Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: cariarer on July 17, 2007, 05:21:02 am
-
Has anyone any further information about the new Epson printers comming out this fall? Namingly they are supposed to be the Stylus Pro 4880, 7880 and 9880.
I just got this info of a news letter, which I get from my local dealer. I'm currently trying to get some more info on it. Maybe someone else knows something? Seems to be pretty new info, as I couldn't find anything about it on Google yet
Regards, Marco...
-
Photographyblog has the press release:
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/w...format_printers (http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/epson_4880_epson_7880_and_epson_9880_large_format_printers)
-
Photographyblog has the press release:
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/w...format_printers (http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/epson_4880_epson_7880_and_epson_9880_large_format_printers)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No hint in the UK press release about supporting 'on-line' matte/gloss K ink switching or not.
Also, new 'vivid magenta' inkset seems not to be compatible with recent 3800 (otherwise they probably would have stated so, I think).
Additionally, no word about the rumored 64" printer.
-
and.... despite the internet rumors, no mention of a built-in spectro
-
A friend pointed out this link at the bottom of the photographyblog announcement:
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/w...format_printer/ (http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/epson_11880_64_large_format_printer/)
1) The key features summary at the bottom for the 11880 mentions
Automatic change from photo black to matte black
but this line does not show in the key features summary for the other models.
If I'm reading this correctly, the 11880 has separate ink line support for both PK and MK, while the three smaller models do not. If so, I assume they've engineered the 11880 from scratch, while the three smaller models are based on the existing engineering.
2) The key features summary at the bottom for the 11880 also lists:
Easy to use and maintain with Auto Ink Droplet Detection System
which I don't see listed for the other models. No idea what this refers to.
-
BTW, There is another UK press release on photographyblog announcing the 64" 11880.
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/w...format_printer/ (http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/epson_11880_64_large_format_printer/)
EDIT: Sorry just saw someone was faster...
BTW, the new 360dpi heads are announced with the 11880 also.
-
If I'm reading this correctly, the 11880 has separate ink line support for both PK and MK, while the three smaller models do not. If so, I assume they've engineered the 11880 from scratch, while the three smaller models are based on the existing engineering.
I agree with Dale.
After carefully reading the "blog" articles on the new Epson printers, the 11880 gives us a real printer model in the professional line that holds and employs all 9 ink cartridges of the UltraChrome K3 ink system.
This hopefully now points to the day of future 17, 24, 44 inch printer redesigns that will finally provide auto switching between the matte and gloss black inks.
Sadly, however, based on the information in the articles, it looks like we will have endure at least one more round of the ink wasting older 8 cartridge design in the smaller printer size models before that wonderful day arrives.
Darn it!
Joe Bossuyt
-
The press release states
Consistent output with Epson Micro Piezo printhead technology
so it looks like all the models have the newer printhead.
This looks like quite a good upgrade, with the Ethernet and ink set improvement.
I've begun to be a bit dissatisfied with print resolution so if this new printhead improves it, that would be good.
-
The press release states
Consistent output with Epson Micro Piezo printhead technology
so it looks like all the models have the newer printhead.
This looks like quite a good upgrade, with the Ethernet and ink set improvement.
I've begun to be a bit dissatisfied with print resolution so if this new printhead improves it, that would be good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No. Micro Piezo TFP is the new one (360 nozzle per line) as used on the 11880.
-
Ah well... I'll wait for the next upgrade then...
-
Ah well... I'll wait for the next upgrade then...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think what is reasonable to expect from the new x880 with regards to improvements are:
1. Improved gamut (reds and blues) due to new magenta inks.
2. Improvements already included in the 3800:
a.Improved dithering and grain, with High Speed printing quality improvements.
b. Less clogging, at least judging from 3800 user reports.
4. Not much else....?
I really can't see the new series selling too well if you take the competition into consideration, basically because it seems the ink swapping issue has not been resolved.
Also, I think that it is reasonable to predict that the life of this series won't be too long. Another reason for someone not to upgrade or buy into the Epson line.
And it's a pity really as I am expecting that the printing quality will be state-of-the-art and usability problems and issues (other than ink switching) will be minimum (compared to what is being reported for their competitors).
The 64" 11880 seems to be another beast altogether. We'll have to see how it will compare to its 60" competition.
IMHO, the 3800 will remain a good buy for its target market.
-
The use of a Halftone rip is the only thing I see of real interest. Hopefully that is what colorbyte is doing with the IP7 release for the z series hp printers.
Other than that:
Sounds like the same heads are in use. The "new" piezo heads? They've been piezo heads on every Epson printer I have owned in the past. The 3800 version of heads clog a bit less but there are still plenty of users dogged by clogs. Still using somewhere in the 50% range of their ink to maintain the nozzles especially when you consider about 10% of the ink is never used since the cart stops the prints when it is still 10% full.
Certainly not what I had expected as a response to hp's challenge to epsons past dominance.
-
The use of a Halftone rip is the only thing I see of real interest. Hopefully that is what colorbyte is doing with the IP7 release for the z series hp printers.
Other than that:
Sounds like the same heads are in use. The "new" piezo heads? They've been piezo heads on every Epson printer I have owned in the past. The 3800 version of heads clog a bit less but there are still plenty of users dogged by clogs. Still using somewhere in the 50% range of their ink to maintain the nozzles especially when you consider about 10% of the ink is never used since the cart stops the prints when it is still 10% full.
Certainly not what I had expected as a response to hp's challenge to epsons past dominance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128981\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have been a 3800 user since November without any clogs. I also wonder where you're getting your numbers from. My usage statistics don't look anything like what you're saying. Plus, I believe (although I might be mistaken) that what's left in the cartridge is not counted towards the nominal capacity of the cartridges, and this has been the case with Epson for some time now.
Let's not embark on this discussion here otherwise things like failing thermal heads, fw bugs, IQ inconsistencies, support issues etc. should be brought up.
Finally, it's certain that the 11880 carries the all new TFP heads.
