Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: jacunivac on October 20, 2007, 12:19:15 pm
-
I have an HP Z3100 and an Epson R300. I'm spoiled by the relatively inexpensive ink costs on the HP but the little Epson, which makes nice prints, is driving me to the poor house. I don't like to opt for using the HP for something like a 5 X 7 or 8 X 10 print and deal with the paper waste and the cutting entailed. Anyone have a suggestion for a small format printer that does not have ink cartridges the size of a thimble or refillable cartridges that don't print like refillables?
Thanks,
Jac
-
My approach right now is to just go ahead and use the Z for the smaller prints. QImage's tiling isn't optimal but it does keep paper trimming down even with lots of dissimilar print sizes. I take the roll output at 2x4 or 5 feet and run it through the mat trimmer. I'm getting pretty good at leaving perfect quarter inch borders, or trimming off just a 1/16 for full bleed. It's somewhat tedious, but the printer takes long enough to print that I can have one set of prints cut up before another set comes out of the printer.
Not recommended for cards, though -- the roll curl is pretty much a deal killer.
I was just thinking about this a few days ago, though -- if there was a small format machine with the same quality output and supplies cost, I'd consider it.
FWIW, most of the greeting card and photobook output I've seen lately has been run off colour Xerox-type machines. The output is good enough gamut wise, but the halftoning is pretty ugly if you get close. Still, depending on your purposes, it's worth a cursory market inspection.
I'll be at the Toronto printing show in a couple weeks, checking all this stuff out, so the world may change by then.
Best luck.
-
Small printers kill you in ink costs. (Or are simply not archival.) So I don't think you can get there from here.
You might consider something like the b9180. But it is a 13x19 printer (physically big enough to be a 17" printer) and isn't going to come close cost wise to what you're used to. A epson 3800 might be a good option. Of course it is still a small bundle to get in the door.
I suppose if the quality is good enough and you don't mind 3rd party inks you could buy an epson 1280 and a CIS. I'm not sure that would simplify things for you.
-
As I think about this some more, didn't kodak announce some low cost pigment ink printers a while ago? With some kind of "the ink for these will be cheap!" promise?
Looks like they've got some kind of cheap ink thing listed on the kodak comsumer products web page. Perhaps you want to peruse that page.
-
I have an HP Z3100 and an Epson R300. I'm spoiled by the relatively inexpensive ink costs on the HP but the little Epson, which makes nice prints, is driving me to the poor house. I don't like to opt for using the HP for something like a 5 X 7 or 8 X 10 print and deal with the paper waste and the cutting entailed. Anyone have a suggestion for a small format printer that does not have ink cartridges the size of a thimble or refillable cartridges that don't print like refillables?
Thanks,
Jac
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=147414\")
Six months ago I collected the Euro prices per ML excl. VAT.
It may have shifted meanwhile but I think that the economy of a printer is more important, the manufacturers keep their ink prices in the same category quite close to one another.
0,91 Euro per ml Epson 1400 etc (Claria) 7,4 ml = 6,47 Euro
0,73 Euro per ml HP 9180 28 ml = 20,55 Euro
0.73 Euro per ml Epson 2400 13 ml = 9,44 Euro
0,45 Euro per ml Epson 3800 80 ml = 36,30 Euro
0,45 Euro per ml Canon iPF5000 130 ml = 58,80 Euro
0,41 Euro per ml Canon iPF9000 330 ml = 135,57 Euro
0,37 Euro per ml HP Z3100 130 ml = 47,47 Euro
0,33 Euro per ml Epson 9800 110 ml = 36,38 Euro
0,32 Euro per ml Canon iPF9000 700 ml = 226,29 Euro
0,29 Euro per ml HP Z3100 twin pack 260 ml = 75,50 Euro
0,26 Euro per ml Epson 9800 220 ml = 58,09 Euro
Ernst Dinkla
try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
Six months ago I collected the Euro prices per ML excl. VAT.
It may have shifted meanwhile but I think that the economy of a printer is more important, the manufacturers keep their ink prices in the same category quite close to one another.
