Why are low dpi printers more expensive?

[me]

I'm looking to buy a new photo printer for my Canon 10d digital
camera.

I want an Epson printer because the carts are cheap and the printers
last a long time.

Just one thing, I've seen DPI on the new and old printers and I can't
understand why the low dpi printers cost more momey.

For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100 is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
costs £240. There are other printers aswell which are like this, low
DPI more money, high DPI less money.

From what I understand, "The resolution is stated in pixels (points)
per inch. The higher resolution the finer printouts."

Why is the higher DPI printer/s cheaper than the semi professional
Photo printers? I really can't understand.

I know photo paper can only handle so many DPI before it starts to
overlap but why are the low DPI A3 printers so much more money?

I don't think A3 printers can print more DPI on A4 paper.

 

[Mark B.]

I'm looking to buy a new photo printer for my Canon 10d digital
camera.

I want an Epson printer because the carts are cheap and the printers
last a long time.

Just one thing, I've seen DPI on the new and old printers and I can't
understand why the low dpi printers cost more momey.

For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100 is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
costs £240. There are other printers aswell which are like this, low
DPI more money, high DPI less money.

From what I understand, "The resolution is stated in pixels (points)
per inch. The higher resolution the finer printouts."

Why is the higher DPI printer/s cheaper than the semi professional
Photo printers? I really can't understand.

I know photo paper can only handle so many DPI before it starts to
overlap but why are the low DPI A3 printers so much more money?

I don't think A3 printers can print more DPI on A4 paper.

Epson 2100 is a wide-format printer, R800 prints up to A4/8.5" x 11". Look
at the size of the printer first.

Mark

 

[me]

Epson 2100 is a wide-format printer, R800 prints up to A4/8.5" x 11". Look
at the size of the printer first.

At the moment, I envisage to print on A4. Until I start printing and
using the printer, I don't know if I'll be using A3 or not. Is it good
having an A3 printer if the DPI on A4 prints is less??

I've just looked at the RX 600 which looks good aswell as an All in
one.

Is it worth spending the money on A3 which has lower DPI if I've got
spare cash ?

Full Specs of 2100 Maximum 2880 x 1440 dpi in black and in colour:
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/inkjet_printers/product_spec/Stylus_Photo_2100.htm
Full Specs of RX600 Maximum Resolution 2400 x 4800dpi / 3pl droplets:
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/all_in_one_products/product_spec/Stylus_Photo_ RX600.htm
Full Specs of R800 Up to 5760* x 1440dpi optimised , 1.5pl droplets:
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/inkjet_printers/product_spec/Stylus_Photo_R800.htm

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Just one thing, I've seen DPI on the new and old printers and I can't
understand why the low dpi printers cost more momey.

For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100 is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
costs £240. There are other printers aswell which are like this, low
DPI more money, high DPI less money.

Because it's not a black and white printer. In the black and white
world, more DPI equals more quality.

But in the color world, DPI is down the list. Other factors come into
play for quality.

I can show you some 600dpi stuff that you would swear was 2400dpi
minimum. It's all in the engineering of the system.

 

[Mark B.]

At the moment, I envisage to print on A4. Until I start printing and
using the printer, I don't know if I'll be using A3 or not. Is it good
having an A3 printer if the DPI on A4 prints is less??

I've just looked at the RX 600 which looks good aswell as an All in
one.

Is it worth spending the money on A3 which has lower DPI if I've got
spare cash ?

I don't know why I referenced A4 in my reply; I just realized I don't know
what size that actually is. 2100 can do up to 13" wide, R800 up to 8.5"
wide. Personally, I wouldn't worry about the dpi difference. From what
I've seen with 1440 dpi on my 870, I can't imagine 2880 will be a noticeable
difference. Get the printer for the size prints you'll be doing. If you
need to do larger prints, then it's worth the money. Keep in mind the 2100
has been replaced by the 2200 which can do 2880 in one direction (1440 in
the other). Check epson.com for specs on all their printers.

Mark

 

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I'm looking to buy a new photo printer for my Canon 10d digital
camera.

I want an Epson printer because the carts are cheap and the printers
last a long time.

Just one thing, I've seen DPI on the new and old printers and I can't
understand why the low dpi printers cost more momey.

For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100 is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs
around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and
costs £240. There are other printers aswell which are like this, low
DPI more money, high DPI less money.

The important point here is that the 2100 is a wide-carriage printer,
capable of printing up to 12 inches wide. The R800 is a
narrow-carriage printer, limited to 8.5 inches wide.