-
As a current 4800 user, the two key things I have been looking for in the newer models are no black switching and some type of direct engagement by Epson in addressing clogging issues. A new printer would really need BOTH of these things for me to even consider an upgrade.
-
Not sure how this can really be considered an "upgrade", unless you're talking about the 11880.
Adding just 2 new magenta inks (why didn't Epson update the entire line?) and slapping a new model number on the unit doesn't seem, to me, like a good enough reason to plunk down the bucks.
Also, whatever happened to the rumored K3 "backwards compatibility" with the current x800 lineup of printers? Any word on whether these new magenta inks will work in a 48/78/9800?
-
I have been a 3800 user since November without any clogs. I also wonder where you're getting your numbers from. My usage statistics don't look anything like what you're saying. Plus, I believe (although I might be mistaken) that what's left in the cartridge is not counted towards the nominal capacity of the cartridges, and this has been the case with Epson for some time now.
Let's not embark on this discussion here otherwise things like failing thermal heads, fw bugs, IQ inconsistencies, support issues etc. should be brought up.
Finally, it's certain that the 11880 carries the all new TFP heads.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The "numbers" are from posts. My own experience included. Problem with the epsons is some users have no clogs. Many users have lots and lots. I went through way too much ink with the 4800 without printing. The 3800's seem to have better results but then there are the occaisonal posters with 3800's clogging all the time. Piezo just has to move ink to keep clear. The thermals do the same but using a very very small amount of ink. I remember doing power cleans with the 4800 and the ink levels were considerably lower on the display afterward. Opening the "empty" epson carts was depressing. Seeing so much ink unusable. I suppose this is why Epson lost a lawsuit over the ink wastage. I recieved a letter from them stating that I could get a discount on ink since they lost the suit. But I guess its just my imagination that they throw away ink at excessive rates.
-
FWIW, I've been in touch with many 3800 users (due in part to the notes page on the 3800 that I maintain) and only one of them has experienced a clog -- a minor one. The only times I have heard of extensive 3800 clogs as discussed on the message boards (and I look through quite a few) were cases where the user ended up discussing the case with Epson Pro support, which diagnosed the printers as faulty and had them replaced.
On the other hand, I think it's fair to remind everyone that the 3800 is a relatively new printer (less than a year old) and sometimes clogging behavior becomes more nasty as the print head ages. So time will tell.
-
I've had a 3800 on test for several weeks - after being loaned one by Epson UK for a review. The only times I've had any ink problems has been a couple of times where I switched from Pk to Mk and had not used the Mk for a week or so - each time the MK line needed an additional clean cycle to get it performing correctly.
Not a big issue, but if I was using one regularly I think I'd always do that extra nozzle check if I'd not swapped blacks for a couple of weeks.
Keith Cooper
-
The only times I've had any ink problems has been a couple of times where I switched from Pk to Mk and had not used the Mk for a week or so - each time the MK line needed an additional clean cycle to get it performing correctly.
It’s the same line for MK and PK inks; you just flush the right ink through the line when you swap inks. I have waited over a month before swapping inks without any problems.
-
Since the "cat" is out of the bag, and several journalists have already seen these printers, it seems Epson or someone should be willing to respond to the Mk/Pk question.
I for one am surprised this is that big of an issue to so many ... it would seem that most photographers have their preference and rarely if ever switch. I for one can't remember the last time I used matte black ... I just prefer the saturation and detail I can get with photo glossy papers.
Anyone?
Personally I'm more curious as to how good the magenta inks are, but after reading What's New it seems Michael may have moved on to other manufacturers and doesn't really want to take the time to give this printer a once over. Guess I can't blame him ... too much to review, but some careful review of the new inkset would help some of us in a decision to upgrade or not.
-
I for one am surprised this is that big of an issue to so many ... it would seem that most photographers have their preference and rarely if ever switch. I for one can't remember the last time I used matte black ... I just prefer the saturation and detail I can get with photo glossy papers.
That reasoning may be ok if you're only printing your own work. But if you're running a business and one customer wants prints on satin paper, then the next wants canvas, the option to swap blacks automatically becomes very important. This was the main reason I refused to buy an Epson 9800 and chose the Z3100 instead. I know of one local competitor who uses photo black for printing canvas images. I've now taken away some of his business because I can do matt black prints that look better. It's a real step backwards in my opinion that Epson aren't doing 9 inks in all their new product releases. I had to deal with it when I had the Epson 2100/2200 printer and jumped on the Epson 4000 when it came out. This has the potential to alienate a lot of buyers.
Neal
-
Since the "cat" is out of the bag, and several journalists have already seen these printers, it seems Epson or someone should be willing to respond to the Mk/Pk question.
I for one am surprised this is that big of an issue to so many ... it would seem that most photographers have their preference and rarely if ever switch. I for one can't remember the last time I used matte black ... I just prefer the saturation and detail I can get with photo glossy papers.
Anyone?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My answer is pretty much the same as Neal's. I held off and stayed away from the ink swapping Epson's because I couldn't imagine going through some time / ink consuming crazy process just because I need to print on a different surface.
One customer needs a print on glossy. Another needs some prints on matte. Or watercolor paper. Then another needs satin. Another needs canvas. You get the picture.
For me, it's not just the print jobs for others. I print some of my work on glossy / satin media. With the z, I like to print much of my B&W on matte, but not all. Swapping PK / MK inks would just be a nightmare for me. Surely Epson has eliminated PK / MK swap business on their new printers?
-
That reasoning may be ok if you're only printing your own work. But if you're running a business and one customer wants prints on satin paper, then the next wants canvas, the option to swap blacks automatically becomes very important. This was the main reason I refused to buy an Epson 9800 and chose the Z3100 instead. I know of one local competitor who uses photo black for printing canvas images. I've now taken away some of his business because I can do matt black prints that look better. It's a real step backwards in my opinion that Epson aren't doing 9 inks in all their new product releases. I had to deal with it when I had the Epson 2100/2200 printer and jumped on the Epson 4000 when it came out. This has the potential to alienate a lot of buyers.
