Epson Stylus Pro 4900 vs. 3880

[george100]

Have been looking at the Epson Stylus Pro 4900 based on its discounted price.  I have the Epson 3880 and have been very happy with its results.  Recently i went to several camera stores and printed a number of prints on the 4900  that i had already printed on the 3880.  In comparing them it appears that the 4900 prints with a little more contrast and saturation.  I am not sure how much of this is due to profile differences and how much from the printer differences?  The differences i saw were very subtle but there( and looked good on the 4900).

From the comments i have read on this website it sounds like the 4900 has a slightly higher color range and this is the only real difference.  Also it appears a number of people have clogging issues with with the 4900. 

Would be interested to know if anyone thinks the 4900 has any other positive differences besides the slightly higher color range, larger 200ml tanks, and possible build quality?  Is it worth buying or is it too close to the 3880?

Thank You,
George S.

[Mark D Segal]

You may wish to look at the review of the 4900 I authored for this website.http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/the_epson_4900_printer_hands_on_and_down_to_work.shtml. My comparator there was the 3800, and the 3880 is marginally better than the 3800. Apart from what I said there, over time my experience has been that the printer should be used regularly to minimize the risk of clogs, but when they happen for the most part dealing with them is pretty easy. One of the main advantages of the 4900 is the ability to load roll paper and make panos with it. No question the print quality can be to a very high standard - depending of course on how you prepare your files for printing. 

[BarbaraArmstrong]

I have both the 3880 and 4900.  It's relatively easy to find a space for the 3880, on top of a small shallow cabinet or on a small end table.  The 4900, however, dominates a space.  Do not underestimate the size and weight difference from the 3880.  Even pics I saw on this site of the 4900 on tabletops in working spaces did not prepare me for how large it looks in a room.  The build quality, from outward appearances, is much better than the 3880, which strikes me like my old 2200's, just bigger.  An additional point, and I'd be very interested to hear if I'm wrong about this:  I can stack several pieces of nice printing paper (approx. 300gsm - Canson Platine or GFS or similar) in the back vertical stacking feed of my 3880, and the printer only occasionally messes up (feeds two at a time, say).  This I understand I cannot do on the 4900, which can handle only one cut sheet at a time on the back manual feed (and the front tray feed will only handle lighter paper).  I like the positive feel of the paper feed on the 4900.  The printer is a beast sizewise, but I like it very much, and bought it to have the ability to do panoramas.  The 3880 couldn't handle the curl on the long cut sheet I attempted to feed into it.  The 4900 has more print settings to manage on the printer itself than the 3880, especially whether you're printing from roll or sheet.  This is a little bit all over the map, but may give you a couple more points to think about.

[Philip Weber]

While perusing The Online Photographer, I saw the Epson 4900 was on sale at B&H for $2,495 until August 31. However, when one puts it in the shopping cart, the price comes down to $1,145 US.

I just purchased a 3880 (which I love) about four months ago for $950 and have to say I felt a little sick to my stomach when I saw the above price. I considered the 4900 but couldn't justify the 3k price but if I were doing it again, I'd grab the 4900 for only 200 dollars more than I spent...even though it's more printer then I need...at that price I could deal with it!

Based on that price, anyone seriously considering buying the 4900 would probably have to pull the trigger, although I did read in the related comments that it ships with 80ml cartridges and not the standard 200ml but as I haven't inquired I do not know for sure.

I hope this helps...
Phil

[george100]

Have read your initial review as well as your update.  Also reviewed your comments on the clogging.  Really enjoyed reading your reviews and research.

My main reason for looking at the 4900 is to see if i can get even better color than my 3880 model which does a great job.   I do a lot of plant flower photography and am always looking at the color.  From the prints i did,  i see a slight improvement in the 4900 model.   I am basing this on only 4 test prints i made.  In your initial review you pointed out that for most colors the 4900 does not really make a difference.  Since you wrote this review a while back i was wondering if your use of the 4900 on a day to day basis had changed your thoughts.  Do you see much of a difference in everyday prints or is the printers main advantage only on colors on the edge.  Any and all thoughts you have on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

On the subject of the clogging i was wondering if many other people besides yourself have this problem with the 4900?  Any idea if all of the machines sold are doing this?  My 3880 clogs once in a while but this is easily fixed.  I tend to print several times a month.  I may not print for a week or more. Will this make resolving the clogging  issue  a big problem? 

Thank you  for your input on this. 

