Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Cool Gear, Camera Bags, Camera Straps' started by marc, Jan 5, 2006.
i am looking to buy a wide format printer
17' or larger
The new ink setup for the 2400, 4800, 7800 and 9800 is nothing short of phenomenal. The colors are excellent, detail is "tack" sharp and they are much, much faster than their predecessors. So for wide format, look long and hard at the 4800 or 7800. (I own the 2400 and 7800.) You won't be disappointed..
if you work with sizes larger than 16" or 17" then you should forget the 4800 and go to the 7800. I was one of the first to receive the 4000 and my only quarrel has been that I should have bought the 7600 at that time.
I'm sure the 4800 and 7800 series produce great pictures.
I friend of mine just bought the 2400 and I was blown away by the quality of the monochrome output.
the 2400 is 13' carriage
i am looking for 17', already have e2200
henry, why 7600 or 7800, these are 24' can you be more informative for your reasoning
i have thought about 7800, but seems like overkill
your help is appreciated.
birger, you have a 4800, what do you think of it.
2400 uses same K3 inks as the 4800 though so output should be similar except for size. I briefly considered the 4800 but I just don't have the room for it; heck I barely have room for the 2400, which just arrived this week. So far have only gotten to do a few test prints with canned profiles on glossy/lustre paper but I'm impressed. Sampler packs of art paper arrived yesterday so I'll be evaluating those this weekend. I can already tell though, that color gamut and DMax are no longer an issue with these new pigment inks. Only downside remaining is gloss differential and even that's not as much as an issue as I'd thought it would be except on true glossy paper and images with completely white areas (ie right at 255,255,255). Thinking about it I might agree with whoever said to go for the 7800 instead. The jump from 13" to 17" doesn't seem all that huge considering the price increase, whereas going to 24" gives you the ability to do substantially larger prints.
not really thinking about inks, just info on particular printer and your experience
if it gives excellent quality and has improved ink, then more reasons to consider it
7800, still seems big, i don't know what i would print that size, maybe large groups
we have done 90 people at once, printed on a friends 4800 looked awesome.
well more research
thanks for helping
This is my first pigment ink printer, so I don't have experience with the K2 ink used in the 2100/2200. But people who have used both say that the new K3 ink is substantial improvement as far as DMax, metamerism, gamut, B/W, etc.
OK, I can maybe see where you're coming from now for portraits and stuff. I'm looking at it from the POV that with the D2x's resolution, printing landscape-type shots at 20x30" or 24x36" is a very real possibility (especially if you stitch a few shots together). At least with the 2400 I can now print 13x19 or 13" panos, for larger prints I'll just have to send off to the West Coast Imaging or some other pro lab.
if you use roll paper
on 4800 you could print panos 17in x 40ft
now that would be cool
how long do you think that would take
I have the 4800 and put a 16" roll of Premium Glossy on it. I've since printed quite a few 16x20 prints and am amazed at the depth, clarity, detail and color rendering. You're right though, it is a big mutha!
Re; Epson 4800
I got one of the first ones in the US.
Super in all ways.
Just did a 16x20 on a sheet of 17x22 Premium Luster of
a portrait waist shot of Backdoctor that Uncle Frank took
at the Zoo when he was here for Harris.
Question for Birger
Did you consider the 7800 when you bought the 4800? If so, what drove your decision?
It is sort of a lng story.
Back in May of 2005 I came across a blog by Pete Walsh in AU.
Still active-- He was putting the 4800 in his attic via a ladder.
See the second Achive listing for photo of ladder and attic.
Then I came across this from Joe Holmes.
A short time later- I went on google for a search.
At that time they offered free shipping. So I ordered one over the internet on a Saturday night. The Pro Model.
On Monday I called them to inquire about delivery.
At this time Epson maybe had some in the warehouse, but the pro model was not going to in the US until July and the 7800 mabe in Sept.
So I switched to the standard model.
Next thing that I knew the 4800 was on a truck coming from Albany New York. 190 pounds wgt.
A week later it was delivered.
Why did I buy it.
I had a 1270 and a backup new[inbox] 1270 and a 2200.
My excuse- My Birthaday present for my 80th birthday in August to myself.
I gave one 1270 to Backdoctor and the other 1270 To Flew and kept the 2200.
