Printer Choices

[Greenough Run]

Hi All,

My first post. I have been a film photographer for many years, but could use some help in making the switch to digital . I am looking for a good quality ink jet printer, and think the 17” models would be a good size, as in the past I had 16X20 C prints made from film. I am considering the Epson 3800 & 4880 and the Canon  5100. The Epson 3800 clearly wins on price, as I can get it for $845 after a $300 rebate (that requires buying $100 of Epson paper, but I figure I would be doing that anyway). My concern about the 3800 is that it doesn’t use the new vivid magenta inks. Since good color reproduction is one of my highest priorities, it seems that there would be a definite benefit to using the latest ink set. Does anyone have any information on the color gamut difference between the older K3 inks and the newer ones with vivid magenta – or has anyone seen side by side comparisons of the same photo printed with the two ink sets? The Epson 4880 has the new inks, but of course at a much higher price.

In researching printers I came across a review here of the Canon iPF 5000 from 2006, with a follow up in 2007. They made the Canon sound like a definite contender, and possibly superior to the Epson. I would have to assume that the Canon 5100 would be even better. Now that these Canons have been on the market a few years I’m curious what sort of track record they have. Are folks out there satisfied with their performance, dependability, etc? Also, there were comments that Canon’s owner’s manual was “dreadful.” Does anyone know if they have been improved? As a newbie, good documentation would be very important.

Thanks,
GR

[bill t.]

First, you should note that a lot of the stuff that gets posted on these sites is from the relatively small number of people who happen to be having problems.  Which suggests inkjet printers are by definition cans of the most wiggly imaginable worms.  That's only slightly true.  Most of the happy users remain silent.

In regards to the Vivid K3 inkset, when I went from my 7800 (non-vivid magentas) to a 9880 (vivid) I think I noticed a little more brilliance in oranges and yellows.  Maybe.  Kinda.  Sorta.  My thinking is that just about any of printers you mentioned, when used as well as possible, will produce great results.  But, none of them will produce great results from poor images and poor technique no matter now jazzy their inksets are.  It's 9 parts how you use it, 1 part how good it is.

But more to the point, the REALLY important differences between printers have to do with reliability, speed, and other practical issues.  When the glamor of the inkset specifications wears off, those things remain and become the most important issues in your everyday printing life.

[John Hollenberg]

For information on the Canon iPF5100, see the Wiki:

http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Considerati...ng+This+Printer

http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/iPF5100+vs+iPF5000

Lots of information about the pros and cons of this printer.  A lot of things have been improved from the iPF5000.  Just depends what your needs are.

--John

[Tklimek]

Hi GR....

I have the 4880 and am a happy owner.

Here are some of the things to consider between the two Epsons (3800 vs. 4880); some may be of more or less value to you.  You may want to assign a "weighting" and then score the printers on some scale (say, 1-5) and see how they stack up for what YOU need them for.

Here are some of the differences between the two (others may chime in with corrections or additions):

3800 can switch between matte black and photo black inks with negligible ink loss; noticeable ink loss with 4880 (if you need to switch between frequently, this may be important for you)
3800 is less expensive
3800 has a smaller footprint and is physically easier to move around

4880 uses Vivid Magent inkset (slightly better than the previous inksets)
4880 uses slightly better head technology
4880 can use larger cartridges (lowering per ml ink costs)
4880 comes with more ink "in the box when purchased" but needs more ink to "charge" the lines
4880 uses a vacuum to guide pull the paper through
4880 can use roll paper (can reduce paper costs by up to 40% per print)
4880 is larger and heavier than 3800 and typically requires two people to move, etc.

:-)

I went through the VERY SAME process (except no Canon was in my future); and finally chose the 4880 over the 3800.  I know that the 3800 is a very fine printer but am really happy with the 4880 and the ability to use roll paper was a heavily weighted factor for me.

What a great problem to have!

Have fun!

Cheers...

Todd in Chicago

Hi All,

My first post. I have been a film photographer for many years, but could use some help in making the switch to digital . I am looking for a good quality ink jet printer, and think the 17” models would be a good size, as in the past I had 16X20 C prints made from film. I am considering the Epson 3800 & 4880 and the Canon  5100. The Epson 3800 clearly wins on price, as I can get it for $845 after a $300 rebate (that requires buying $100 of Epson paper, but I figure I would be doing that anyway). My concern about the 3800 is that it doesn’t use the new vivid magenta inks. Since good color reproduction is one of my highest priorities, it seems that there would be a definite benefit to using the latest ink set. Does anyone have any information on the color gamut difference between the older K3 inks and the newer ones with vivid magenta – or has anyone seen side by side comparisons of the same photo printed with the two ink sets? The Epson 4880 has the new inks, but of course at a much higher price.