[Mark D Segal]

George, the colour gamut on the 4900 is a bit wider and the ways in which the printer lays down the ink is the state-of-the-art for Epson. I can't really add anything on the print quality comparison other than what I've already said, because that is the limit of my experience. I think there is some difference, more or less visible perhaps depending on the colours in the photo, but it is not large, and this is to be expected given how mature this technology has become - largely thanks to the work Epson has put into it over the past decade. It seems to have reached a point of excellence where future improvements will be small - not quantum leaps as happened earlier on the last decade.

As for the clogging, I'm told my printer is unusual in this respect and this is under resolution with Epson. I can only report my own experience: if it is left unused for a few days, one or two channels may be clogged, and it takes a cleaning of one or two channel pairs to fix it. Not a big problem, but a nuisance. If it is left unused for weeks at a time, the clogging rehab is a more time and ink consuming issue. I wouldn't say however that you should be guided by this experience alone, because as I say, according to Epson it is unusual and not expected.

[Gemmtech]

Now, if we can just get back all the benefits of dye inks, things like glossy prints, black-blacks, no gloss differential, etc.  Even the pigment samples Epson sends out have GD and the glossy prints are awful compared to dye inks.  I have the 3880 and am relatively happy with it, but there are still some photos I print using my 1280!  Imagine, the 1280 accepts roll paper and prints a better glossy photo, with blacker blacks than the pigment printers

[K.C.]

Imagine, the 1280 accepts roll paper and prints a better glossy photo, with blacker blacks than the pigment printers

You could go to costco for your printing too. 

Pigment based printing is about a lot of things, you may have missed the point.

[deanwork]

No gloss differential on the Canon 8300. With the best gloss fiber papers no bronzing either. The gamut is great, no need for fugitive dyes. That is over.

[Gemmtech]

Pigment based printing is about a lot of things, you may have missed the point.
   

What point is it that I missed?   I like to do my own printing, so Costco isn't an option for me.  Plus I would hate to pay for a 13x19 and I can't
select my own paper.  I use the 3880 for just about everything else, just not glossy prints or if I want a very black-black.

No gloss differential on the Canon 8300. With the best gloss fiber papers no bronzing either. The gamut is great, no need for fugitive dyes. That is over.

Now this interests me! I have several samples from Canon, even on the gloss paper there is no GD or it's so minimal you have to contort the image 1000 ways and look very closely to see an ever so slight GD and I mean slight.  It's truly the best pigment gloss I have ever seen, still not up to dye standards, but not bad.  I thought they just sent "ringers" so your comments are welcome.
   

[Mark D Segal]

Now, if we can just get back all the benefits of dye inks, things like glossy prints, black-blacks, no gloss differential, etc.  Even the pigment samples Epson sends out have GD and the glossy prints are awful compared to dye inks.  I have the 3880 and am relatively happy with it, but there are still some photos I print using my 1280!  Imagine, the 1280 accepts roll paper and prints a better glossy photo, with blacker blacks than the pigment printers

10 years ago. No longer. That argument is long over. And check the longevity data of prints from a 1280.

[Gemmtech]

10 years ago. No longer. That argument is long over. And check the longevity data of prints from a 1280.

What argument is long over?  I wont try to extrapolate any meaning, maybe you can explain yourself?   I'll agree if your concern is print longevity then the pigment inks are the way to go, though clear coating a dye print works great.  The fact is and it's a fact, dye inks still make a nicer gloss print, have blacker blacks and have no GD.  If you want to argue any of those points, I'd have to respectfully disagree!  I'd have to check, but I believe the Epson 1280 (the cat's meow of the time) was released in 2001, so your theory that the argument is over 10 years old is ridiculous.  Obviously the 1270 preceded the 1280 by a year or so.  The Epson 2000 and 2200 certainly are decent pigment printers and I believe the 2200 came out around 2003, they couldn't compare to dye for glossy media.  I do agree progress is being made, but ALL Epson pigment printers still have some GD, they aren't nearly as good on glossy media  and their blacks aren't as black as the dye printers.  Now, which argument is long over?  I won't argue color gamut.