Neal
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I actually do own a business, and even though inkjet output is a fractional part (< 1%) of what we do, we run multiple Epson printers, each dedicated to its own workflow, ink type, and paper type. I can't imagine it any other way. We currently run 3 4000's and 2 7600's, all with matte ink, and 2 4800's and one 9800 with PK, mostly on canvas.
My personal printers are 4800 and 9800, since I prefer to print my own prints instead of letting my staff do it, and I tend to use papers that we don't offer.
For individuals just doing their own work a single printer is a big investment, but if you are printing work for others, it just doesn't take that much business to run multiple printers, and in fact dedicating a paper type to a printer is the most efficient workflow. They are so cheap relative to any other photo output device (Noritsu's, Lambda's, etc) that a couple of them just are not that much.
As far as being a real step back .. well that was my original question. Does anyone out there have a definitive answer?
-
I actually do own a business, and even though inkjet output is a fractional part (< 1%) of what we do, we run multiple Epson printers, each dedicated to its own workflow, ink type, and paper type. I can't imagine it any other way. We currently run 3 4000's and 2 7600's, all with matte ink, and 2 4800's and one 9800 with PK, mostly on canvas.
My personal printers are 4800 and 9800, since I prefer to print my own prints instead of letting my staff do it, and I tend to use papers that we don't offer.
For individuals just doing their own work a single printer is a big investment, but if you are printing work for others, it just doesn't take that much business to run multiple printers, and in fact dedicating a paper type to a printer is the most efficient workflow. They are so cheap relative to any other photo output device (Noritsu's, Lambda's, etc) that a couple of them just are not that much.
As far as being a real step back .. well that was my original question. Does anyone out there have a definitive answer?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129463\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is it a wild guess if I write that you started with the three 4000's that have MK and PK aboard ?
Individuals, small shop owners, starters and shops that will never own 8 printers will like the universal ink set of one or two printers for gloss + matt in both B&W and color mode. With two if one fails you still have the same flexibility. The shop has to diversify its equipment anyway for sheet or roll processing.
The five 17" you have can easily be replaced by two Canon iPF5000's. One or two Z3100's or iPF8000-9000 will do the roll jobs.
Ernst Dinkla
www.pigment-print.com
-
Is it a wild guess if I write that you started with the three 4000's that have MK and PK aboard ?
Individuals, small shop owners, starters and shops that will never own 8 printers will like the universal ink set of one or two printers for gloss + matt in both B&W and color mode. With two if one fails you still have the same flexibility. The shop has to diversify its equipment anyway for sheet or roll processing.
The five 17" you have can easily be replaced by two Canon iPF5000's. One or two Z3100's or iPF8000-9000 will do the roll jobs.
Ernst Dinkla
www.pigment-print.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129503\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually we started with the 7600, and it has never had PK ink in it.
You are right, there are some that both matte and photo black are a very important feature. I have never disputed that point, and if that is a must have for anyone, then HP is probably the best option right now.
However, there are many of us that have no use for that feature at all. I do not need it for my business, nor do I need the expense of a built in color profiling solution. From a personal perspective, I wouldn't mind a good printer that has both, even though I rarely need matte, so it really isn't a major consideration for me. As I mentioned I am much more interested in the performance of the new inks, and also just curious if there is any "official" word (in other words, someone that has actually seen a demonstration) of no mk/pk support.
As far as replacing the printers, not sure why I would do that. The 4000's still have their original PK ink cartridge installed, despite printing thousands of prints. We have never done a single ink swap in any of the other printers. Each printer is dedicated to a particular paper size/type. The sheet feed mechanism of the canon seems to be awkward (we have one) and not quite as reliable (more jams). All printers are also dedicated to a single paper size/type. Since labor is the biggest production cost, and we ship all product the day after recieving the file, multiple machines is far more cost effective and efficient. Were I to replace all of them, even with the added speed of the canon and HP, I wouldn't have fewer printers, I would just need to run them a couple of hours less per day. Since these printers run 12-14 hours a day during peak times, I would be surprised if the heads in the other printers would hold up under that much production. Am I unique? Perhaps in the fact that landscape photography is a serious hobby so I frequent sites like this, but I think there is a large part of Epson's installed base of these printers that are production facilities that operate similarly.
I hope Epson does eventually solve the mk/pk issue, so we can focus more about the quality of the output. I have an ipf5000 and had a z3100 for about a month. As far as quality of output is concerned I see nothing the indicates that either of them can produce a better print ... all of them are capable of producing outstanding results. That would be the most compelling reason to switch.
-
I have an ipf5000 and had a z3100 for about a month. As far as quality of output is concerned I see nothing the indicates that either of them can produce a better print ... all of them are capable of producing outstanding results. That would be the most compelling reason to switch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129879\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The ipf5000 I had also was difficult to use with the sheet feeder.
As far as quality goes I suppose it depends on definitions. One of the primary reasons the ipf5000 I had was on Ebay within a few months of purchase was that Wilhelm was withholding and continues to withhold final and official ink longevity figures. The HPz series figures from Wilhelm are double those of the Epson. Even though I will not be around in 250 years to appreciate the performance I like to know that under worst case conditions such as a print exposed without glass in a brightly sunlit room the prints I am producing are very unlikely to shift colors within my lifetime.
-
The ipf5000 I had also was difficult to use with the sheet feeder.
As far as quality goes I suppose it depends on definitions. One of the primary reasons the ipf5000 I had was on Ebay within a few months of purchase was that Wilhelm was withholding and continues to withhold final and official ink longevity figures. The HPz series figures from Wilhelm are double those of the Epson. Even though I will not be around in 250 years to appreciate the performance I like to know that under worst case conditions such as a print exposed without glass in a brightly sunlit room the prints I am producing are very unlikely to shift colors within my lifetime.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
While longevity is important, I believe the conditions you stated will ruin any print in far less than your lifetime. Fortunately I don't think many prints are subjected to such treatment.