0,91 Euro per ml Epson 1400 etc (Claria) 7,4 ml = 6,47 Euro
0,73 Euro per ml HP 9180 28 ml = 20,55 Euro
0.73 Euro per ml Epson 2400 13 ml = 9,44 Euro
0,45 Euro per ml Epson 3800 80 ml = 36,30 Euro
0,45 Euro per ml Canon iPF5000 130 ml = 58,80 Euro
0,41 Euro per ml Canon iPF9000 330 ml = 135,57 Euro
0,37 Euro per ml HP Z3100 130 ml = 47,47 Euro
0,33 Euro per ml Epson 9800 110 ml = 36,38 Euro
0,32 Euro per ml Canon iPF9000 700 ml = 226,29 Euro
0,29 Euro per ml HP Z3100 twin pack 260 ml = 75,50 Euro
0,26 Euro per ml Epson 9800 220 ml = 58,09 Euro
Ernst Dinkla
try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147495\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not so sure every printer is using the same amount of ml per print. This will be even more the case if the printer is used less often (aka more "cleaning" cycles).
Alain
-
I'm not so sure every printer is using the same amount of ml per print. This will be even more the case if the printer is used less often (aka more "cleaning" cycles).
Alain
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=147659\")
The differences in ink laid down on paper are not that high. There are limits in the coatings to allow that and color + black saturation has to be equal at some point.
The differences appear in keeping the heads in condition and the HP models seem to be most economic ones on that aspect. Then there's the ink swap loss for gloss and matte like on the Epson 3800, reduced compared to the Epsons above it (but the 11880) but still taking a lot of ink. As the thread starter has a Z3100 I think he will like the B9180 as well, shares the same ink and heads (but not all), isn't expensive to buy and economic in ink use. Ink price is higher than the A2 models but there's a wider format available already with even cheaper inks.
Ernst Dinkla
try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
I'm installing an MIS CIS cart in the black slot of my Epson 4800 so I can test the CIS principle and try black only printing.
A US pint (473ml) of ink from MIS costs about $50, so if my math is correct that's about 0.07 EU per ml. That's about a seventh the cost of ink for a 3800 and a tenth the cost for an Epson 2400.
They're killing us.
-
They're killing us.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, that may be, but what do you know about the consistency of the product from batch to batch, its tested stability rating and the longer term impact on your printhead longevity and impact on the warranty?
-
I have an HP Z3100 and an Epson R300. I'm spoiled by the relatively inexpensive ink costs on the HP but the little Epson, which makes nice prints, is driving me to the poor house. I don't like to opt for using the HP for something like a 5 X 7 or 8 X 10 print and deal with the paper waste and the cutting entailed. Anyone have a suggestion for a small format printer that does not have ink cartridges the size of a thimble or refillable cartridges that don't print like refillables?
Thanks,
Jac
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I print 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 on my Z3100. I use Qimage and tell it to "mark corners". I then use my Bienfang de-roller to remove the curl and cut them in the Rotatrim. I wouldn't want to print hundreds of these sizes but it works nicely for limited numbers.
-
As I think about this some more, didn't kodak announce some low cost pigment ink printers a while ago? With some kind of "the ink for these will be cheap!" promise?
Looks like they've got some kind of cheap ink thing listed on the kodak comsumer products web page. Perhaps you want to peruse that page.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147492\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kodak introduced some consumer grade printers with a new head technology a year or so ago. The design of the heads is somewhat innovative, and reduced head wear significantly. Basically a consumer grade printer that functions similar to pro grade printers - the cartridges are only ink, not a new head with ink like other consumer grade printers.
Thus the "ink" costs are cheaper, really meaning the cartrigdge's are cheaper since they are only ink.
However, while they lower the cost of the prints, they still have very small ink capacity, so the costs will still be far above a z3100.
One possible printer may fit the bill here, but it's a little pricey and may be too large ... the Epson 3800. 80ml cartridges. I tired the r800, the the 2400. I finally landed on 3800 for this type of printing (instead of my 9800) and have been quite happy. For a 17" printer it's pretty small, and it's output is actually slightly better than the 9800. I was worried about ink clogs, but so far with 2 printers I haven't had a single clog.
-
I recall really being concerned with ink costs until I compared the cost of ink to the cost of media (paper/canvas.) It's pretty low.
That said I run an R1800 with MIS inks and an ipf8000 with 700ML tanks. I use the PrintFix Pro to make custom profiles and I don't give ink a second thought.
-
I retained the 9180 as it is in character like the Z printer, has big enough cartridges, covers better than Epson per image, and is small enough to keep a loaded tray ready for use at any time. In fact what I wanted was a tray like the 130nr or 90 has in the Z to avoid all these loading changes on roll printers. That is where Canon got it right with the 5000.
