Epson 3800 vs 4880

[BruceHouston]

I may soon trade up from my Epson 2400 to an Epson 17" wide format.  I have read the Epson marketing literature for the 3800 and the 4880.  But can anyone give me the real scoop on the pros and cons of the 3800 vs. the 4880, each in light of the other?  Has anyone found the the extended color gamut for blues and purples on the 4880 to be important in the real world?  What other substantial differences justify the cost difference?

Thank you!
Bruce

[DougMorgan]

In the real world I would think it comes down to:

3800:  PRO: Both blacks on board (tiny ink loss switching).
3800:  CON: No roll paper, limited media choices and length.

4880:  PRO:  Roll paper, print any length.
4880:  CON:  Both blacks NOT on board (large ink loss switching).

I would think that in 99% of photographs there won't be a material difference between the regular and vivid magentas.

Doug

[01af]

Another point in favour of the Pro 3800: It's the smallest and lightest of all current 17" printers; a single person can lift it and carry it around with reasonable effort.

-- Olaf

[tomrock]

I went from a 4000 to a 3800 and I agree with the above two posts.

The 4000 was a big, heavy, loud and ugly printer capable of industrial printing.

The 3800 is a much better looking and quieter.

I seldom used rolls and 17" it too narrow for canvas.

Plus it's considerably cheaper.

Unless you're planning on printing A LOT of prints, I'd go with the 3800.

[booksmartstudio]

Lots of problems loading paper with the 3800.  The 4880 is nice because it has 4 ways of loading paper.  The 3800 is a plastic desktop consumer printer dressed up to be a "pro."  The 4880 is the real deal with strong parts and fast reliable printing.  I would go for the 4880, although you could find a used 4800 save money and be happy with the results.  Or just buy a Canon ipf 5100 (12 color has a huge advantage over 8 color).

[red2]

I've had a 3800 for a little less than a year. I'm pretty satisfied with it. I've been getting very nice quality prints (note: I'm not a pro, just an interested amateur). I have not had "Lots of problems loading paper with the 3800." Rarely, a sheet misfeeds. I just eject it and try again. This just hasn't been an issue for me.
Check out this site for more info: http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html
Eric Chan (who posts on this site with some regularity) has a set of notes and a FAQ about this printer.
I've not used a 4800 or 4880, so I can't compare.

[abiggs]

I have owned both, and both drive me nuts for different reasons. I love the 3800 for everything except its very poor paper handling. Related to paper handling, I often get black splotches at the end of the paper, as there is no vacuum system to hold the paper down flat. A real bummer when you are feeding expensive cotton fiber papers through one at a time.

I do miss the better built 4x00 series of printers, but I switch back and forth between MK and PK quite often. It is likely that I will be moving to an IPF5100 soon, though.

[theophilus]

The only paper feeding issues on the 3800 I have are with 4x6's.  Sometimes it will be a ridiculously crooked print.

I inevitably have to run a head alignment after printing some 4x6.  Although I hardly ever use that size, just a few one-off things for small framed gifts.

[sojournerphoto]

I may soon trade up from my Epson 2400 to an Epson 17" wide format.  I have read the Epson marketing literature for the 3800 and the 4880.  But can anyone give me the real scoop on the pros and cons of the 3800 vs. the 4880, each in light of the other?  Has anyone found the the extended color gamut for blues and purples on the 4880 to be important in the real world?  What other substantial differences justify the cost difference?

Thank you!
Bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Canon IPF5100 has both matte and glossy black on board with no cost to switch and handles rolls and sheets, so offering the best of both the 3800 and 4880 pros. Possible downside is that it's a big heavy printer (at least the 5000 is) compared to the 3800 or possibly the 4880 as well.

All produce good output, but you might benefit from looking at a few samples if you can.

Mike