Wide-carriage printers are both harder to build, and sell in smaller
quantities, so they're expensive.

 

[dj_nme]

Mark B. wrote:

I don't know why I referenced A4 in my reply; I just realized I don't know
what size that actually is.

A4 is 210mm by 297mm (8.27" by 11.69") in size. A3 is twice the width at
420mm by 279mm (16.54" by 11.69").

 

[Douglas]

There is a great deal of difference to a photographer in 1440 and 2880! Also
the 2100 IS the same printer as the 2200.The 2100 is the Euro version! The
2100(2200) and the R800 use "pigment inks"! The RX 600 does not! Pigment
inks have solids suspended in them,and give much loner lasting prints,on the
right papers!By the way Mark,the 2000 was the printer replaced bu the 2200!
I agree people should check Epsons website for specs instead of
"speculating" on the differences!

 

[Toby]

Past 1440 there is really no appreciable gain in the reviews that I have
read. You might see a very, very slight increase in smoothness in monochome
prints with 2880. Don't take maximum DPI too seriously, some very high dpi
printers (notably Lexmarks IME) turn out prints that look like trash...

Toby

 

[me]

The important point here is that the 2100 is a wide-carriage printer,
capable of printing up to 12 inches wide. The R800 is a
narrow-carriage printer, limited to 8.5 inches wide.

Wide-carriage printers are both harder to build, and sell in smaller
quantities, so they're expensive.

Is it worth investing in the 2100? or should I be looking at another
printer. From what I can tell, this is one of the best printers for
mid range money.

The reason I need a printer is because I'm a professional photographer
and I send out my pictures as jpgs to my clients.The publications
print the images themselves. I only want the printer for contact
sheets and samples of the jpgs. The images will be printed by the
client using the CD-ROM's I supply.

I could go for a R800 or R300 quite easily but if I'm going to buy a
printer I want to get it right first time. I like to keep my printers
for a long time.

I think I'd very rarely use A3 size. it's just one of those nice
things to have. I also like the idea of being equipped to deal with
bigger prints if the situation should ever arise in the future.

If I went for an Epson A4 printer would the quality be better? If yes,
which Epson printer is better than the 2100 for A4 prints.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

There is a great deal of difference to a photographer in 1440 and 2880!

Not if they know what they are talking about!

Here we are talking about *DOTS* per inch, not *pixels* per inch, or
ppi.

All of the Epson desktop range resample all of the images you send them
to 720ppi (other manufacturers do the same but with differing native
resolutions, like 300ppi etc.). The dots per inch is always higher than
this for an inkjet printer so that each pixel's colour can be reproduced
as accurately as possible by dithering the ink dot placement. More ink
colours means that less dots are required per pixel to accurately
produce its colour. In addition, since the highest resolution that you
can see on the printed page without use of magnification is about
250ppi, and for most people it is a lot less, that 720ppi resampled data
means that there are about 9 actual pixels on the page for each resolved
unit that you can see - so the driver can easily afford to dither dots
over 9 pixels before you would even see any performance fall-off. Epson
take advantage of this using a stochastic dither process which produces
very high colour accuracy over areas where adjacent pixels are almost
identical, yet achieves up to 360cy/in resolution on the page where the
image actually contains such information.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I think I'd very rarely use A3 size.

That's what you think right now - because you don't have the ability to
print 13x19" Super A3. Once you do, those little squiddly A4 prints
will just seem like trash magazine pages. ;-)

it's just one of those nice
things to have.

And when you have it its very nice. ;-)

I also like the idea of being equipped to deal with
bigger prints if the situation should ever arise in the future.

When so equipped, it is amazing how frequently that situation arises.
;-)

If I went for an Epson A4 printer would the quality be better?

No, unless you want the highest gloss on glossy paper possible, then it
will make a difference, but not in resolution. The R800 uses
ultrachrome inks which have a glossier finish than the pigment inks on
the 2100. The 2100 doesn't really provide a high gloss finish at all,
and the results on high gloss paper can look slightly embossed.

 

[stanb]

The R800 is the latest in epsons range of pigmented base inkjet printers -
apart from the width,it differs from the 2100/2200, and other ultrachrome
printers ( 4000 , 7600 etc) in that it uses a different inkset ( a red and
blue rather than a light cyan and magenta and, to improve the glossy finish,
has a clear gloss cartridge as well. this evens teh surface when printed on
gloss paper ( the 2100 etc suffer from what is called bronzing on semi and
glossy papers a reflection of the ink when viewed at an angle - it bothers
some, but I dont find it a major issue)

The greatest advantage of these printers is the print life - these should
outlast traditional, wet darkroom prints, so may be too much of a printer if
all you intend is to print contact sheets - If you intend to sell your own
prints, then these are the best available at the moment .