-
I recall really being concerned with ink costs until I compared the cost of ink to the cost of media (paper/canvas.) It's pretty low.
That said I run an R1800 with MIS inks and an ipf8000 with 700ML tanks. I use the PrintFix Pro to make custom profiles and I don't give ink a second thought.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your experience is particular and not a valid generalization. The cost relationship between ink, paper and amortization of the printer is affected by numerous variables which would differ between users, machines, ink type and media type. I have written extensively about this using data from my own Excel-based costing model developed for the Epson 4000 and the 4800 - you can find those articles in Luminous-Landscape essays.
Mark
-
Well, that may be, but what do you know about the consistency of the product from batch to batch, its tested stability rating and the longer term impact on your printhead longevity and impact on the warranty?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark, the printer is long out of warranty, the ink is reported very stable both in longevity and consistency by many other users and I have no idea what its effect might be on my print head other than the fact that no users report any damage on any of their printers.
Personally, I've used third party inks in several Epson printers for over seven years with zero problems other than a heavier wallet.
OEM inks are fine if you're passing on your print costs. If you're not, ink costs hurt big, especially with a large format printer like the 4800. Since ink prices are now a known quantity, I refuse to play the manufacturers' usurious games.
-
Mark, the printer is long out of warranty, the ink is reported very stable both in longevity and consistency by many other users and I have no idea what its effect might be on my print head other than the fact that no users report any damage on any of their printers.
Personally, I've used third party inks in several Epson printers for over seven years with zero problems other than a heavier wallet.
OEM inks are fine if you're passing on your print costs. If you're not, ink costs hurt big, especially with a large format printer like the 4800. Since ink prices are now a known quantity, I refuse to play the manufacturers' usurious games.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,
OK, I was reporting on the basis of advice I received from high-end professionals who are not employees of any printer manufacturer or ink provider. However, what works works and that is good news. What brand of MIs inks are you using in the 4800?
As for the contribution of ink to total cost per print, my data base collected on just about two full years of output now says, using Epson ink and Enhanced Matte paper, that printer amortization (2 year economic life) is about 31% of cost (you can read my articles on L-L to see how that is computed), paper 26%, ink for prints 29% plus ink for cleanings and clogs 13.6%. The messages here are that the less the machine needs to be cleaned and declogged the lower the proportion of ink in total average cost, and it is significant; the shares in average cost for ink and machine amortization would decline with the use of more expensive paper than Enhanced Matte (which is just about all other professional papers), and ink is not the preponderant cost item though it is at least as important as amortization and paper.
-
Thanks Mark, very useful information! Well appreciated.
Do you have a link to your essays? I will go look.
I ran a similar spreadsheet years ago when trying to decide between printers. Now it makes my head hurt to do all of that work again.
I havea 7600. I am thinking of buying a 7880 or a 9880. But I would still like cut sheet handling, so I will probably add a 3800 or 4880 to that?
Still 1/2+ year off, April 2008 at the earliest. I am "retired" for a while, about 1.5 years, so just doing general rather than specific planning right now. I kind of cycle in and out of the hardcore tech research, vs. just making images. Also have to buy a camera in the spring .... 1Ds3, MFDB, 5D replacement, etc. etc.
Best,
Michael
-
Epson 4000 cost (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/4000-cost.shtml)
4800 Cost (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/4800%20tracking.shtml)
IF I were deciding between a 4880 and a 3800 I would select the 3800 if you want inexpensive and convenient media switching on sheet paper. IF you plan to use only matte or only non-matte papers and need roll capability, it would be the 4880.
Mark
-
Epson 4000 cost (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/4000-cost.shtml)
4800 Cost (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/4800%20tracking.shtml)
IF I were deciding between a 4880 and a 3800 I would select the 3800 if you want inexpensive and convenient media switching on sheet paper. IF you plan to use only matte or only non-matte papers and need roll capability, it would be the 4880.
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark
This is the heart of the question I pose in the "Epson 3800 or 4880?" thread.