I agree with your assessment of Canon's problem especially since the rumored ipf5100 includes a new "black" ink. The very fact that the information has not been made available even though it appears the tests were made is disconcerting ... one of my concerns with Wilhelm is who funds the research and who are they beholding to. Indeed if either they or Canon are aware of a problem and are keeping it quiet, (which the lack of information implies) then I"m not sure how reliable either company is.
While I think accelerated aging tests are valuable they are only predictors, so saying one lasts 125 years and one lasts 250 years ... to me it means simply that any print with decent treatment will last a very long time, longer than work I was producing 30 years ago, which still looks pretty good. So my main concern is how do my prints look now. As such even after about 4 weeks with an HP on 2 different ocassions ( I really wanted an excuse to buy this printer) and even though I felt the printer produced great results, I didn't feel it exceeded the Epson and in some cases wasn't quite as good.
We are however to an area that gets pretty subjective ... both are very good.
-
Since the "cat" is out of the bag, and several journalists have already seen these printers, it seems Epson or someone should be willing to respond to the Mk/Pk question.
I for one am surprised this is that big of an issue to so many ... it would seem that most photographers have their preference and rarely if ever switch. I for one can't remember the last time I used matte black ... I just prefer the saturation and detail I can get with photo glossy papers.
Anyone?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Its fundamental to me. I'm not buying a new Epson unless and until I can switch from matte to Photo black without hassle and expense.
they are falling behind.
Quentin
-
Its fundamental to me. I'm not buying a new Epson unless and until I can switch from matte to Photo black without hassle and expense.
they are falling behind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Same thing here, I just don't get why they don't get it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Since the "cat" is out of the bag, and several journalists have already seen these printers, it seems Epson or someone should be willing to respond to the Mk/Pk question.
I for one am surprised this is that big of an issue to so many ... it would seem that most photographers have their preference and rarely if ever switch. I for one can't remember the last time I used matte black ... I just prefer the saturation and detail I can get with photo glossy papers.
Anyone?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I print on both matte and satin/luster papers. Its true that when I owned only an Epson printer I went strictly matte to avoid changing inks. With the HP Z I'm printing again on satin/luster papers as well as matte.
I like that ability as well as the built-in spectro with APS. I never quite bought into Epson's claims that their printers were calibrated for life at the factory.
I was very pleased with the prints from my Epson and still think they set the mark for the other manufacturers to equal.
-
They do get it, judging by Micheal's latest report. I own a 4800, I upgraded from a 4000, but I won't be getting a 4880. I also will wait for a dual photo/matte black printer. I have never been tempted to jump to HP or Canon, however. I remember how responsive Epson was to initial issues that came up with the new Pro line printers - and to me, a company that really cares about it's users is one I want to support.
I'm glad I've waited for Epson to develop their next gen technology. It looks like there's a lot more coming than merely a 9 ink print head, and that makes the wait all the more worthwhile. Here's hoping it's everything it looks to be. I'm in for a 24".
Same thing here, I just don't get why they don't get it.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Its fundamental to me. I'm not buying a new Epson unless and until I can switch from matte to Photo black without hassle and expense.
they are falling behind.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey! It's not such a big deal. How much does 10ml of black ink cost and a 24"x40" piece of the cheapest paper? Not much. That's all it costs to change from pk to mk or vice versa. With experience, you might even be able to reduce the wastage of 10-12ml of black ink by continuing to make additional prints with the 'wrong' paper type in order to use as much as possible of the black ink in the system before changing rolls.
How to change the photo/matte ink in the Epson 7600 and 9600 printers without using the costly Epson draining procedure:
1 – Make sure your printer is not switched on
2 - Open the ink cartridge lever in the ink cartridge bay
3 - Replace the photo black cartridge with the matte black cartridge (or vice versa)
4 - Leave the ink lever open !
5 –Using the printer control panel go into Maintenance Mode 2 by by switching power ON while pushing the 'Paper source', 'Cut/Eject', and 'Paper Feed down' buttons.
6 - Press the 'Paper Feed down' button until you see "SERVICE CONFIG" on the display - press the 'arrow right' button. It then shows 'XXD' in the lower part of the display.
7 - Press the 'Paper Feed down' button until you see "NPD" - press 'arrow right' button. A value of '1' appears in the display.
8 - There are 3 possible value settings for NPD:
0 - no ink check
1 - pigmented ink (there should be s star "*" at this setting)
2 - dye inks
9 - Change NPD setting to '0' (no ink check) and press "Enter" - a star should now show next to the '0' value
10 -Switch printer off
11 - Switch printer on
12 - Close the ink lever in the ink cartridge bay
13 - Printer and driver shows the matte black ink is installed (or photo black ink)
You can use the same procedure to switch from matte black to photo black or from photo black to matte black.
What happens is that once you change the ink in that way the printer
re-sets the 'NPD' value back to '1' the next time you switch on the
printer in the normal way (non maintenance mode).
At that point the previous black ink, either matte or photo black, has not been flushed our of the printer. Here is what you need to do to flush the remaining ink:
The 7600 uses approximately 10 to12 ml of ink before the previous black ink is flushed out.
1 - Create a 23"x 40" image in Photoshop and fill it with pure black (RGB 0,0,0).
2 - I use inexpensive matte paper and print that image at 720dpi.
3 - When you look at the finished print you will see that 2/3 of the print is photo ink as it looks a little bit dull and the rest of the print shows the nice dark matte ink.
4 - When this image is done printing the ink line is charged with matte black (or photo black).
-
On the other hand, I think it's fair to remind everyone that the 3800 is a relatively new printer (less than a year old) and sometimes clogging behavior becomes more nasty as the print head ages. So time will tell.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have a 3800 and 4800. Never a clog on the 3800 and I prefer the dither and print quality on the 3800.
So if you have both, you'll get a better idea what the newer 3800 technology brings to the party.
