Topic: Any ideas for a high-quality, pigment ink printer that's not wide-format? (Read 3544 times)

jotyler · « **on:** February 12, 2012, 10:36:32 am »

Hi - I'm a digital artist looking for a high-quality photo printer that uses pigment inks, and preferably one that has a manual feed option for thicker media. But the catch is, I don't want a wide-format printer (no room!). A printer that can handle standard 8.5x11 would work best for me. And archival quality is very important.

My budget is up to $600. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thank you so much!

MikeWhitten · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2012, 10:59:43 am »

I don't know where your definition of wide format starts. I've just upgraded from a Canon 9500 Mk II to an Epson 4900. So the Canon isn't looking particularly large any longer.

I had the 9500 sitting on my desk next to my CPU & monitor. It nicely handles 5x7 up to 13x19, prints pigment. My upgrade had nothing to do with the quality of the output, only to handle roll paper and larger sizes. I was and am quite happy with the results produced by the 9500. It certainly fits easily under your starting budget with current rebates and may be even less expensive on Craigslist.

Per-print ink costs are higher than machines with larger cartridges but are bearable.

HTH,
Mike

jotyler · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2012, 11:25:22 am »

Thanks Mike. Both of those printers would definitely qualify as wide-format in my book!

Outstanding printers to be sure, but I'm trying to find something smaller. Just for 8.5 x 11 or so. It seems that Epson used to make the perfect printer for me - the R800, but it's been discontinued long ago and has been replaced by the wide-format R1900.
Thanks for the suggestions, though -- and enjoy that snazzy new 4900!

MikeWhitten · « **Reply #3 on:** February 12, 2012, 12:12:45 pm »

Best of luck in your search! I'm guessing the used market is your best bet.

BarbaraArmstrong · « **Reply #4 on:** February 12, 2012, 01:42:50 pm »

You should strongly consider the Epson R3000. Granted, it handles paper up to 13 x 19. But I bet, if you really look at whatever room you want to put this thing in, you can probably find the space for it. An end table works fine. So does a spot on the floor, if that's what it takes. B&H has it for $800 with a mail-in rebate for $200. This kind of price made me think they must be readying a new model. It uses the Ultrachrome with vivid magenta inkset. This is the same (pigmented, archival) inkset used in the much larger pro level 4900 model, and only bested by the 7900 and 9900 (designed for spot proofing in the upper-end market). Just find the space for this printer, and I bet you'll end up appreciating the ability to go with a larger sheet for some projects. This should be a much better answer than anything in the second-hand market. I don't have one myself (I use a 3880 and 4900, both with the same inkset as the R3000), but have just suggested the R3000 to my daughter. Oh, and it has a nice small ink droplet for good detail rendition (2mm vs. the 4mm on the larger pro models). Take a good look to find the space. --Barbara

jotyler · « **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2012, 03:39:51 pm »

Thanks for all the great info, Barbara! I had been strongly considering the Epson R2800 or 2000 (less expensive than the 3000), but am still hoping to find a smaller option.

Wills · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2012, 03:58:15 pm »

The old Epson R800 is pigment good for 8x10, there will be a newer model not sure with the numbering Epson use.

BarbaraArmstrong · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2012, 06:46:00 pm »

Just an addendum: As to droplet size on the R3000, I should have said picoliter instead of mm. Also, if you are considering the 2800 on the basis of price, take a look at the ink cartridge sizes and price. I seem to remember the 3000 having significantly larger ink cartridges, which should translate into better prices per mm and savings. I was replacing cartridges on my old 2200 pretty often, and those prices mounted up (and then there was the need to have cartridges on hand when you needed them, which crops up much less often with larger cartridges). I'm beginning to sound like an ad, but these smaller Epsons have been pretty much trouble-free in my experience and a joy to use. Wish that were true of the larger models. --Barbara

jotyler · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2012, 11:03:34 am »

Yes, the difference in the ink cartridge size is a good point. Thanks for letting me know about that. :-)

Richowens · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2012, 11:37:39 am »

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&sku=C11C617121

Only three colors but it has been around forever and is almost bullettproof.

Rich

jotyler · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2012, 12:19:56 pm »

Thanks Rich! Looks like that's a great option. Should I worry about the machine being inexpensive? or is it only the ink type that matters (in terms of durability/longevity)?

Wills · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2012, 12:46:27 pm »

You don't mention what sort of volume you intend printing, the consumer grade printers wont last long and are expensive to run.

jotyler · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2012, 12:50:48 pm »

Not heavy volume - under 20 prints a day, I'd guess. I'm also concerned about banding -- don't know if that's something that occurs on all non-professional printers?

BarbaraArmstrong · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2012, 01:20:25 pm »

If you keep in mind your objectives, a high-quality printer that preferably can handle thicker media, you won't be interested in the suggested 3-color printer. That printer can handle sheets only up to .27mm in thickness. Just for example, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308gsm, a truly classic matte fine art paper, is .48mm thick. Similarly, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl, a nice photo-black paper, is also .48mm thick. Many other fine art papers will have thicknesses exceeding the specs for that 3-color printer. Also, as to quality of the output, there is a reason the upper-end printers added more colors -- gamut, transitions, etc. If your budget can take a $600 wallop, I'd go for the better printer and enjoy it for years to come. --Barbara

Wills · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2012, 01:37:34 pm »

Excellent point Barbara, obtaining profiles that match your printer/media is another thing to consider unless you intend going with custom profiles.

BarbaraArmstrong · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2012, 02:22:07 pm »

Wills, your post did bring my attention to profiles. Of course, for my printers and the papers I have in stock, the profiles are already ensconced on my computer. But having recommended the R3000 to my daughter, and having also recommended the Canson Platine for nice printing, especially gifts to friends, I was pleased to see on cansoninfinity.com that they already include profiles for the R3000 (isn't it somewhat new?). Anyway, nice to see them there. --Barbara

jotyler · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:06:37 pm »

True again, Barbara. Boy, you are one good salesperson! So okay, you have me leaning towards the R3000. The one other I was looking at was the Canon Pixma Pro 9500 Mark ii. Would you choose the epson over the canon? I plan to be using the straight feed path for heavier stock, so is one better than the other in that regard? I notice that the R3000 claims "front in/front out" loading. Does that make a difference in terms of ease of use, do you think? Thanks again for all your help. :-)

dgberg · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:45:02 pm »

"I will not be doing high volumn maybe only 20 prints a day"
I have a print studio and that certainly is pushing high volumn.
Heck on my small 3800 I do not do that many a month.
If you do that many prints the ink costs are going to kill you.
Forget the printer price and look at the cost per ml of ink.
My 9900 costs me .32 per ml.
My 3800 is about double that .65.
The printers you are looking at will probably come in at $1.00 per ml. Or more.

Bill Atkinson did a comprehensive ink test with the R3000.
8x10 ink cost .78@
13x19 $2.42@
B&H has the 9 ink cart set(25.9ml@) for $275.00

jotyler · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:59:55 pm »

Yikes!
Well, when I said 20 prints that's probably too high. I was thinking about printing proofs and sketches/ideas. I might only print 1- 3 high quality prints on art paper per week. I hope that would keep the ink costs from killing me!

dgberg · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2012, 06:02:16 pm »

That's more like it. That would have been about $5000 for ink your first year.
You would have worn that little puppy out.

Author Topic: Any ideas for a high-quality, pigment ink printer that's not wide-format? (Read 3544 times)