Notwithstanding, in August you recommend elsewhere in LL to wait for the next generation Epson printers as you view the current crop as an interim generation. I'm beginning to wonder how long it will be before a replacement for the 3800 will be announced (a 3880 or whatever). Epson is now offering a $150 CDN rebate if you purchase before Dec. 21/07 a new 3800 plus $50 worth of selected paper (from a wide list). This effectively drops the price at Vistek to $1149 CDN (given their current sale price). Is this usual for Epson on this type of printer? Are they trying to clear stock or have sales slowed? As the 3800 will, if I'm really honest with myself, suit my needs, this seems like too good a deal to pass up. That is unless a replacement is announced in the next few months. Could I wait a few months before buying? Again if I'm honest, yes. But there's that price.
Decisions, decisions.
David
-
Epson 4000 cost
4800 Cost
Thanks Mark, *very* nice analysis! Saved me a lot of headaches doing it myself too.
In the past I never switched media from photo black, but I may be doing more printing for others in the future. I will have to wait and see what I am up to physically when I come back from retirement.
Now we need to get you to do the same thing for DSLR's and, especially, MFDB's. Everyone looks at their out-of-pocket cost to upgrade to the latest model.
My 1DsII cost me about $1,500 per year for the first 2 years of use, when I sold it. With 34,000 clicks it came to about $.10 per click. I figured year 3 would be about $1,000 and year 4 about $800 based on 1Ds history.
I'd really like to see the true numbers on a MF back. I'll have to ask folks for real world analysis.
Best,
Michael
-
Mark
This is the heart of the question I pose in the "Epson 3800 or 4880?" thread.
Notwithstanding, in August you recommend elsewhere in LL to wait for the next generation Epson printers as you view the current crop as an interim generation. I'm beginning to wonder how long it will be before a replacement for the 3800 will be announced (a 3880 or whatever). Epson is now offering a $150 CDN rebate if you purchase before Dec. 21/07 a new 3800 plus $50 worth of selected paper (from a wide list). This effectively drops the price at Vistek to $1149 CDN (given their current sale price). Is this usual for Epson on this type of printer? Are they trying to clear stock or have sales slowed? As the 3800 will, if I'm really honest with myself, suit my needs, this seems like too good a deal to pass up. That is unless a replacement is announced in the next few months. Could I wait a few months before buying? Again if I'm honest, yes. But there's that price.
Decisions, decisions.
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I still believe the current crop excluding the new 10880 is interim, and that the new 10880 is the new standard of Epson technology with a yet more advanced print-head, wider gamut and switchable black within a nine channel structure (instead of eight), hence no or trivial waste of ink. I believe it is only a matter of time before this new technology is embedded in smaller-size machines. The real question is the timing. Therefore my suggestion to wait is useful for those people who can wait. For people who need to buy something now, that recommendation is not useful. They need to chose now between what is available now. No one machine has it all. So it is a matter of ranking one's priorities and selecting accordingly. I have no idea whether the 3800 is on the way to being up-graded, or whether the current sale has anything to do with that. Maybe there is an overstock they are trying to sell-off. Not being an Epson insider I don't know, and if I were I wouldn't be allowed to say. The Vistek deal looks like good value for money - at Photo Plus Expo in New York City last week Epson's "show special" price until 4 PM last Sunday evening when the show closed was 1099 USD. So there you have it.
Mark
Mark
-
My experience is very particular as you say, and I specified the printers and inks I am using that make it particular (but you are correct in saying that the media type used makes a difference.) If you are doing photo or fine art printing using the IPF8000 with 700ML ink tanks OR the R1800 with MIS inks using any of the media these printers have been designed to utilize, your ink costs will be a fraction of the paper costs - PERIOD. Indirectly I am recommending the MIS solution to the original posters question about how to cut costs on a small printer (or at least that was my intention if he reads between the lines.)
If I wanted to consolodate to one printer on the market today, I would use the Swiss army knife of printers - the IPF5100. This printer is good at just about everything and poor at nothing I can think of. That said he was asking about a small printer and the 5100 is not small.
I have done my own cost analysis on all forms of printing (fine art and photo) but my point above is that MIS inks are cost effective enough to make analysis a fairly moot point.
As a side point I have been able to more easily blow any clogs out of the R1800 with the MIS inks than I was with the Epson inks. The only problem I've run into is the yellow on the MIS inks being strong even after custom profiling.
Your experience is particular and not a valid generalization. The cost relationship between ink, paper and amortization of the printer is affected by numerous variables which would differ between users, machines, ink type and media type. I have written extensively about this using data from my own Excel-based costing model developed for the Epson 4000 and the 4800 - you can find those articles in Luminous-Landscape essays.
