Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: pcg on July 31, 2010, 04:49:44 pm
-
Any recommendations for a current "best" printer in a 13-inch wide format would be appreciated. I'm an old Epson fan, but quite willing to shift elsewhere if driven by better quality. Oh, and I'd being using a Mac running 10.6+
Thanks in advance.
-
Any recommendations for a current "best" printer in a 13-inch wide format would be appreciated. I'm an old Epson fan, but quite willing to shift elsewhere if driven by better quality. Oh, and I'd being using a Mac running 10.6+
Thanks in advance.
Epson 3880; very rugged and gives great results. Reasonably priced as well. Don't get the 2880 as the ink cartridges are almost 1/7 in size and your ink costs will be quite high.
Alan
-
Epson 3880; very rugged and gives great results. Reasonably priced as well. Don't get the 2880 as the ink cartridges are almost 1/7 in size and your ink costs will be quite high.
Alan
I agree. I upgraded from a 2200 to the 3800, a little before the 3880 came out. The 3800 is a fantastic printer, much more solid and reliable than the 2200, and much more economical of ink. Plus, it will print up to 17" wide in sheets (no rolls). I haven't printed anything bigger than 13x19" yet, however. And the 3880 is better yet (in small ways).
Eric
-
Epson 3880; very rugged and gives great results. Reasonably priced as well. Don't get the 2880 as the ink cartridges are almost 1/7 in size and your ink costs will be quite high.
Do you have numbers to back up that claim? I did the math of Canon i9950 vs. 3800 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t40242.html), and the larger Epson cartridges are more expensive per printed square inch. Perhaps the results are different with Epson vs. Epson.
Please note the 17" models are significantly larger than the 13" printers. You're also looking at pigment inks with 17" models (not sure if there are any dye 17" photo printers), so you'll gain print longevity compared to deeper blacks of dye inks and possibly gamut. Dye inks used to have wider gamuts, but new pigment ink sets have improved gamut - nevertheless I haven't been able to find comparisons of modern dye vs. pigment gamuts to see if they are at par now.
There are also other considerations with dye vs. pigment with paper types, switching black inks for paper types, metamerism, gloss differential, etc.
I have Canon i9950 and am very happy with it. I had a custom profile prepared for it which made a huge difference in color accuracy. Deep blacks which I love, but which might not be important for you.
-
I hate to pile on with the 3800, but here goes...
When I got a printer a few years ago, I assumed I would get a 13 inch printer, because I couldn't see printing larger than 11x17 at most. After all, I rarely printed larger than 11x14 in the analog darkroom -- I think I made fewer than a dozen 16x20 inch prints in my life. But when I looked into printers, the larger 17-inch printer had much larger ink carts, and thus much lower ink costs. The price difference between the 3800 and the 2200 was about the cost of the full set of ink included with the larger printer.
So now what do I print? Mostly 8x10 and 11x17, of course. But every once in a while I go down in the basement and knock out a beautiful 16x24 inch print (on sheets of 17x25 inch paper from inkjetart.com), with no mess, no fuss, and no chemicals to dispose of. Sort of makes me want a 24 inch printer.... Oh, and I'm using Snow Leopard with no problems so far.
The first set of ink carts lasted a year or more, given that I don't print every day. New carts are expensive, yes, but the per-ml cost is so much lower than the tiny carts on the smaller printers, if you have any idea that you'll be printing more than a couple of 8x10's a month, it's probably worthwhile to consider the larger printer. (And it's really not that big -- it fits nicely on my large U-shaped desk. Once you get up to the 4800 printer, of course, that's getting pretty big.)
Good luck and happy printing.
-
But when I looked into printers, the larger 17-inch printer had much larger ink carts, and thus much lower ink costs. The price difference between the 3800 and the 2200 was about the cost of the full set of ink included with the larger printer.
Again, did you do the math? The link in my previous post shows that not only are the larger (Epson) pigment ink cartridges more expensive per mL, they also spend more ink per square inch - end results is that the smaller (Canon) dye ink cartridges have lower costs.
Pricing of inks might be different in the US, but I'd do the math before making such decisions based on popular myth.
-
Thanks for the various comments. Again, I'm seeking a "best" 13", not 17" printer. :-)
Anyone with experience with the Canon PIXMA Pro9000 Mark II?
-
Again, did you do the math? The link in my previous post shows that not only are the larger (Epson) pigment ink cartridges more expensive per mL, they also spend more ink per square inch - end results is that the smaller (Canon) dye ink cartridges have lower costs.
Pricing of inks might be different in the US, but I'd do the math before making such decisions based on popular myth.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the comparison was between 2 Epson printers.
The 2800 uses 11.4ml carts @ $13.29 per cart = $1.15 per ml.
3800 uses 80ml carts at $60.00 per cart =.62 per ml.
Those are the real numbers which means the 2880 ink cost twice as much per ml then the 3800 .
These numbers have nothing to do with how much ink the printers use,only what the cost per ml is to purchase.
