Whats a logical upgrade from an Epson R2400?

[Ferp]

There's a serious risk of simply reprising debates we've had in other threads.  The point I was trying to make is a simple one.  Like the digitadog, I used to think that the the small size of the P600 carts and their cost was a significant disadvantage compared to the P800, and would encourage people towards the P800 when asked.  My views changed in light of those threads. Someone considering these two printers needs to crunch the available data on ink usage and cost against how much they print and make in informed decision.

No, there's no way to prove beyond any scintilla of doubt how much ink is actually used and how much of of what you actually paid is left, but I for one found enough circumstantial evidence for me to convict if I was a juror.  Enough to change my mind.  People have weighed full and empty P800 and 3880 carts, and while we don't know the exact specific gravity of the inks, the measured gap is a long way short of 80 ml.  The Red River usage numbers suggest that you use a lot more P800 carts than you'd expect in order to print a series of standard pages compared to a P600, given the difference in claimed ink capacity of the two cartridge sizes.  These two printers are sufficiently in technology similar IMHO for me to conclude that you're using a much smaller percentage of the publicized cartridge capacity in a P800.  We can have a theoretical debate about what we do and don't know and standards of proof, but someone buying a printer has to make a practical decision, and as far as I'm concerned there's evidence enough to do so.

[Farmer]

Of course it's impossible to ever know whether you've used 80 ml because Epson has gone out of its way to ensure that P800 users have no utility in the firmware or driver to be able to track ink usage whether for prints or for maintenance. Even on the SC-P5000 it's tedious because the data of ink used per colour per print is only kept for the last 10 jobs, so one needs to keep track of exactly when every tenth job is done in order to print it without duplicating information, and then maintain a separate spread sheet for MANUALLY entering the usage data into a computable format. Canon's Accounting Manager stores a very large number of jobs and outputs the information to a CSV file that is Excel compatible and therein of course totally computable. But it does not account for ink used in maintenance, which when one uses other methods to find out how much turns out to be a lot. There is a galling lack of transparency about ink usage practiced by both companies.

Well, this was more aimed at people who pull open empty carts and then claim they know how much ink was used.  There are very obvious ways to confirm the specific gravity of the ink and to make measurements to work it out if you really want.  But here's the thing.  You know the cost of the cart, and you know how many prints you can do.  Over a relatively short period of time, anyone printing professionally knows the correct average cost of ink per m^2 of printing.  That's the only useful and important figure.

[Mark D Segal]

Well, this was more aimed at people who pull open empty carts and then claim they know how much ink was used.  There are very obvious ways to confirm the specific gravity of the ink and to make measurements to work it out if you really want.  But here's the thing.  You know the cost of the cart, and you know how many prints you can do.  Over a relatively short period of time, anyone printing professionally knows the correct average cost of ink per m^2 of printing.  That's the only useful and important figure.

You need to keep very careful records of the square footage of the prints you do in tandem with the timing of each cartridge change each of which usually empties at different rates, so there is nothing "very obvious" about it at all. One needs to construct spreadsheets and devote considerable effort to a task that the printer manufacturer should be catering for with a utility that reports both ink for prints and ink for maintenance, the latter of which is non-trivial. For the P800, the only easy and reliable way around all that tedium is with a "total inventory approach" whereby you track ink usage from the day you install the printer (if only Epson would reveal how much ink actually goes into the tank during the initial fill so that can be isolated from the rest of the data), keep careful track of all the square feet printed, and then over a long enough period of time to develop a reliable estimate, you add-up all the ink you started with, all the ink you replace and deduct all the ink you are left with plus the initial fill wastage, the net result being total routine ink usage for both prints and maintenance relative to square feet printed, whether you count it in dollars or ml or both. Until you've had enough time lapsed to do this reliably and if you had information on the initial fill wastage, you really know nothing worthwhile. (I am aware that much of the initial fill wastage is shipping fluid, but some ink goes with it too).

[Farmer]

Or you could just ask your dealer.  Most of them will give you an estimate of ml/m^2 for a given product.

Of, apart from 2 of the current models, you could use the Accounting Tool that you can download.

You don't even need to worry about specific m^2 per print - you know how many sheets and rolls you've used just as total ink carts in a given period.  You can relate the two to each other and then to total sales.