-
Ray
The so-called 'South African' method of PK/MK ink swap you describe does *not* work with the x800 series. I looked into it very carefully after I replaced my 4000 with a 7800.
My (expensive) solution was to buy Image Print and use their Phatte Black system. I was (and still am) very peeved to have had to spend the additional money to have the flexibility I believed it should have had out of the box.
Ironically the 4000 of course had PK & MK installed, but I never used glossy media with it as I found the bronzing and gloss differential with that printer to be unacceptable.
I'm sure that one printer dedicated to each black ink is a workable solution for high volume users. But not for me, or I suspect many other users.
Regards
Frank
-
Ray
The so-called 'South African' method of PK/MK ink swap you describe does *not* work with the x800 series. I looked into it very carefully after I replaced my 4000 with a 7800.
My (expensive) solution was to buy Image Print and use their Phatte Black system. I was (and still am) very peeved to have had to spend the additional money to have the flexibility I believed it should have had out of the box.
Ironically the 4000 of course had PK & MK installed, but I never used glossy media with it as I found the bronzing and gloss differential with that printer to be unacceptable.
I'm sure that one printer dedicated to each black ink is a workable solution for high volume users. But not for me, or I suspect many other users.
Regards
Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
That's very puzzling indeed. The fact that the South African method works (in previous and similar models at least) indicates that there's no major technological design problem in simply flushing out of the system the black ink only.
Simply including an additional cartridge which is always in place, does not eliminate wastage since the nozzles for the inactive cartridge still have to be routinely cleaned at the same time as all the others.
Perhaps the simplest explanation is the correct one. Epson makes its profits from the sale of ink (and paper of course).
-
I have a 3800 and 4800. Never a clog on the 3800 and I prefer the dither and print quality on the 3800.
So if you have both, you'll get a better idea what the newer 3800 technology brings to the party.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
After reading Michael's comments on the x880 family of printers, I have to say that I'm surprised to see that they don't have the same autoswap mechanism as the 3800.
With regard to clogs, I have had my 3800 for 6 months. For the last 3 months I've been renovating and traveling. Tonight was the first print run in almost 3 months. A quick check revealed no clogged heads. I was impressed. Hopefully at least the new head sealing parking mechanism is employed in those new printers.
--dilip
-
Ray
The South African method took advantage of a service menu selection which existed due to the x600 series being able to use either dye or pigment inks. This does not apply to the x800's which use ultrachrome only. I imagine Epson were also keen to discourage users poking around in the service menu.....
The only sensible solution is a 9 channel printhead and I doubt that there was any technical reason not to use one on the x800's. I imagine it was a purely economic decision to continue using the 4000 printhead rather than going to the extra cost of developing a 9 channel version. A very cynical and arrogant decision in my view.
I'd say that they were fortunate that no real competition existed at the time. It remains to be seen how much they will suffer from cotinuing this ridiculous situation for the x880 series now that there are reasonable alternatives.
Regards
Frank
-
I imagine it was a purely economic decision to continue using the 4000 printhead rather than going to the extra cost of developing a 9 channel version. A very cynical and arrogant decision in my view.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It was neither "cynical" nor "arrogant" but strictly based on economics...it's simply not practical to produce a nine channel print head. The 3800 doesn't even have one, it's 8 channels with 9 lines and you must purge the head when swapping. The economics to add a single channel are out of line with the return on the costs. It would have made more sense to go from an 8 to 12 channel head-which is what Canon and HP did to leapfrog Epson. But in their case they HAD to make the jump in order to equal or slightly exceed Epson's pigment gamut..and both HP and Canon are taking it on the chin because they are "buying" their way into the market by eating the costs associated with jumping from 8 to 12 channels.
The 11880 was designed to carry both K inks like the 3800 so there are 9 inks onboard but only 8 channels in use at one time. The reissued 7880 and 9880 are modified heads to accommodate the vivid magenta inks and there is no place to put a 9th ink cart.
You can build all sorts of conspiracy theories if you like but a lot of the limitations come from the extremely expensive costs of R&D and manufacturing. The 7/9800 and now the 880 series (except for the 11880) are incremental design and manufacturing changes. Nobody was complaining when the first 7600 and 9600 printers came out with the then breakthrough pricing...(about 1/2 the cost of previous printers) but Epson is not in a position to completely and radically redesign their printers every 3-4 years. It takes time to recover the cost of design and development. The 3800 _WAS_ a major NEW design and the 11880 (64") is also a new design...
I suspect when you see the next round of newly designed 24" and 44" printers they won't look like the 3800/11880 either.
But seeing cynicism and arrogance is in itself, cynical and arrogant (and a bit ignorant of the cost of doing business).
-
It was neither "cynical" nor "arrogant" but strictly based on economics...it's simply not practical to produce a nine channel print head. The 3800 doesn't even have one, it's 8 channels with 9 lines and you must purge the head when swapping. The economics to add a single channel are out of line with the return on the costs. It would have made more sense to go from an 8 to 12 channel head-which is what Canon and HP did to leapfrog Epson. But in their case they HAD to make the jump in order to equal or slightly exceed Epson's pigment gamut..and both HP and Canon are taking it on the chin because they are "buying" their way into the market by eating the costs associated with jumping from 8 to 12 channels.
The 11880 was designed to carry both K inks like the 3800 so there are 9 inks onboard but only 8 channels in use at one time. The reissued 7880 and 9880 are modified heads to accommodate the vivid magenta inks and there is no place to put a 9th ink cart.
You can build all sorts of conspiracy theories if you like but a lot of the limitations come from the extremely expensive costs of R&D and manufacturing. The 7/9800 and now the 880 series (except for the 11880) are incremental design and manufacturing changes. Nobody was complaining when the first 7600 and 9600 printers came out with the then breakthrough pricing...(about 1/2 the cost of previous printers) but Epson is not in a position to completely and radically redesign their printers every 3-4 years. It takes time to recover the cost of design and development. The 3800 _WAS_ a major NEW design and the 11880 (64") is also a new design...