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I still believe the current crop excluding the new 10880 is interim, and that the new 10880 is the new standard of Epson technology with a yet more advanced print-head, wider gamut and switchable black within a nine channel structure (instead of eight), hence no or trivial waste of ink. I believe it is only a matter of time before this new technology is embedded in smaller-size machines. The real question is the timing. Therefore my suggestion to wait is useful for those people who can wait. For people who need to buy something now, that recommendation is not useful. They need to chose now between what is available now. No one machine has it all. So it is a matter of ranking one's priorities and selecting accordingly. I have no idea whether the 3800 is on the way to being up-graded, or whether the current sale has anything to do with that. Maybe there is an overstock they are trying to sell-off. Not being an Epson insider I don't know, and if I were I wouldn't be allowed to say. The Vistek deal looks like good value for money - at Photo Plus Expo in New York City last week Epson's "show special" price until 4 PM last Sunday evening when the show closed was 1099 USD. So there you have it.
Mark
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149099\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark, I appreciate your candor and agree the logical decision, assuming one has the time, is to wait. I realise also that if you did know, you would be bound by a non-disclosure contract. There comes a time when one has to get off the pot and make a decision. Through forums like this, one hopefully can make an informed decision.
Thank's for your input.
Regards,
David
-
I still believe the current crop excluding the new 10880 is interim, and that the new 10880 is the new standard of Epson technology with a yet more advanced print-head, wider gamut and switchable black within a nine channel structure (instead of eight), hence no or trivial waste of ink. I believe it is only a matter of time before this new technology is embedded in smaller-size machines. The real question is the timing. Therefore my suggestion to wait is useful for those people who can wait. For people who need to buy something now, that recommendation is not useful. They need to chose now between what is available now. No one machine has it all. So it is a matter of ranking one's priorities and selecting accordingly. I have no idea whether the 3800 is on the way to being up-graded, or whether the current sale has anything to do with that. Maybe there is an overstock they are trying to sell-off. Not being an Epson insider I don't know, and if I were I wouldn't be allowed to say. The Vistek deal looks like good value for money - at Photo Plus Expo in New York City last week Epson's "show special" price until 4 PM last Sunday evening when the show closed was 1099 USD. So there you have it.
Mark
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149099\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
While the current printers are "interim", the reason they were introduced at all may indicate Epson does not think this new technology can migrate very quickly. The 11880 print head is hand made, and supply is so limited that my dealer is only getting 2 of the 15 they ordered. I'm sure this is the future of Epson, and eventually we will see similar head technology in all of their printers. But the heads in the 4880, 7880, and 9880 are also redesigned and improved ... why spend the resources for that if you feel you could get the other technology to market in 4 or 5 months?
I think a 3880 may be in the cards much sooner than that ... it makes sense. But it may be awhile before the 11880 technology migrates down.
-
While the current printers are "interim", the reason they were introduced at all may indicate Epson does not think this new technology can migrate very quickly. The 11880 print head is hand made, and supply is so limited that my dealer is only getting 2 of the 15 they ordered. I'm sure this is the future of Epson, and eventually we will see similar head technology in all of their printers. But the heads in the 4880, 7880, and 9880 are also redesigned and improved ... why spend the resources for that if you feel you could get the other technology to market in 4 or 5 months?
I think a 3880 may be in the cards much sooner than that ... it makes sense. But it may be awhile before the 11880 technology migrates down.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wayne,
We don't know how long it will take for the 11880 design to migrate down to smaller sizes. I can't see hand-made printheads being the future of Epson. Perhaps they haven't finished crafting or testing normal manufacturing processes for this new head design, and perhaps there is uncertainty within Epson about when they will be ready to go to market with production volume on smaller printers that have a larger demand base. Faced with that there's nothing wrong or surprising about bringing their latest production-ready technology to market. But based on the history of new model release timing, it doesn't necessarily mean we are a very long time away from the subsequent model set. I think 4 to 5 months from one model to the next would be a real stretch even for this fast evolving industry, but within a window of 9 to 18 months from now would be credible.
-
While the current printers are "interim", the reason they were introduced at all may indicate Epson does not think this new technology can migrate very quickly. The 11880 print head is hand made, and supply is so limited that my dealer is only getting 2 of the 15 they ordered. I'm sure this is the future of Epson, and eventually we will see similar head technology in all of their printers. But the heads in the 4880, 7880, and 9880 are also redesigned and improved ... why spend the resources for that if you feel you could get the other technology to market in 4 or 5 months?