[Mark D Segal]

No , not a "fact", a perception, when you use words like "nicer prints". Unless you can quantify the term and make objective measurements, the term has no operational significance. It's all in the mind of the beholder, so you're right. in a formal sense the argument isn't over. It's just been over in the minds' eyes of seasoned pros with whom I've ever discussed this, as well as my own observations on the quality of Epson prints from one printer generation to the next since 2000. I'm not going to argue about whether the black from a 1280 is deeper than the black from a 4900 on the same paper because I haven't measured them with a spectrophotometer - have you? To say the latest generations of Epson printers "aren't as good" as a 1280 on glossy media doesn't correspond with my observations over the years, but again that's your subjective opinion versus mine. So be it. 

[Gemmtech]

Mark,

Instead of being pugnacious, try this, using any glossy media you prefer (I like Pictorico HGWF) make the identical print from any pigment printer you so desire, then make one using an Epson 1280/1290 or Canon I9900, just tell me what you see?  I don't need any measuring device to tell me that 100% of all people see GD on the pigment prints and that the dye prints are a lot glossier.  Are you claiming that the Epson pigment printers have zero gloss differential?  You want me to quantify my observations of what makes a nicer print (I thought I did).  On glossy and semi-gloss media, there is absolutely zero gloss differential using dye inks, there is a higher gloss using the dye inks, the colors are "punchier"!  Make a print that has a lot of deep blacks using both a pigment and one of the aforementioned dye printers, again, even Stevie Wonder can see the difference. 

I looked back at Michael's review of the Epson 2200 from 2002 (9 years ago), he was using matte paper then, however he states, and I quote:

"Oh yes — one more thought. My preference is for matte printing papers, and the 2200 is outstanding with these. But frankly, with glossy papers the 2200 isn't quite as good and one should look at sample prints before making a purchase decision if high gloss papers are your preference."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml

Mark, even though I have a degree in mathematics from a pretty decent university, I know 1+1=2 and I don't need a calculator to confirm it.  Most people need a calculator to confirm 125 x 125 = 15,625, fortunately I don't.  Maybe you DO need measuring devices to see a blacker black or gloss differential, I DON'T.  A wave crashing against the rocks, a bright sun at sunrise/sunset, white clouds, wedding photography (think white dress) all have GD in the final prints on glossy or luster papers.  I'll agree certain papers are less prone to GD, however I'm strictly discussing glossy media.  Dye inks make a nicer print.  Don't believe me?  Make them yourself and you'll come to the same conclusion!  As I have stated, even Epson's own sample prints have GD on both glossy and luster paper.  Why would Epson ship out prints with GD if their printers didn't have that issue anymore, seems idiotic to me!  Maybe the people making the prints didn't see it, yeah that's it, they forgot to measure it first. :-)   Now, if you wish to discuss the particular hue of a red or green or blue, sure a measuring device will help, because all people see colors somewhat differently.  Gloss, GD and Black seem to be a lot easier to distinguish, at least for me and a lot of "seasoned" professionals I have spoken to over the years! 

I've made dozens of prints with an Epson 1280/3880 and Canon I9900 and it's just so easy to see the differences that I am discussing here.  Skin tones, no competition, pigment inks.  I'm strictly speaking of Glossy media.  I wonder why HP would use a GLOP and Epson did on one of their consumer printers?  The reason should be obvious to anybody especially a seasoned professional, don't you think?  With a dye printer I don't have to tinker with my highlights, they just print with full coverage!  Try it, maybe you have forgotten because you haven't used a dye printer in a number of years?  I'm a firm believer in perception and when it's at 100% I start believing it's true unless we are watching a prestidigitator!! :-)



 

[Mark D Segal]

There's been huge evolution of printer technology especially in pigment printing since the days of the Epson 2200; you won't find Michael Reichmann, or indeed most professional fine art photographers, printing with an Epson 1280 today. The perception of gloss differential depends on the angle of view and the paper you use. Look at a print head-on from an Epson 4900 printed on papers such as Ilford Gold Fibre Silk or Canson Baryta and you won't see it. Gamut, colour saturation and accuracy of colour rendition have never been better. But each to his own.

[Gemmtech]

Mark,

Maybe I can help clarify, I'm NOT a fine art photographer and I'm sure you are 100% correct in stating Michael Reichmann and the other pundits no longer use an Epson 1280, 2200 or Canon I9900 etc., nor have I ever suggested that.  If you are selling prints that cost a small sum, I'd say sell them a pigment print from the latest and greatest.  My point was and is that Epson (and the other companies) seem to take 2 steps forward and one step back and I'm NOT talking strictly about print quality.  For instance, the Epson 1280 can do borderless sheets, it can handle roll paper as well, today all these years later, the Epson 3880 can't take roll paper and the 4900 can't do borderless sheets, why?   There is no doubt pigment printers still suffer from GD and the glossy prints aren't as glossy as those from a dye printer and the blacks are not as black, if you need to measure to what degree, go for it. 