I suspect when you see the next round of newly designed 24" and 44" printers they won't look like the 3800/11880 either.
But seeing cynicism and arrogance is in itself, cynical and arrogant (and a bit ignorant of the cost of doing business).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130192\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some good comments. Michael's brief review was very well stated as well, and I appreciate the insight as to what has changed, as well as the significance of the 11880. The comment on the design change to reduce head clogs shows they are trying hard to address this issue, which is a big one to many.
This has to be an expensive head to make, and thus instead of starting with a 17" printer, they wisely chose a new wide model, knowing that the entry price is not an obstacle for those that can use this large of printer.
We will most likely be bringing a new 11880 in when they become available, since we have been evaluating >44" printers lately anyway for some of our needs. Fortunately I'm lucky enough that I'll get it in my office for about a month before I need to deploy it. Sounds fun
As you mentioned the production costs of the new head is likely to drop (hopefully quickly) and Epson is most likely working hard on the next iteration 48-78-98 (49xx,79xx,99xx??) printers to deploy as soon as those costs come down sufficiently. The dual line mk/pk concept of the 3800 I personally feel is quite acceptable.
I haven't thought about the idea that HP and Canon may actually be losing money to buy business with their new expensive heads. Makes sense, though, and can't really fault them for that. Interesting thought though.
-
I haven't thought about the idea that HP and Canon may actually be losing money to buy business with their new expensive heads. Makes sense, though, and can't really fault them for that. Interesting thought though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can't quote the person who I talked to and I can't indicate the company he's with nor of course give his name, but let's just say he's knowledgeable with the costs associated with the development and manufacturing of multi-color print engines for photo printers. He judges the original Canon 5000 as selling for less than the total cost of the components and manufacturing. So, Canon was actually selling them at retail for less than it cost Canon to develop, manufacture and distribute. The same applies to HP.
Now, will their costs go down? Sure. . .as they sell and manufacture more and more printers, they can spread the cost of development out over a longer period of time and the unit cost of components will go down thereby reducing the effective cost/printer. But, that's over time. Right now, they're lost leaders.
-
It was neither "cynical" nor "arrogant" but strictly based on economics...
But seeing cynicism and arrogance is in itself, cynical and arrogant (and a bit ignorant of the cost of doing business).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130192\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mr. Schewe is a titan of the digital photography realm, and I hesitate to disagree with such an illustrious source, but...
I bought an Epson 7600 early on, and while I was delighted with the output quality, the Mk/Pk swap was an obvious shortcoming. We are now...what, five years out? and Epson still isn't correcting this glaring issue that forces users to waste hundreds of dollars of ink? Even with the second generation successor?
If the large majority of Epson's printers are sold to service bureaus that have two or more printers on-site (so the Mk/Pk issue is moot), then I can understand why they won't bother correcting this problem. I have no idea whether this is the case. But if individual hobbyists and mom & pop studios are a big piece of their business, and they have chosen not to address it because we had nowhere else to go, then cynical seems to be the right word.
-
I bought an Epson 7600 early on, and while I was delighted with the output quality, the Mk/Pk swap was an obvious shortcoming. We are now...what, five years out? and Epson still isn't correcting this glaring issue that forces users to waste hundreds of dollars of ink? Even with the second generation successor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The mechanics of the 7/9600 and 7/9800 are very similar. The head was doubled in swath size from 1/2 inch to 1 inch to double the effective speed of the printer. The ink formulation from the original UltraChrome ro K3 ink was pretty impressive as well. It required adding a channel to get to 8 nozzle channels-which for several engineering reasons was the max the head could handle. The Chassis was also limited to 4 ink cart receptacles on each side.
So, what you have had Epson do? Stick another cart on the side?
Yes, the ink swap WAS a real pain with the 7/9600 series and made quicker and with less ink waste on the 7/9800, but the basic overall design of those printers were stuck at 8 inks at once. The 4000 was a nice improvement in that you could load all 8 of the original UltraChrome inks in at once. Then along comes K3 with 9 inks and the 4800 had to do swaps. Some people chose the Phatt Black solution which was sub-optimal in that it dropped out the 3rd K. Epson didn't add the 3rd K out of meanness-they honestly thought it was needed–and K3 output is better than the original UC output.
The 3800 was designed from the ground up to add the 9th line to an 8 channel head...an innovative solution to the swap problem but one that could not be put into an updated 7/9880 because there's not room. That will have to wait until the next full version rev of the printers...
Again the time scale and the amount of work required for these changes are substantial. Epson can only do what they can do. So, yes, the ink swap on the 7/9880 wasn't touched this time around. And if you think it's some evil conspiracy, you are wrong.
Personally, I'm looking forward to a time when Epson CAN pack a 12 ink system in the chassis and add more colors and expand the inks to incorporate potentially even more K inks. There's a fundamental problem adding blue, green and red ink–which HP and Canon have found out, just adding these additive primaries in an ink ain't gonna magically and radically expand the color gamut. Really, really good magenta, yellow and cyan inks can.
Then there's the issue of D-Max and gloss differential. Both of which Epson has done a really good job with-without having to go to the extra inks that Canon and HP have had to do.
And yes. . .these printers are indeed designed for professional printing. For a pro, the ink swap has to be factored in as a cost of doing biz...do you bite the bullet and but another printer? Sure, if your volume is high enough on different media.
Any way you look it it, it's a lot more complicated than Epson just wanting to force people to waste ink. . .
-
I doubt many folks will shed tears over giant companies losing a few bucks on the sale of a printer that drinks very expensive ink - it is long been known that selling printers on the cheap was mostly to sell ink, which is where the bulk of the money is made. I applaud the big guys for making these sorts of quality printers available for humble mortals like myself at such reasonable prices, and I don't mind the high ink costs either, but I won't lose any sleep over poor HP or Epson or Canon selling them below cost, whine on...