In researching printers I came across a review here of the Canon iPF 5000 from 2006, with a follow up in 2007. They made the Canon sound like a definite contender, and possibly superior to the Epson. I would have to assume that the Canon 5100 would be even better. Now that these Canons have been on the market a few years I’m curious what sort of track record they have. Are folks out there satisfied with their performance, dependability, etc? Also, there were comments that Canon’s owner’s manual was “dreadful.” Does anyone know if they have been improved? As a newbie, good documentation would be very important.

Thanks,
GR

[EdRosch]

I'm going through the same conversion and have been working with digital for about two years now.  In terms of printing I've found that with inkjet printers, much like the darkroom, it's the photographer's skills that matter more than the technology.  It's far from push button easy to get high quality prints and what I'm printing now is worlds ahead from what I was doing (and pretty pleased with back then) just a few months ago.

That said, I'm using a 3800 and have found that it can, if I do my job, give really superb results.  I would suggest that it would be a good choice as a training printer that you could learn and grow with until you've got enough personal experience to make a truly informed choice as to how best move forward.  Considering that with the rebates and the fact you get full ink cartridges, the actual printer only costs a few hundred bucks, you haven't really risked that much by starting with it and much to gain.

Invest the money you save in training and books as well as paper and ink and I'm pretty sure a year from now you'll be a pretty happy camper.

Ed

[Greenough Run]

Thank you all for your responses - they were all quite helpful.
I'm leaning towards the 3800 right now.

GR

[EdRosch]

Thank you all for your responses - they were all quite helpful.
I'm leaning towards the 3800 right now.

GR

I might also mention that at the time I purchased the 3800, I also went through a similar thought process including thinking that 16x20's ought to be enough for anyone and likewise looked hard at the 4880.  Since then I have made it a point to visit art shows and more critically examine what the fine art photographers were doing (as well as being both impressed and humbled by the really high level of skill generally out there),  I've come to realize that in the 'fine art photography' world, the 20x30 print has become the new standard and if I'm going to move past the 3800, it would have to be to a 7900 or similar.  

I would also comment that just when looking at the numbers you would not think that a 20x30 print is all that much larger than a 17x22, but when you see them hanging there is a huge jump in visual impact.

Ed

[Martin Kristiansen]

I would agree with the previous post and caution against purchasing a printer that is too small. Print sizes definitely are increasing. As cameras improve and pixel count increases bigger prints make more sense than they did in the past.

[DougMorgan]

Given the parameters I'd recommend starting off with the 3800 over the 4880.    

The difference in the vivid magenta is negligible and I found that even between the original ultrachrome and the vivid set I had to be looking for the differences to actually see any.  For the price you'd be giving up somewhat cheaper cartridges and roll media but -- and this is a big but -- changes between matte and gloss blacks would be far cheaper.   Give yourself a cheaper entry point and spend the money on supplies to gain some skills experimenting.   If you decide you want to print large or do canvas the 4880 doesn't print large enough anyway.   The 3800 might be still worth having along side a 7880/9880 (or 7900/9900) for the sheet handling where as the 4880 takes up a lot more realestate and if it's not used often a lot of ink will go to waste due to expiration  or clearing clogs.

Good luck!
Doug

[JeffKohn]

To me the biggest fault of the 3800 is not the lack of vivid magenta, it's the lack of roll-paper support. If you're really sure you only want to print 16x20" or smaller, maybe you'd be OK; but even support for printing 16x24" will be limited since there's not much paper available in that size (I suppose you could cut your own sheets from a roll, talk about a PITA). And you can forget printing panoramics.

The 4880 is no good for anybody who wants to print on both glossy/semi-gloss and matte papers. To say that swapping blacks wastes ink is a bit of an understatement. Estimates I've seen are that you waste about $75 worth of ink when you swap blacks.

I would suggest looking at the Canon ipf line. You can get some pretty good prices on them (maybe not quite as cheap as the 3800, but still a very good deal). I'm running a Canon ipf5000 that I picked up used for next to nothing (I actually use the 5100 inks which have improved grays). I think the Canon's are every bit the match for the K3 and K3 Vivid-Magenta printers, and I actually prefer the monochrome printing mode on the Canon's to the Espon's. Eventually I'd like to move to a 24" printer, but for now the ipf5000 is great. With the latest software, most of the restrictions on which media setting can be used with particular media paths has been removed from the x1000 printers, which was the biggest disadvantage before. So that's one less thign to worry about. The Canons also seem more frugal with ink and less likely to clog in my experience.