Finally with a 10d, you can print reasonable 13*19's without interpolation -
but I wouldn't recommend too much cropping, (or printing larger, nor
studying it too close!); how do I know - I have the same combination....

 

[Toby]

Kennedy, you are a gem. Thanks for that very lucid explanation.

Toby

Not if they know what they are talking about!

Here we are talking about *DOTS* per inch, not *pixels* per inch, or
ppi.

All of the Epson desktop range resample all of the images you send them
to 720ppi (other manufacturers do the same but with differing native
resolutions, like 300ppi etc.). The dots per inch is always higher than
this for an inkjet printer so that each pixel's colour can be reproduced
as accurately as possible by dithering the ink dot placement. More ink
colours means that less dots are required per pixel to accurately
produce its colour. In addition, since the highest resolution that you
can see on the printed page without use of magnification is about
250ppi, and for most people it is a lot less, that 720ppi resampled data
means that there are about 9 actual pixels on the page for each resolved
unit that you can see - so the driver can easily afford to dither dots
over 9 pixels before you would even see any performance fall-off. Epson
take advantage of this using a stochastic dither process which produces
very high colour accuracy over areas where adjacent pixels are almost
identical, yet achieves up to 360cy/in resolution on the page where the
image actually contains such information.

--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when

replying)

 

[me]

The R800 is the latest in epsons range of pigmented base inkjet printers -
apart from the width,it differs from the 2100/2200, and other ultrachrome
printers ( 4000 , 7600 etc) in that it uses a different inkset ( a red and
blue rather than a light cyan and magenta and, to improve the glossy finish,
has a clear gloss cartridge as well. this evens teh surface when printed on
gloss paper ( the 2100 etc suffer from what is called bronzing on semi and
glossy papers a reflection of the ink when viewed at an angle - it bothers
some, but I dont find it a major issue)

So is the 2100 still a safe bet? The only reason I'm asking is because
it's been around for a couple of years and I'm worried that the newer,
cheaper printers such as the R300 or R800 are better.

 

[Mark B.]

There is a great deal of difference to a photographer in 1440 and 2880!

If you're talking about printer dpi, it will be nearly indiscernable. The
difference between 720 dpi & 1440 is noticeable, but not from much more than
an arm's length. I'd be willing to bet very few folks could tell the
difference between a 1440 dpi and 2880 dpi print using the same image file.

Also
the 2100 IS the same printer as the 2200.The 2100 is the Euro version! The
2100(2200) and the R800 use "pigment inks"! The RX 600 does not! Pigment
inks have solids suspended in them,and give much loner lasting prints,on the
right papers!By the way Mark,the 2000 was the printer replaced bu the 2200!
I agree people should check Epsons website for specs instead of
"speculating" on the differences!

OK, thanks - that's exactly why I recommended the Epson site for info.

Mark

 

[Mark B.]

So is the 2100 still a safe bet? The only reason I'm asking is because
it's been around for a couple of years and I'm worried that the newer,
cheaper printers such as the R300 or R800 are better.

Think of the R800 as a little brother to the 2100. They both use the
archival pigment based inks.

Mark

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I pretty much second what Kennedy states here... how nice to not have
to write all this stuff myself ;-)

Art

 

[YoYo]

I also have a Canon 10D and I use the
Canon i9900 printer and it prints the
best glossy photos I have ever seen from
a inkjet. Sorry but I got sick of
cloged cartriges.

I'm looking to buy a new photo printer for my Canon 10d digital
camera.

I want an Epson printer because the

carts are cheap and the printers

last a long time.

Just one thing, I've seen DPI on the

new and old printers and I can't

understand why the low dpi printers cost more momey.

For example, Epson Stylus Photo 2100

is 2880 DPI on A3 paper and costs

around £422. The Epson Stylus Photo

R800 is 5760 DPI on A4 paper and

costs £240. There are other printers

aswell which are like this, low

DPI more money, high DPI less money.

From what I understand, "The

resolution is stated in pixels (points)

per inch. The higher resolution the finer printouts."

Why is the higher DPI printer/s

cheaper than the semi professional

 

[Hecate]

Keep in mind the 2100
has been replaced by the 2200 which can do 2880 in one direction (1440 in
the other). Check epson.com for specs on all their printers.

Wrong. The 2100 is the designation for Europe and, IIRC, Japan. 2200
is the designation for North America.