Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Josef Isayo on July 09, 2011, 11:16:43 am
-
I'm looking to buy a high quality 13x19 photo printer for limited use. My plan is using the printer mostly for portfolio color and B&W prints and have no need for super large prints.
I've had numerous Epson printers in the past (going back to the late 90's) all the way up to the 24" Epson 7800 a few years back.
Would I be better off going with the larger 17" printers or are the new generation 13x19 printers as good as quality as the 17"s which cost 2 to 3 times the price?
Thanks!
-
Same quality, just make sure you get the 13x19" printers that have pigment inks, not dye ink. The Canon Pixma Pro9500 Mark II is a fine choice and has a $300 MIR via B&H right now so the total price is $419. Smokin' deal.
Neil
-
Would I be better off going with the larger 17" printers or are the new generation 13x19 printers as good as quality as the 17"s which cost 2 to 3 times the price?
The quality is the same. The price, however, may not be:
Epson R2880, 13 inch printer, $550 at B&H. Includes one set of ink carts, valued at about $100 (8 ~11ml(?) carts at $13 each.)
Epson Pro 3800, 17 inch printer, $1150 at B&H. Includes one set of inks, valued at $540 (nine 80ml carts at $60 each, though I have purchased them for $50 or so.)
So most of the extra cost is in the ink set that comes with the 3880, and replacement ink is less expensive in the larger capacity carts.
I've been using the 3800 for several years, for portfolio prints, personal work, cards, handouts, and finished client products. I don't print very often, but the printer is always ready. While I don't often print larger than 11x17, being able to make a nice 16x20 is great, and makes me want a 24 inch printer...
-
A lot depends on how much you print. Epson rates their inks as being good for 2 years from the date of manufacture, or 6 months after they are opened. Many people report that the inks are good for significantly longer.
As a general rule, the larger the ink cart, the lower the price per ml. If your print a lot, the cost of ink is a major factor. If you print very little, the cost of the hardware is significant. If you don't print very much, you need to worry that a large ink cart might go bad long before it's used up.
If you print one or two 8x10s a week, then the 3880 may not be a good choice, as the inks will go bad long before you use them up. In this case I would recommend one of the new smaller printers.
If you print hundreds of 11 x 14's a week, you might want a printer with even cheaper ink (like the 4900). If your volume is high enough, you will save money by getting a 24" 7900, even if you never print larger than 8x10.
If your volume is somewhere in between, the Epson 3880 is an excellent choice. For many it is exactly the right balance of price, performance, and consumable cost.
-
If you print one or two 8x10s a week, then the 3880 may not be a good choice, as the inks will go bad long before you use them up.
Has anyone reported Epson 38xx carts going bad? I haven't seen that, and I've had ink carts open in my printer for long past the 6 month expiry. A couple of years for one or two of the carts.
-
Has anyone reported Epson 38xx carts going bad? I haven't seen that, and I've had ink carts open in my printer for long past the 6 month expiry. A couple of years for one or two of the carts.
Not me and I had one of the cyan cartridges (can't remember which one) in my 3880 for 13 months before it reached the empty mark. I think Epson is very conservative on the expiry dating.
-
The newer 13x19 printers are more cost efficient and environmentally friendly. I just got an Epson Stylus Photo 1400 Ink Jet Printer and would have to say I would go with the newer printer because the photo's are just as good as the 17" if not better. It takes the Epson No. 79 cartridges.The re-manufactured cartridges go for about $58 for all six or the original manufactured cartridges range at about $20 each for all 6 depending on how you buy ink. It works great for everything and I got the printer for about $200. I've heard that this year rather than selling cheap printers and expensive ink, manufacturers are now starting to market printers specifically with efficiency and low ink costs as a primary selling point.
-
Josef, this has been an oft asked question on many forum sites: 13 or 17 in. Epson's. As indicated, you are no stranger to Epson's, large or small. I purchased the 3880 17 in model--it was a no brainer. The $$$ value of the increased ink, as indicated, narrows the cost difference vastly and you have a 17 in printer. You can always print a 13x19 on a 17 in printer and when needed (which will happen) you can do a 16x20 or 17x25 or the max 17x37.4 on the 3880.
My Canon Pro 9000 MKII, a 13 in printer is just about the same size as my 3880, 17 in model (and ditto for the Epson R2000, R3000). Don't overlook the higher resale value of the 3880 if you plan to go back to the big Epsons.
I also use refillable carts for my printers with quality inks from several reliable vendors; Jon Cone's products for B&W and Color for fine art portfolios as an example.
The new generations of Epsons have targeted the 'clog' problem with 'teflonized' heads and appear to be succeeding. Secondly the 3880 is considered a 'semipro' printer and built more robusty than the 13's.
For more info search the dpreview (Printers & Printing) and Inkjet Forum sites; fine supplements to this excellent site.
Go 3880--irv weiner
-
Sorry for re-opening an old thread, but I'm wondering what real advantages the R3000 offers over the R2000. I won't be printing high volume, so larger ink cartridges are probably not a major advantage for me. I see they use two different versions of the pigment inks, but haven't been followin Epson lately so I'm not sure if there's really a significant difference between them. I typically don't print a lot of B&W, but I can see myself getting back into that again, so is if the 3000 is significantly better in that respect it may be worth the extra cost.
edit: One specific concern of mine: I like the look of semi-gloss and satin finish papers, which would seem to point toward the 2000. But I'm wondering if the gloss optimizer effectively turns everything into glossy paper, rather than semi-gloss or satin.
Many thanks.
-
I typically don't print a lot of B&W, but I can see myself getting back into that again, so is if the 3000 is significantly better in that respect it may be worth the extra cost.
I'll spek about my R1800, which uses a similar inkset to that of the R2000 (no grey inks, both blacks operational, gloss optimizer).
B&W neutrality is a bit of a struggle, with a marked metameric problem : prints are magenta under artificial lighting and green under daylight (or, wait, is it the contrary? Anyway it's not that pretty).
One specific concern of mine: I like the look of semi-gloss and satin finish papers, which would seem to point toward the 2000. But I'm wondering if the gloss optimizer effectively turns everything into glossy paper, rather than semi-gloss or satin.
No, GLOP just much reduces any gloss differential, but keeps original paper texture almost unchanged.
-
Thanks Nicolas. Decisions, decisions.