I did get the network card so I can print from any computer in the house.
I use Qimage for printing mainly.
I get my supplies from ImageSpectrum cause they pay shipping over $100, Some times from Atlex.
The 4800 has been trouble free even tho I do have a three year service
contract. That way if you need help,you get right thru.
Thanks. I have been and continue to be tempted although difficult for me to justify. However, I live alone and don't even have a pet so I guess I don't have to justify it.
I don't have the 4800 but I have the 4000. I find the 4000 to be fantastic. I'm sure the 4800 is twice that.
However, you may want to make sure you do use the printer. All inkjets that are idle for too long get clogged. The new series like 4000 and 4800 are less prone but still they can get clogged. When that happens, it is messy and can cause you lots of ink to clear. The cautionary note I'm putting up here is that if you printing cycle is so low, you need to at least run a print through once a week otherwise you will have a headache.
That happened with my 3000 and I finally gave up and let it clogged because I just had little use for that printer once I got my 4000. I have also dumped 3 other inkjets because of clogged heads. Now, I do a weekly print on my 4000 to maintain it.
Best of luck.
I'm late to this thread, but thought I'd take the time to put a kink in the works, assuming that Marc hasn't already made his purchase. The discussion seems to be Epsoncentric, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest something different (slipping into my riot gear and climbing behind my Kevlar shield as I do it). Has anyone ever considered the Hewlett Packard large format printers: HP DesignJet 30/90/130? I used to print with nothing but Epson printers. When I needed something wider than 13" I looked at the 4800 and 7800 very hard, then someone suggested the HP printers. I ended up purchasing a DesignJet 90--half the cost of the Epson printers, consumables that are very reasonably priced, the ability to print on nearly any medium because the printer can be individually calibrated to different stock, stunning clarity and sharpness, excellent color saturation, separate B&W drivers for precise B&W printing without color cast or shift and a selection of footprints depending upon what kind of space you have available on your desk/work area.
Now some will argue that the dye based inks used by the HP printers are inferior to the pigment based inks of the Epson printers, but on close inspection I question whether anyone could reasonably tell the difference between the two and some would say, after finding out which was which, that the HP printer out performs the Epson. Also, if the print has not been allowed to dry completely, then exposure to a water drop will cause the HP print to smear. However, the HP print can be sprayed with a fixer to prevent this and I can buy many cans of fixer before I put out the extra cash for a wide format Epson printer.
I understand that I'm in the minority here, but it's worth a look. I once thought that I would NEVER print with anything but an Epson printer, but I was impressed with the HP90 and have not regretted for one minute that I spent my money at HP's door rahter than at Epson's.
User groups for the HP wide format printers abound. Neil Snape is widely considered to be the guru of HP wide format printing and there is a significant following in the photographic community that is starting to move away from "the world of Epson".
Printers are like camera bodies--"I shoot Canon exclusively--it's the 'best'". Yadda, yadda, yadda. What's best, in my mind, is what produces the product that you need at a cost that you can or want to afford. Would I trade all three of my Nikon bodies for one Canon D-MarkGazillion? Not a chance. And I'm pretty dern happy with my DJ90, too.
Just a thought Marc, just a thought.
Order the print samples before you drop your cash for the Epson...you might be pleasantly surprised.
Yes we all have our opinions.
" One can always justify ones actions "
All that I can say is that I am very happy with my Epson 4800 and 2200.
Please don't misunderstand my thoughts Birger. Epson makes very fine printing systems. All I was suggesting is that there are suitable alternatives to the wide format systems by Epson. Some folks don't have $2000-$4000 to pay for a printer and we are not all Joseph Holmes who produce fine art prints as a means of feeding ourselves. Nevertheless, that does not make the prints made by other systems less than professional and saleable. To suggest that I was attempting to "justify my actions" by offering an alternative is somewhat offensive. I was simply trying to point out that there are affordable, professional quality systems available in the marketplace.
Marc asked for opinions and one would assume that all options would be welcome IMHO. It's all good! :smile:
I have a very good buddy who has the HP NC130. In fact I told him about it. He prints my larger prints when I have a need.
We constantly rib each other as to our justification.
When it comes to price- He wins hands down.
When it comes down to drying time- I win hands down.