-
but I won't lose any sleep over poor HP or Epson or Canon selling them below cost, whine on...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Neither will I. . .between Epson, Canon and HP we now have 3 companies duking it out and I suspect there's really only room for two. Epson and HP have shown the best long term commitment. We'll have to see about Canon. The stuff about the print head life is kinda telling. Rather than take an approach like HP for having the heads by color and much cheaper, Canon has two heads at $600 per head (I think I've got that right, right?). Kinda changes the nature of how Canon priced their printers expecting heavy users to be dropping $1,200 each time the heads have to be replaced.
-
Jeff - ouch, that is a hefty price! It almost puts them in the category of the low-cost printers that are so cheap it is cheaper to throw them away and buy a new printer when they run out of ink since a full ink set is more than the cost of the printer with all the ink. I try not to complain too much about the price of any printers or their ink since it is all so much better than the good old color darkroom days, or even paying for the early LightJet prints - the price we pay for incredible quality right at our finger tips these days is well worth it, and really CHEAP compared to what it use to cost us, and in the grand scheme of things, only peanuts, or should I say, a roll of film and processing here and there (but don't tell them - they can keep their prices low and it won't bother me a bit).
Tim Ernst in Arkansas
-
Jeff
<<< But seeing cynicism and arrogance is in itself, cynical and arrogant (and a bit ignorant of the cost of doing business). >>>
Thanks.... Actually, having been involved in manufacturing, I'm well aware of the costs of R&D, even for something seemingly as simple as adding an extra channel to an existing design. I still think Epson's decision not to solve the black ink swap shortcoming in some way was cynical and arrogant. Although adding a ninth channel would have been the most elegant solution, any way that worked and didn't require wasting the equivalent of a 220ml cart of ink (I checked) for a round trip would have been OK by me.
I used the word cynical because I believe they figured we had nowhere else to go and would accept such a cost. Arrogant because they thought (correctly) that they were King of the Hill and a feature shortcoming such as this would not affect their sales. Not sure how expressing such a view makes me ignorant as well as cynical and arrogant, but anyway.....
<<< You can build all sorts of conspiracy theories if you like but a lot of the limitations come from the extremely expensive costs of R&D and manufacturing. >>>
Conspiracy theories? Give me a break. I was merely expressing an opinion on Epson's design decision - which I never suggested had any basis other than economics. i.e. they believed they did not need to solve the problem because of their strong market position.
<<< ...it's simply not practical to produce a nine channel print head. The 3800 doesn't even have one, it's 8 channels with 9 lines and you must purge the head when swapping. >>>
Maybe, though there's a pic of the new printhead for the 11880 here (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/epson-wide-format.html). It appears to be a nine channel head.
Despite all this, the fact is that I bought a 7800 in full knowledge of this shortcoming and I'm very happy with the printer. I'm very pleased that Epson has made this technology available to us at a reasonable price. I'd much prefer to have this printer with the MK/PK hassle than not to have it at all.
Regards
Frank
-
Given the the new 4880/7880/9880 printers are basically the 4800/7800/9800 printers with new heads, new firmware and a new ink, what is the possibility to upgrade existing x800 printers to include x8880 printers? Firmware is easy and cheap to upgrade, as is ink. A new head might be an expensive replacement, but it certainly is cheaper than a while new printer. Would this be possible? Printer heads can get worn out anyway and replaced as a somewhat normal procedure anyway.
I suspect that while Epson might not get a lot of people swapping their x800 printers for a new x880 printer for the incremental improvements, Epson might do a brisk business in upgrading customers existing x800 printers. (and I would point out that say doubling the output of the new heads to serve an upgrade market would significantly reduce the unit cost of the heads and overall make the new technology more profitable for them) Just a thought.
-
Given the the new 4880/7880/9880 printers are basically the 4800/7800/9800 printers with new heads, new firmware and a new ink, what is the possibility to upgrade existing x800 printers to include x8880 printers?
There are new heads for a reason! You'd have to upgrade them so that's a deal breaker.
When my NDA is up, we can talk more about this. While one might suggest you could use the new inks in the older printer using the older heads, you don't want to do that! Enough said. The newer printers have hardware and inks that are working in tandem for a reason.
-
There are new heads for a reason! You'd have to upgrade them so that's a deal breaker.
When my NDA is up, we can talk more about this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But wouldn't just upgrading the head (along with the relevant firmware and ink) be significantly cheaper and more attractive to significantly more users than upgrading the whole printer (especially from all the comments I've read on multiple forums) -- and much less of a deal breaker for their customers? I think such an upgrade service would significant increase sales or profitability for Epson.
I'm looking forward to hearing more when your NDA is up -- mid-August, right?
-
Shoot, I am just looking forward to the day when I can have two printers in one. I would love to have a 24" or 44" printer that also has a 17" cassette on the front for cut sheets. Since 90% of my prints are on cut sheets, I need something like a 3800 or 4800, but every now and then I need to do 20 or so prints for a print show. Usually something around 20x30 or 24x36 in size.
I mentioned this to the head of R&D for the HP Z3100 series, and he stared at me with this dazzled look. "Wow, we had not though of that. Great idea!"
One can only wish to have it all, no?
-
But wouldn't just upgrading the head (along with the relevant firmware and ink) be significantly cheaper and more attractive to significantly more users than upgrading the whole printer (especially from all the comments I've read on multiple forums) -- and much less of a deal breaker for their customers? I think such an upgrade service would significant increase sales or profitability for Epson.
I'm looking forward to hearing more when your NDA is up -- mid-August, right?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Epson's heads are somewhat permanent. When they released the 3800 Michael has a video talking about the new printer (it's somewhere on youtube... I'm too lazy to look for it right now) where this was mentioned. While Canon and HP heads are made for replacement, the Epson heads are designed for the printer life.
My guess is that the cost of replacement (along with the required labour cost) would put people in a range that didn't make it worthwhile. Afterall, there is a price at which it's worth having two printers right?