I think a 3880 may be in the cards much sooner than that ... it makes sense. But it may be awhile before the 11880 technology migrates down.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=149303\")
Everything in Epson's recent models suggests the same: their piëzo head nozzles are far more expensive than thermo head nozzles. While they can squirt variable droplet sizes the price is way higher than the price of the Canon or HP nozzles of this MEMS fabricated generation. The variable droplet sizes do not compensate the much higher nozzle numbers on the HP or Canon heads, there are no nozzles to replace ones that under perform, most printer configurations still have no satisfying gloss<>matte switch, the 11880 could have a gloss enhancer added if they had punctured the 10th channel in that head assembly, and we still have to see the speed of the 11880 compared to the Canon iPF9000 or the HP Z3100 or Z6100 at equal quality.
I doubt there will be a 3880 with 11880 head technology, the head costs compared to the price the printer should fetch is getting problematic. Not just on the purchase but also in service costs. I see something similar in the Canon iPF5000/5100 too, to replace two heads costs as much as 90% of the purchase price but in that case it may only be one head you have to replace. On the HP B9180 the replacement can be done much more gradually and the price is half of the Canon head price. It is simple, nozzle cost has to go down in competition with the other manufacturers. The days that costs like that could be compensated by ink costs + low ink economy in the printers is over too.
Ernst Dinkla
try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
The differences in ink laid down on paper are not that high. There are limits in the coatings to allow that and color + black saturation has to be equal at some point.
The differences appear in keeping the heads in condition and the HP models seem to be most economic ones on that aspect. Then there's the ink swap loss for gloss and matte like on the Epson 3800, reduced compared to the Epsons above it (but the 11880) but still taking a lot of ink. As the thread starter has a Z3100 I think he will like the B9180 as well, shares the same ink and heads (but not all), isn't expensive to buy and economic in ink use. Ink price is higher than the A2 models but there's a wider format available already with even cheaper inks.
Ernst Dinkla
try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=147770\")
It seems each printers *do* differ in how much ink is used to print significantly. Take a look at those three cost comparison from three printer manufacturers:
[a href=\"http://www.pictureline.com/images/pdf/48,%2078,%2098%20cost%20per%20square%20foot.pdf]http://www.pictureline.com/images/pdf/48,%...uare%20foot.pdf[/url]
http://www.colorhq.com/pdf/canon/ipf80009000costpersheet.pdf (http://www.colorhq.com/pdf/canon/ipf80009000costpersheet.pdf)
http://www.tastarsupply.com/files_reference/z3100_cost.pdf (http://www.tastarsupply.com/files_reference/z3100_cost.pdf)
They all use the standard 'N5' chart.
EPSON 9800
EPSON Semimatte Photo Paper (250) $0.65/square foot
Total cost $1.16/square foot - $0.65 (paper) = $0.51/square foot (ink only)
Per ml ink cost: $112 (street)/220ml=$0.51/ml
Approximately 1.0ml used per square foot
Canon IPF 8000
Canon Heavyweight Satin Paper $0.41/square foot
Total cost $0.573/square foot - $0.41 (paper) = $0.163/square foot (ink only)
Per ml ink cost: $280 (list)/700ml=$0.40/ml
EPSON use approximately 0.41ml used per square foot
HP Z3100
HP Premium ID Photo Satin Photo Paper $0.477/square foot
Total cost $0.867 = $0.39/square foot (ink, includes print head cost, about $0.02) + $0.477
Per ml ink cost: $70.55(list)/130ml=$0.543/ml ($0.57/ml including print head cost)
Approximately 0.69ml used per square foot
It's obvious Canon has an advantage in ink cost aspect for having 700ml tanks, but surprisingly Canon also uses a lot less ink than either EPSON (more than 1/2 less) or HP (about 1/3 less), printing on similar surface paper. Of course, with EPSON's ink tanks you can get much cheaper than their street pricing (I usually buy one at around $90/220ml cartridge), so the actual cost may be much lower than this, but this shows they all use different amount of ink printing the same image. (Unless Canon would print noticeably lower density than the other two...) These are all big-format printers, so I am not sure if this would translate to medium format photo printers...
Ralph