From an economic standpoint if you're measuring by the foot, and doing some close measuring at that,
you'll go backward buying a widebed printer.
Philosophically speaking, do what makes you happy.
It'll take some rolls to get to being decent at reproducing images.
You'll have mistakes, and ink costs.
Then you'll have prints by the pound and who knows what to do with those.
I wouldn't buy one if you want to print a few images an be done.
If you get 30 great prints from a machine, and it cost you in excess of 5k to get em, well you see the progression.
You'll need somewhere to put the machine, somewhere to assemble pieces, somewhere to store prints, well it's just a little overwhelming without all the space.
I'd say get one if cost isn't what's driving your interest.
I have a slightly different view. I have the Z3100, and basically use it for my own fine art printing, with 20x30 or less frequently, 24x36 prints. The pleasure comes from choosing the paper I want, profiling it, and exhibiting the prints with an occasional sale.
On the other hand, I print some images for other photographers when they need prints up to 24x36, and make enough to pay for the Hahnemuhle fine art papers I like for personal use.
A bonus to all of that comes from building up my own portfolios of 11x17's, which I print 2-up on HP Premium Satin 24" rolls, which costs me about $1.00 per running foot of paper, and therefore about $.50 per 11x17. The ink used is also much less expensive per square foot of coverage than what I had been spending with an Epson 1280 on which I previously did the 11x17's. So the savings on ink and paper for this size print is substantial.
Again, the investment in the printer will take a long time to be recouped, and I certainly considered this an "art-for-art's-sake" expenditure, much like getting a baby grand piano would be.
