" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...



I'm a part-time photographer looking to upgrade my HP 8250 so that I can make larger prints. I've narrowed my choices to the above two printers. The Epson has the advantage of being considered the "photographer's" printer - but it also has the reputation of using large quantities of ink and therefore, being quite expensive to operate. It is also a design from a few years ago. I've read that Epsons are very prone to clogged heads. The HP is a new printer using Vivera inks (which I like on my 8250). HP is not considered the best for photographers, but this model is seen as trying to break into Epson's market. Supposedly it is not so wasteful of ink, but is also very picky about which photo papers it can handle - not so for Epson. Thoughts - experiences? The price of both machines is close enough for that not to be a factor for me. Louise



Hi, I do not have either printer, but have been printing since 1990 and have been currently using an Epson R1800 for the past two years with satisfying results. I also take care of more than 80 printers at our school. The R2400, I believe, has been around for about a year and a half and uses the the Ultrachrome K3 pigment inks. From what I have read from several worthy sources, these inks are some of the least clogging among Epson's varieties. For my own clogging issues (and I'm using a different variety of Ultrachrome inks) I've had very little issue with clogging and only print every few weeks. A difficulty with the R2400 is the capacity of the cartridges, in that they each only hold 13 cc of ink. That makes them somewhat costly to use. The R1800, among others, uses that same cartridge, so I'm familiar with how often one will be needing to replace them, which is often if you intend to do a fair amount of printing on a regular basis. There are a couple of ways around this, but it involves going to third party ink. You will get varying opinions on this forum to how good they are compared to OEM, but from what I've gathered there are some very high quality inks sold in bulk that will do a very satisfactory job in addition to saving you a small fortune to the cost of the ink. I do use third party inks and have been very satisfied with the results in printing. If doing a lot of printing consider a CIS (continuous ink system), which uses outboard bottles of ink. And if you are simply wanting to save money but don't do a lot of printing, then consider using spongeless cartridges with third party ink. These cartridges are not made for every printer, but you happen to be considering an Epson model that they are made. They will also fit several other Epsons as well. What is very encouraging about spongeless cartridges is that they are exceptionally easy and quick to fill.. One can refill and reset the chip in less than 3 minutes. With a chip resetter the pcb (printed circuit board) is reprogrammed and the cartridge is ready to re-use. What is additionally satisfying is that no empty cartridge is thrown into a landfill. As for the other model printer you're considering I know nothing about the HP 8250 you are considering. What you have said is thatthe HP is 'new' and that tells me generally to not buy it until it's been around for awhile to see what positive and negative features it has proven to offer from others who couldn't stand to wait or were happy guinea pigs with their money.. If you could delay your purchase for six months then you'd be able to research what others have found about this printer to make a more knowledgeable decision. Good luck in your decision making. Oh, one more caveat. Our resident troll, mease-something, will extol the non-virtues of third party ink on a somewhat biased basis. Just be aware.

That it is the truth.  Call these vendors and ask them: "Who is the mfg/formulator of your ink?"  They will not tell you and you loose the advantage of buying a specific brand from multiple sources and you also loose the ability to trace the quality.  When a brand is bad you will find users from all over saying so but without a brand that cannot be done.  Also read all of the posts for a while in this ng and you will find people having a multitude of problems.  I never posted a printer problem.  I have both HP and Canon printers and use the recommended ink.

 

[Bob Headrick]

I'm a part-time photographer looking to upgrade my HP 8250 so that I can
make larger prints.

I've narrowed my choices to the above two printers.

The Epson has the advantage of being considered the "photographer's"
printer - but it also has the reputation of using large quantities of ink
and therefore, being quite expensive to operate. It is also a design from
a few years ago. I've read that Epsons are very prone to clogged heads.

The HP is a new printer using Vivera inks (which I like on my 8250). HP
is not considered the best for photographers, but this model is seen as
trying to break into Epson's market. Supposedly it is not so wasteful of
ink, but is also very picky about which photo papers it can handle - not
so for Epson.

Thoughts - experiences?

I have not used either printer, but I have seen samples from the B9180.
There is a pretty active group (nearly 900 members) on Yahoo for the B9180,
there you can find a lot of ICM profiles for various paper types, as well as
lots of discussion. See: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hp9100Series/.

Also, you can order a free photo print sample for the B9180 (as well as
other HP printers) from:
http://www.hp.com/sbso/productivity.../IPG/VAcontent/colorprinters/Orderprintsample.
When I ordered a sample it took about a week.

Be aware the "Vivera Inks" cover a pretty wide range these days, it is HP's
brand for their long life inks. Your Photosmart 8250 uses dye based inks,
the B9180 uses pigment based inks.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging

 

[tomm42]

I'm a part-time photographer looking to upgrade my HP 8250
so that I can make larger prints.

I've narrowed my choices to the above two printers.

The Epson has the advantage of being considered the
"photographer's" printer - but it also has the reputation of
using large quantities of ink and therefore, being quite
expensive to operate. It is also a design from a few years
ago. I've read that Epsons are very prone to clogged heads.

The HP is a new printer using Vivera inks (which I like on
my 8250). HP is not considered the best for photographers,
but this model is seen as trying to break into Epson's
market. Supposedly it is not so wasteful of ink, but is
also very picky about which photo papers it can handle - not
so for Epson.

Thoughts - experiences?

The price of both machines is close enough for that not to
be a factor for me.

Louise

Both printers give excellent results, if you do b&w the Epson may have
the edge as it has an extra grey ink. But I have the B9180 at work and
b&w medical images look very good. The Hp has ink tanks that are twice
the size of the Epson's 13ml vs 27ml, but per ml the prices are the
same. My only complaint with the HP is that it's software loads 200mb
of programs 160mb of which are useless, they really slowed downmy
computers especially an older pentium 2800 that only had 760mb of
memory. Dumped all the useless stuff (anything that didn't have the
printer's name in it) and my two computers feeding the printer worked
much better. Output is first rate.
Another alternative is to look at the Epson 3800 or Canon iPF5000 both
excellent 17 inch printers. Why 17 inch, you get a lot more ink with
the printer. So if you buy the 3800 for $1300 you get $500 of ink with
it, bringing what you are paying for the printer is about equal to the
2400 and it is a better quality printer, with industrial level heads
etc. The Canon is going at fire sale prices, new model coming out, for
$1395 you get the printer and two sets of ink, one set = $900 so you
are escencially getting an industrial printer for free, and still
getting discount on the inks. I have one of these at home, occasional
printing, that ink would last you a year and a half - two years. The
Canon makes wonderful prints, takes roll paper, a savings, and has
been as trouble free as any printer I have had, very big at 120 lbs.

Tom