-
Please note the 17" models are significantly larger than the 13" printers.
Not true for going from Epson 2200 to Epson 38x0. The 3800 and 3880 use only a couple of inches more desk space than my 2200 did.
As for ink costs, I did the math before I bought my 3800, and it has indeed proved substantially less expensive per print than the 2200.
Eric
-
I agree with Eric, I have a 3800 and am extremely happy with it. When I have a smaller print I debate whether to print on the 3800 or my 9900.
-
Once again, the OP was asking for 13" printers. I only have experience with the i9950 which has been replaced with newer dye printers which are supposedly even better.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the comparison was between 2 Epson printers.
The 2800 uses 11.4ml carts @ $13.29 per cart = $1.15 per ml.
3800 uses 80ml carts at $60.00 per cart =.62 per ml.
Those are the real numbers which means the 2880 ink cost twice as much per ml then the 3800 .
These numbers have nothing to do with how much ink the printers use,only what the cost per ml is to purchase.
And again, I was very clear I compared Canon vs. Epson, haven't compared Epson vs. Epson as I don't own an Epson so that comparison is irrelevant for me. I was inquiring if anyone has done the math, as it is par for the course here on LL to make big claims without any quantifiable data. Seems like today was the happy exception
The price differential seems to be different for Epson vs. Epson where you and Eric live. But the ink used per square inch probably brings them closer, although the larger printers are probably cheaper to run at such wide price differences.
-
The 13 inch 2880 would have been a pefectly decent choice IF Epson had not reduced the cartridge size from the 13ml of the 2400 down to 11ml. The carts on the 2400 were small enough, but 11ml just gets ridiculous if you do a lot of printing. For each reduction of cartridge size, you inevitably waste more ink, no matter what the actual price per ml. Because, when a cart runs out, you usually have to replace at least one other cart which has not yet run out but is very low - otherwise the purging routine after cart change will take the low cart to minimum, and you have to replace it immediately anyway. Resulting in yet another purge, and even more wasted ink. This is how Epson generate their bottom line and keep shareholders happy.
I have a 2400, but when it finally dies on me it will be the 3880 (or equivalent) which will replace it, just for the bigger carts.
John
-
My apologies to the op as I know you are asking about a 13" printer.
The reason your hearing so much about the Epson 3800/3880 is that many of us have been through this upgrade process over the years and we are trying to save you a step along the way. With all good intentions of course.
Before I purchased my 3800 5 years ago I had 3 smaller printers up to that time. The ink I used with those smaller printers was just staggering. With the 3800 my ink cost per ml dropped in half and more then made up for the additional cost of the printer. I think many here might agree that the 3880 just has more going for it to start with if you can afford the initial purchase. The 3800/3880 series printers from Epson just print and print. No clogs just turn them on and print. I now print for a living and use my 3800 almost as much as the larger printers. All of my 8 1/2 x 11 metallic prints from this printer are stunning. Epson and the rest of the printer manufacturers make some very good smaller printers. With their ink limitations I just find it hard to recommend one.
-
Do you have numbers to back up that claim? I did the math of Canon i9950 vs. 3800 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t40242.html), and the larger Epson cartridges are more expensive per printed square inch. Perhaps the results are different with Epson vs. Epson.
Please note the 17" models are significantly larger than the 13" printers. You're also looking at pigment inks with 17" models (not sure if there are any dye 17" photo printers), so you'll gain print longevity compared to deeper blacks of dye inks and possibly gamut. Dye inks used to have wider gamuts, but new pigment ink sets have improved gamut - nevertheless I haven't been able to find comparisons of modern dye vs. pigment gamuts to see if they are at par now.
There are also other considerations with dye vs. pigment with paper types, switching black inks for paper types, metamerism, gloss differential, etc.
I have Canon i9950 and am very happy with it. I had a custom profile prepared for it which made a huge difference in color accuracy. Deep blacks which I love, but which might not be important for you.
I think we are mixing apples and oranges here. The Canon is a dye-based printer, the Epson, pigment-based (as you note). We know that dye based inks generally are cheaper than pigment-based. I went back to the link you provided and while the methodology is sound it is not clear at all that OEM inks were used as it's noted that cartridges were refilled. An internet search showed that there are lots of non-OEM inks available for the Canon printer. Dye-based inks also do not give the same results as pigment. Colors might be more vibrant (depending on printer) but are less permanent. I don't think one can draw a direct correlation between these two printers and it's really up to the OP to decide whether he wants a dye or pigment based printer.
As others have noted, the Epson 3880 is a compact printer. I had a 2880 before and the 3880 is only about an inch or so wider and about four inches deeper. According to the specifications for the i9950, the 3880 is about 4 inches (10 cm) wider which is still not much.