[Ferp]

You need to keep very careful records of the square footage of the prints you do in tandem with the timing of each cartridge change each of which usually empties at different rates, so there is nothing "very obvious" about it at all.

Or you could just ask your dealer.  Most of them will give you an estimate of ml/m^2 for a given product.

The Red River ink usage numbers discussed in another recent thread probably save you the trouble.  They printed 100 copies the Bill Atkinson test image, and counted the carts used.  You can pick holes in this, but it's probably not a bad guide.  And especially to the OP, as at least it enables an apples-with-apples comparison of various printer models.  And if you examine the numbers closely (carts used, rather than $/page, as that depends on cartridge price), it's surprising how many carts the P800 used compared to the P600.  So for people who print in low volume and who don't need 17", the P600 may be more economical. 

[Farmer]

The Red River ink usage numbers discussed in another recent thread probably save you the trouble.  They printed 100 copies the Bill Atkinson test image, and counted the carts used.  You can pick holes in this, but it's probably not a bad guide.  And especially to the OP, as at least it enables an apples-with-apples comparison of various printer models.  And if you examine the numbers closely (carts used, rather than $/page, as that depends on cartridge price), it's surprising how many carts the P800 used compared to the P600.  So for people who print in low volume and who don't need 17", the P600 may be more economical.

There's really only a single flaw in their process, which is measuring ink left which they readily acknowledge.  Also note they didn't "measure" the remaining ink as such, they made assumptions based on the remaining ink indicators in the driver which most people are aware is overly conservative at low values (many people report printing for an extended period at the 1% mark, for example).  Larger cartridges (P800) are going to have a larger error in that regard than the smaller cartridges. The P800 didn't empty any cartridges in the test, so the test sample is limited.

That said, they do clearly note the methodology and the primary limitations - it's a good test overall.  The report shows that the P600 is consistently 50% more expensive per print.

I agree 100% it depends on your comment about print volumes with regard to whether the cost savings are worth it.

[Ferp]

The P800 didn't empty any cartridges in the test, so the test sample is limited.

That's a very fair point.  There is more estimation involved for those printers in their test with larger carts.  To be fair to RR, they didn't say anything about ml used or ml left, only carts used per 100 pages and therefore $ per page.  The printer will tell you what it regards as the % of the usable ink left in each cart, and you can check this by weighing them and comparing the weight to the full and empty weights, so I suspect that their estimate of carts used is not too bad. 

The report shows that the P600 is consistently 50% more expensive per print.

Which is not as expensive as you'd think.  In an earler post I calculated that it should be 80% more expensive to print on, based on stated cartridge volumes and current cartridge costs.  IMHO this is further circumstantial evidence about the proportion of each cart's stated volume that you actually get to use, i.e. it's less for the P800.

I raise this issue again in this thread because it's relevant to the OP.  People suggest the P800 over the P600 because the ink is cheaper, but in actual use, it's not as cheap as you might think, and the P600 may be a better deal for low volume printers who don't need 17".

[Frodo]

I raise this issue again in this thread because it's relevant to the OP.  People suggest the P800 over the P600 because the ink is cheaper, but in actual use, it's not as cheap as you might think, and the P600 may be a better deal for low volume printers who don't need 17".

This is the conclusion I came to, especially as the P800 is significantly more expensive than the P600 (in NZ) and as this was my first plunge in serious printing.  The ink cost concerns me less than the inability to print 17 inches and especially the difficulty in getting good 13 inch roll paper.  In the scheme of things, ink is a relatively small portion of the total cost of producing a print if you include mounting/framing (and especially if you include cameras and lenses - and time!).

Nevertheless, I'm happy with the P600

[Ferp]

.... especially as the P800 is significantly more expensive than the P600 (in NZ) ...

In making this price comparison, you have to allow for the fact that the P800 comes with a lot more ink included.  A valid comparison is comparing the printer prices after deducting the cost of the included ink.  In the case of the R3000 vs 3880, the price gap calculated this way was quite small, although if you choose the larger printer then you still have to print enough to make up the gap with lower ink costs.  I haven't rechecked the numbers, but my impression is that the P600 vs P800 gap is wider, not least because the P800 only comes with 64ml "starter" carts, increasing the amount of printing you have to do to justify the larger printer.  Of course these calculations can change with Epson rebates.