Printer upgrade from Epson R2400 to 17" or 24"

[budjames]

I've been a diehard Epson archival photo printer user since the model 2000. I upgraded through the 2000, 2200 and now the R2400. It's been great printer, especially when using ImagePrint 6 or Lightroom 2.4. I've been a Mac user for the past 2 years.

That said, I find myself wanting to make prints larger than 13" wide (actually 11 x 14) and I want to reduce my ink cost because I use both matte and glossy papers. I want to upgrade to a larger printer that can switch photo black and matte black on the fly with minimal fuss and cost. Roll feeding is not important as I'm strictly a low volume hobbyist user. I print less than 20 prints/month in random fashion when I have the time and need so I'm concerned about head clogging and other low volume use issues.

One thought I had was to buy a 17" model for 16x20 print capability and use a lab for the occasional larger print. That would reduce my cost and perhaps reduce low volume use issues.

I want to stay with the mainstream products from Epson, HP or Canon. When I upgrade, I'll be selling my R2400.

Any suggestions from similar users who have upgraded?

Cheers.
Bud

[Desmond]

Epson 3800 fits perfectly your criteria.

[Peter Mellis]

I upgraded from a 2200 (using QTRIP) and have been very pleased. Print quality is vastly improved, especially B&W. My printing is somewhat erratic;the printer has sat idle for up to a month without any clogging issues. I haven't tried to track it, but it appears to be pretty good as far as ink usage/consumption is concerned.

The only gripe that I have, is that there aren't many sources for 17 X 25 paper that can be used to max out print size in the 2:3 ratio (16 X 24). One would think that Epson would make some of their better selling papers available in that size to support the 3800 users;either they don't care or figure that next time you'll buy a 4880 and print from rolls; not terribly smart IMHO.

[budjames]

I upgraded from a 2200 (using QTRIP) and have been very pleased. Print quality is vastly improved, especially B&W. My printing is somewhat erratic;the printer has sat idle for up to a month without any clogging issues. I haven't tried to track it, but it appears to be pretty good as far as ink usage/consumption is concerned.

The only gripe that I have, is that there aren't many sources for 17 X 25 paper that can be used to max out print size in the 2:3 ratio (16 X 24). One would think that Epson would make some of their better selling papers available in that size to support the 3800 users;either they don't care or figure that next time you'll buy a 4880 and print from rolls; not terribly smart IMHO.

Did you upgrade to the 3800?


If so, what about the issue of wasted ink when changing black inks. Even though you can load both matte and photo black into the printer, I heard that the switch over requires purging which wastes ink and time.

Good idea on the availability of cut sheet sizes. That never occurred to me that this could be an issue.

Thanks.

Bud

[Murph]

I just upgraded from the R2400 to the 4880, and its a massive beastie.  One of the reasons I went with the 4880 vice the 3800 was due to ink cost.  The 80 ml ctgs on the 3800 are nice, but they run approximately $51.00 US, and the 110 ml ctgs for the 4880 cost me $53.00 in Austin at Precision Camera.  The 220 ml ctgs cost $85.00 each.  So I went with the more expensive printer in the short run, but depending on your printing amounts, a cheaper printer in the long run.  The 3800 has the advantage on the 4880 in that you can use BOTH black inks.  Just food for thought.  I love the 4880, although it does have its quirks, which definately require getting used to in the short run.  However, it eats anything I feed it in terms of paper, and spits out lovely prints.  The Epson Ultra Premium Presentation paper (Matte), the Hahnemuehl Photo Rag, the Moab Entrada just looks great.  There have been some issues with the Hahnemuehl Bamboo, but once I was able to get the profile installed, it works great.

[Peter Mellis]

I did upgrade to the 3800 (guess I omitted that from my earlier post).

Take a look at this web site: http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html  Fantastic source of information relative to this printer. He pegs the switchover from matte black to photo black at about 3 minutes and $2-3 in wasted ink. I print on matte paper most of the time and will gang up any prints that use photo black, so as to minimize the waste/cost. If you get a 3800, try using the ABW profiles from Eric's web site; I noticed a visible improvement versus the Epson ABW setting (which isn't bad either).

The lack of availability of 17 X 25 paper wasn't a deal breaker for me, as I rarely print that big; I made the comment because I need to do ten 16 X 24 prints this week and it was on my mind. I found a paper locally for this project and will now get some samples of whatever else I can find.

If you are used to using an Epson printer, I think that you will be very pleased with a 3800.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I too upgraded from the 2200 to the 3800 a few months ago, and I love the new printer. Eric Chan's FAQs and notes provide the best "user manual" imaginable.

One advantage of the 3800 over the 4880 for me is the footprint. The 3800 is only a little bit bigger than my 2200 was and fits on the same cramped table. I seldom print bigger than 13x19, but I have located a few makers of 17x25" paper and I plan to try some soon.

As for the switch between PK and MK inks, I just try to stick with one or the other for quite a long time. I have done mostly matte so far, because that always worked better on the 2200. But I've heard others say that the 3800 does very nicely on some gloss papers, so I will be trying soem quite soon.