Nobody will argue with you that there have been great strides made by Epson and the others and you make valid though unnecessary points (I'm  not disputing them) that

Gamut, colour saturation and accuracy of colour rendition have never been better.

  I'm not arguing these points.  What I have been saying is that there are CERTAIN images that I prefer using a dye printer (Epson or Canon) and that's all I stated.  For the most part I use my 3880. 

The perception of gloss differential depends on the angle of view and the paper you use. Look at a print head-on from an Epson 4900 printed on papers such as Ilford Gold Fibre Silk or Canson Baryta and you won't see it.

I'm not sure I like your sentence structure here or the use of the word perception, but I'll let it go.  The FACT is the GD is there, if you want to say GD will be less of an issue depending on image, paper and vantage point where one is viewing the print from,  I'll gladly agree!   If you want to state one can get rid of the GD completely by coating the print or laminating it to "glass" I'm in.  If you want to state that 99% of the time a pigment print is "better", I won't even argue with that statement.  There are certain images / papers that I believe look better using a dye printer.  And, I'm surprised with all the innovation and evolution of inkjet printing they can't give you all the features from a printer made 10 years ago.  There are people who would love to use sheet paper with a 7900 (loading more than 1 at a time) or roll paper with the 3880.

I believe in time pigment inks will evolve to the point whereas GD is eliminated completely, glossy prints will equal the "dye" look and the blacks will be blacker, printers will be able to do borderless and able to handle sheets and roll paper. 

Once again, my original statement

Now, if we can just get back all the benefits of dye inks, things like glossy prints, black-blacks, no gloss differential, etc.  Even the pigment samples Epson sends out have GD and the glossy prints are awful compared to dye inks.  I have the 3880 and am relatively happy with it, but there are still some photos I print using my 1280!  Imagine, the 1280 accepts roll paper and prints a better glossy photo, with blacker blacks than the pigment printers

There are some benefits to dye inks, even today.  And, there are some features on an Epson 1280 that are lacking on a 3880 and or 4900.  Please don't tell me how slow the Epson 1280 prints    Though the Canon I9900 is still a speedy printer, actually faster than most made today.

[K.C.]

... that's your subjective opinion versus mine. So be it. 

That about sums it up.

[Czornyj]

Now this interests me! I have several samples from Canon, even on the gloss paper there is no GD or it's so minimal you have to contort the image 1000 ways and look very closely to see an ever so slight GD and I mean slight.  It's truly the best pigment gloss I have ever seen, still not up to dye standards, but not bad.  I thought they just sent "ringers" so your comments are welcome.

There's a pretty clever technology behind the minimized gloss differential, so taking a closer look at x300 series iPF might actually be a good idea.

[Gemmtech]

... that's your subjective opinion versus mine. So be it.

That about sums it up.

Isn't an opinion always subjective?  "I like John, he's a nice guy" that's an opinion.  Granted, you can have 4 different medical opinions from MDs, which then might fall under the category "Ignorance is bliss" 3/4 MDs misdiagnose.  Anyhow, The Epson 1280 can handle sheets and roll paper and do borderless, whereas the Epson 3880 or 4900 can do either one or the other is a fact.   Prints from dye printers don't have gloss differential, however some prints from pigment printers do have GD, again is a fact.  Colors could be subjective (opinion), though I have yet to have anybody tell me anything other than "The black in that print is blacker" relating to the dye prints.    That print looks nicer than that print, that's an opinion, however there just might be components of it that are fact.  It's possible and likely that one would view a print from the 3880 as being much nicer than a print from the 1280 yet still recognize the 3880 print has some GD. I'm NOT saying the Epson 1280 or one of the other ilk always produce nicer prints or are on the same level as the latest and greatest pigment printers, there's just certain prints when a dye print looks better (that's my opinion) because of some of the obvious facts!  Get it?  

There's a pretty clever technology behind the minimized gloss differential, so taking a closer look at x300 series iPF might actually be a good idea.

Would you care to elaborate?  I'm very interested.

[Czornyj]

Would you care to elaborate?  I'm very interested.

They choose pigment particle diameters and control the ink placement in order to get smoother and more homegenic surface. As a result the glossiness is more even, black is deeper and more neutral.