--dilip
-
Epson's heads are somewhat permanent. When they released the 3800 Michael has a video talking about the new printer (it's somewhere on youtube... I'm too lazy to look for it right now) where this was mentioned. While Canon and HP heads are made for replacement, the Epson heads are designed for the printer life.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's interesting, because the Epson Field Repair Guides describe a specific "Print Head Replacement procedure". They are field replaceable by a service technician (you can't really do it yourself). From what I remember of the costs, it's about $500-600 for the head and a few hundred for the technician to visit and do it. The price makes it more feasible to do with the 7800 or 9800 than a 4800. It's not clear that the newer 3800 is a departure from this. The head certainly take a while to wear out, but the option to replace them when they do, or when they fail, clearly exists, and it is clearly and significantly less than the cost of a new printer.
-
Again the time scale and the amount of work required for these changes are substantial.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Huuummmm... I don't think so.
Using modern 3D CAD software with associative design, these changes are at most a matter of a few weeks of work for 2 experienced designers.
Re-designing the head is a different matter, but this would not have been required, right?
What would be more challenging is manufacturing because of the partial re-design of the assembly line and the re-tooling, but that is in the end mostly handled by suppliers who will do it if you pay for it.
In the end, I very much doubt that the problem is related to the engineering/design burden on Epson's part. If it is, then they have a very serious need to re-think they design processes. And again, I know what I am talking about.
It is a 97% economical decision related to the cost of re-tooling.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I can't quote the person who I talked to and I can't indicate the company he's with nor of course give his name, but let's just say he's knowledgeable with the costs associated with the development and manufacturing of multi-color print engines for photo printers. He judges the original Canon 5000 as selling for less than the total cost of the components and manufacturing. So, Canon was actually selling them at retail for less than it cost Canon to develop, manufacture and distribute. The same applies to HP.
Now, will their costs go down? Sure. . .as they sell and manufacture more and more printers, they can spread the cost of development out over a longer period of time and the unit cost of components will go down thereby reducing the effective cost/printer. But, that's over time. Right now, they're lost leaders.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=130200\")
The fact that printers in general and smaller printers more specific are not bringing money in for their manufacturers is nothing new and applies to Epson as well. The real money has to be earned with ink, media supplies, service, spare parts etc.
Some time ago I made some calculations on the nozzle price for several Epson heads and the two thermo head designs of resp. Canon and HP. Based on spare part prices. Like in the car industry spare parts are good income for the manufacturers.
The 180 nozzle per channel head of the Epson 10000/10600 generations and its 8 channel variation used on Rolands etc is still the most expensive one, think 1000 $. The 9000 and 9600 heads, 6x 64 nozzles, 7 x 96 nozzles far cheaper, the 9800 8x180 in between. The 180 nozzle design has been used in two generations of Epson printers already + it is sold to third parties like Roland and Mutoh. If the basic design isn't paid right now it will never be paid. The 7 channel 96 nozzles head of the 9600 generation is cheaper and is only used for that generation of UC printers. More likely they made a loss on that design.
The new Epson 360 nozzle per channel 8 channel head is introduced in one model only now and will be placed in a market with true competition. For 60" models there are 3-4 manufacturers, part is replacing older machines (HP, Roland, Mimaki, Colorspan, Encad) in different segments of the market. I'm very curious about the head's spare part price.
In my estimation it will be difficult for Epson to compete with the new thermo head manufacturing methods (MEMS) that HP, Canon and Kodak use. In the water based ink inkjet market we discuss here, the thermo heads are equally suited for the task and several times more nozzles are way cheaper to create in thermo heads than in piëzo heads with that manufacturing method. The variable dot size is no longer that important either, smoother prints with fine detail are the result of more minimum sized droplets + new dithering methods. That is shown in Epson 3800 prints as well. The competition in inkjet heads then is a battle on droplet creation frequency and number of nozzles. Piëzo heads are not the best in price/performance on that aspect right now. In fact several times more expensive for what they deliver.
HP created a new piëzo head (X2) using the MEMS manufacturing method that also is used for the thermo heads. This head is however for the outdoor sign etc business. For its new Scitex and HP solvent and UV cure printers that will replace the existing Scitex and HP printers equipped with Xaar, Spectra and Konica heads. They are aware of the different needs in the market and the head designs that suit them. I think they made the right calculations where to use thermo heads and where piëzo heads.
Ernst Dinkla
try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
So should we also expect to see a 3880 anytime soon? Even if no other changes are made, it's hard to see why Epson would not update the 3800 (and maybe the 2400) to use the new "vivid magenta" inkset.
Any thoughts on this? I was just about ready to buy the 3800, and now...
-
So should we also expect to see a 3880 anytime soon? Even if no other changes are made, it's hard to see why Epson would not update the 3800 (and maybe the 2400) to use the new "vivid magenta" inkset.
Any thoughts on this? I was just about ready to buy the 3800, and now...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=131120\")
I wouldn't expect wonders of that Vivid Magenta. The 9600-9800 inksets were not bad in gamut if compared to the competition. I doubt you will see another 17" Epson model appear within a year otherwise Epson wouldn't introduce the 4880 in the stop gap range they have announced right now.
The 17" choices are the Epson 3800-4800 Canon iPF5000 right now and the last two will be replaced by the 4880 and iPF5100. They are clearing the Canon iPF5000 right now.
Ernst Dinkla
try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/join]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/join[/url]
-
So should we also expect to see a 3880 anytime soon? Even if no other changes are made, it's hard to see why Epson would not update the 3800 (and maybe the 2400) to use the new "vivid magenta" inkset.
Any thoughts on this? I was just about ready to buy the 3800, and now...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131120\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you look at the promotional materials for the 3800, it already appears to incorporate the new firmware that produces the improved/finer dot pattern of the x880 series. The only other feature that could be added is the new magenta ink and that might not be enough to justify a new model. If a 3880 does appear, you might also see an R2480.
-
Many thanks for the helpful replies.
-
Aug 13th has come and almost gone, some NDA's are expired today? I havent seen any wide format printer announcements on either the Epson US or UK sites regarding the new models. Are those on the list who say they know details now able to discuss them?
Larry