[Desmond]

For a "strictly low volume" user, like myself, 3800 is the right size. 80ml tank is not small, on average you need around 1ml of ink for an A4 print, the ink set come with the machine can print a few hundreds of prints. The ink purged on switching is not too much, just a few ml for a round trip, I know that some larger model like 4800 purge more than a hundred ml for a round trip. A small amount of ink will be spent for routine maintenance, but not significant. Never let the nozzles clog. One time I had a couple of nozzle clogged, the auto cleaning used more than 20ml to clear the clog. To avoid clogging, just run the nozzle check every week.

Yes, ABW profiles from Eric Chan are great.

[JeffKohn]

There's a lot to like about the 3800, in many ways it's a more attractive printer than the 4880, especially for low-volume use. But the complete lack of roll-paper support is a deal breaker for anybody who wants to print panos. I understand Epson probably wanted some feature differentiation between the 3800 and 4880, but IMHO they should have at least kept the 'dumb' roll support such as the 2400 has, which would have been better than nothing. But the 3800 doesn't even support long enough page lengths for those willing to cut sheets from rolls. As it stands, for users who want to print with both blacks _and_ print panos, there's no suitable model in the Epson lineup except the 7900, which is not only big and expensive but possibly ill-suited to low-volume use given the reports about clogs and excessive cleaning cycles.

Since I only had the budget for a 17" printer, Canon was the only one who met all my needs. I've been very happy with my ipf5000 (running 5100 inks), and would probably choose the 6100 if moving up to a 24" model. The Epson 7900 seems very much a "1.0" product, and while the HP's are nice I don't like being forced to buy a spectophotometer when I already have one.

[grepmat]

The 3800 is made for you!

The 3800 form-factor plays friendly in a typical small home office or den - quite light enough and compact enough, whereas basically all other 17" printers are fork-lift-heavy, room-devouring monsters (only a slight exaggeration here).

I moved from a 2200, and the improvement was a miracle. Essentially zero clogs, too. Moving from a 2400, the transition will be instant and painless, with no learning curve at all.

As far as roll capabilities go, I for one hate dealing with curl. I'm so happy to have a wide variety of cut flat sheets for 95+% of my work. For the other 5% (stitched panoramas), the 3800 takes up to 37" sheets, which I cut from a roll and feed manually. This is wide enough for typical stitched panoramas (e.g., a single row of 5-7 frames with the camera turned on its side). It may take a few tries to get feeding long sheets down, but after that it is easy.

The ink tanks are just the right size for you as well. Much larger, and you will have 2 year old stale ink in your tanks before you use them up. On the other hand, they are big enough that you will be delighted with just how many prints you can get from them, especially after moving up from those dinky 2400 so-called tanks. Figure you will start replacing your first tank or two in 9-12 months. If you don't switch inks daily, the switching is fast and economical enough not to matter, especially compared to quality paper costs, etc.

Going from a 13" printer to a 17" printer is a revelation - it seems like acres of more paper! And yet the 3800 feed down to 4x5" paper. All in all, 17" is a great size for most advanced amateurs.

Really, for the typical advanced amateur with a modest home-office space, the 3800 is still the best printer available.

Just get one.

P.S.: (1) It is not a conspiracy that cut sheets are hard to get in 25" lengths. Available sizes are long-standing industry standards, and longer sheets must usually be cut from rolls anyway. (2) Note that in the 17" sizes, some typical papers, e.g. Epson Luster, are too thin for framing without being glued to a backing board. If not, they have a wavy surface that is distracting. For 17" sizes, you should go with 300+gm papers such as Velvet Fine Art and Illford Gold Fiber Silk (both wonderful).

[budjames]

To feed larger sheets into the 3800, do the feed in the back or on top. I was wondering if you can put the printer up against a wall and still use it.

On my R2400 some sheets need to be fed through the rear slot causing the printer to require more floor space that previously thought.

Thanks.

Bud

[grepmat]

To feed larger sheets into the 3800, do the feed in the back or on top. I was wondering if you can put the printer up against a wall and still use it.

On my R2400 some sheets need to be fed through the rear slot causing the printer to require more floor space that previously thought.

Thanks.

Bud

If you extend the top feed tray up all the way, such as you would for 22" sheets, you will need maybe 10" of room from behind the bulk of the printer and the wall. This tray work fine for all but the heaviest papers (e.g., canvases). To use cut roll sheets (e.g., 37"), you use a small slot just behind the main feed tray and oriented in the same way (upwards, not flat), but you probably need physical access from behind to feed it easily, as well as some room for the paper as it's feeding.

Cheers.

[budjames]

Well, with the announcement yesterday of the new Epson 3880 available in October, it seems like there is one in my future.

I guess that Epson will have one on their booth at the PhotoPlus show in NYC at the end of October.

Anyone want to buy my R2400? And/or the ImagePrint RIP?

Cheers.

Bud

[grepmat]

Interesting. In trying to cut through the marketing hype, it seems that there are perhaps only two differences:

1) The "new" magenta ink, as used in the other xx80 printers. This should make a small difference in some photos.
2) Perhaps a new dithering algorithm? This is likely to be virtually undetectable.

No biggie. You might want to watch for a good deal on an old one.

Cheers.