-
I think we are mixing apples and oranges here. The Canon is a dye-based printer, the Epson, pigment-based (as you note). We know that dye based inks generally are cheaper than pigment-based. I went back to the link you provided and while the methodology is sound it is not clear at all that OEM inks were used as it's noted that cartridges were refilled. An internet search showed that there are lots of non-OEM inks available for the Canon printer. Dye-based inks also do not give the same results as pigment. Colors might be more vibrant (depending on printer) but are less permanent. I don't think one can draw a direct correlation between these two printers and it's really up to the OP to decide whether he wants a dye or pigment based printer.
Of course it's up to the OP to decide - and I gave a list of things to compare when deciding between dye and pigment. The differences are quite significant, so making the decision should be taken with proper research.
As for the price of prints, my calculations are based on genuine Canon and Epson ink prices, so whether the source used non-OEM inks or not is irrelevant (assuming they run at roughly the same ml per square inch as original inks).
I've been in the same boat as the OP, starting with a cheap "photo" printer and moving up to i9950 a few years back. I thought it would be nice to get the occasional larger print, and did quite a bit of research on pigment vs. dye. The factor which kept me from moving up to 17" pigment was that I didn't want to sacrifice vibrancy and especially deep blacks of dye-based printers. I print on glossy and for myself. If I need a larger print, matte print, or permanence I go to a print shop.
If the OP prints for galleries or customers, permanence becomes much more important, and in that case pigments win hands down.
-
I'm another who had the 2200, upgraded to the 3800, and recently upgraded again to the 3880. I virtually never print above 13", but it's still what I would get even though it does up to 17". One *big* advantage of the 3880 over the 2200 and its descendants is that I got sick & tired of constantly changing the little ink cartridges on the 2200. With the larger 3800/3880 cartridges, you're *far* less often interrupting a print to change a cartridge. One less major annoyance...
Lisa
-
If the OP prints for galleries or customers, permanence becomes much more important, and in that case pigments win hands down.
Permanence wins even if the OP doesn't print for galleries or customers. If I put a print on my wall I want it to last. If I give a print away I want it to last. If IRS agents are filtering through my house for things to auction I do not want them to find faded prints. If some random bastard finds a print of mine 150 years from now I want there to be a chance that there will be something there for them to look at.
And I bought the 2880. If you print much at all get the 3880. The 2880 is more expensive per ml but it is hardly crippling at the rate I print. (I would throw out a lot of HP cartridges because they expired. Not sure that is an issue with the epson.) I got the 2880 for something over $500 shipped after rebate (which just arrived yesterday). That price difference pays for a lot of ink.
As to the printer itself it is pretty painless. The biggest issue I've had is the need to remember to change the platen gap when I run something like sliver rag through it. I also found the straight paper feed to be finicky but as the regular feed takes everything I've thrown at it I no longer care. Prints are great. Virtually every paper out there works wonderfully with the epsons.
Oh! Almost forgot. It does make you swap black inks. I haven't done this yet so I've no opinion on the subject.
-
Thanks, again, to all. I apologize for failing to note I prefer pigment, and do sell frequently enough that going dye is not an option. So I think this discussion pushes me toward the 2880 or 3880. I'll have to take a hard look at cartridge costs.
Whew. Great expertise out there. Kudos to all.
-
Thanks, again, to all. I apologize for failing to note I prefer pigment, and do sell frequently enough that going dye is not an option. So I think this discussion pushes me toward the 2880 or 3880. I'll have to take a hard look at cartridge costs.
Fair enough. If you're looking to do any serious amount of printing, take a look at the price differences per square inch printed - you can recoop the price differential between 2880 and 3880 in weeks or years, depending on how much you print.
Also note that both come with an inkset. I understand they are not as large as the full tanks, but that does make the price differential smaller yet again since the 3880 tanks are larger.
Another point to note is the black ink swapping depending on paper type - this might or might not be an issue for you.
Finally, there are competing products from Canon which are worth a look.
-
I'd also recommend an Epson 3880 for the OP unless roll printing is needed. About the same size as a 2200 (I think I have a snap of my 3800 sitting on top of my old 2200 lying around somewhere).
-
My 3800 came with a full set of 80ml ink carts, not "starter" carts.
-
Well Get The 3880 Starting today Rebates are Back.. 300 Mail in Rebate on a 3880!! Give me a call they are in stock and your overall costs will be less.. Plus you can do 17 x 22 as a Bonus
Cheers
Jim Doyle
Shades Of Paper
-
I've been printing on a 3800 for over 3 years now, great printer. At first 13x19 was about as big usually printed, every once in while I'd go 17 wide.
Now that I've started making multiple row pano's using a pano head, I've been printing 16x24 on 17x24 cut sheets. Matted and framed 24x32 they looked great, but now there not big enough, I now want to print even larger.
Printing a 50 image pano 16x24 wastes a lot of info, with out resampling I could go 40 inches in the long dimension, I see a 7900 in my future, wait, that isn't big enough, make that a 9900.
Even if you don't think I'll ever print 17 wide, if you could, at some point you will, and your going to like it.