Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: I Wonder When the Epson 3800 Will Appear..  (Read 9415 times)
Ken Tanaka
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



WWW
« on: November 23, 2006, 06:20:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Much chatter about the new Canons and HPs but little about the new, but as yet unreleased, Epson.  I wonder if Michael has one sitting on his desk chunking out "test" prints?

Whither art thou Epson 3800?
Logged

Best Regards,
- Ken Tanaka -

www.KenTanaka.com
ericbullock
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2006, 06:29:30 PM »
ReplyReply

The 3800 will rear its head soon enough...but I would not expect anything ground breaking. The six droplet sizes are interesting, but will this give it any appreciable advantage over the new Canons and HP's?

I wonder when we'll see a 12 color Epson? I'd be all over that!

;o)

-eric-
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2006, 07:32:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I was told a few days ago by Epson that it will start shipping in the US and Canada next week. I was told that I'd get a review sample shortly.

Michael
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2006, 08:19:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Much chatter about the new Canons and HPs but little about the new, but as yet unreleased, Epson.  I wonder if Michael has one sitting on his desk chunking out "test" prints?

Whither art thou Epson 3800?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86801\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They have been shipping in Europe for over a week--probably 2.  There have been several people on other forums who have been printing with them (UK, Switzerland, Finland--and they are readily available in stores there)--plus several that have printed with them in the US under special circumstances (the tech at inkjetart that had one for 12 hours at an Epson event--and Andrew Rodney has the one he used at PHoto Expo and others that used them there--at least one report on the DigitalB&W list).  

I'm patiently waiting for mine to replace a 2200---(which I may switch to Piezography K7 split tone/QTR--depends upon how I feel about printing toned monos without using ABW on the printer).

Diane
Logged
claskin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2006, 10:49:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I am sure that someone will not be impressed with my following comments, but I am interested in feedback from those after they have the 3800.

Some background: I have always gone for the latest and greatest, when I could afford it. I have been a student of the technology arena since 1982. (My first PC was an IBM with a 16 K motherboard that I upgraded all the way to 64 K plus it had 2, count 'em, 2 5.25 floppy disk drives). I bought and sold PCs every 6-9 months so I was always current. I predicted the market accurately for many years selling the current system for about what I paid for it. To keep pace, you had to be prepared to go without for a few months and then could buy the newest kid on the block.

With such an "impressive" track record :-), I finally got burned when I bought an Epson 4000. Don't get me wrong, a great printer with much to its credit. However, I did not spot that this printer was to function as a stop-gap measure by Epson who soon released the 4800...within 10 months of the release of the 4000. In retrospect I should have seen this coming since the 4000 was a 17 inch release of the old technology represented by the 7600/9600. To add insult to injury, upon release of the 4800, Michael stated in the "What's New" section, "....Epson announced perhaps the worst kept secret new printer, the 4800...." [paraphrase]. Clearly, everyone kept the secret from me. Regardless, I had no regrets but I did get foiled in the bragging rights for the latest and greatest.

To my point: I think the 3800 is an interesting printer addressing the needs of many with a 17 inch printer that is smaller than the 4800, much lighter in weight and an upgrade to printing technology somewhat. They have addressed the black ink fiasco again to a great extend. They have sacrificed the roll option and the carts are smaller but there has to be some reason to get a 4800. As importantly, this printer is much less expensive than the 4800. There can be little doubt that this printer will cannibalize sales of the 4800.

The 3800 is lighter because it is all, or almost all, plastic. It is cheaper for the same reason. It introduces an improvement in the printing technology which will likely be passed on to a newer, higher end printer line. The 3800 does not compete with either the new "Z-series" HPs or the Canon ipf5000 (in spite of its warts). Both of these competitors have fired a salvo across Epson's bow. There is no way Epson will stand still with the current X800 line of K3 printers for much longer. Therefore, I believe the 3800 is a viable attempt to capture more of the wider carriage market but is only a temporary measure until they are ready to launch the new series of printers to compete with HP and Canon. The 3800 is another stop-gap measure whose lifespan may only be 6 months.

I really don't mean to rain on anyone's parade. The 3800 will be a good printer and do the job well. However, call it what it is, another stop-gap measure.
Carl
Logged

Carl Laskin
DavidRees
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2006, 02:04:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Carl,

I'm interested in your comments, and they have caused me to think.

I'm an amateur photographer based in the far north of Scotland, who is just making the transition into professional work, and I have been using an Epson 1290 for 5 years. Now that I wish to sell prints, it is time to move to a printer with inks which will last appreciably longer, and also to have the capability of printing on 17"x22" paper. I am not flush with cash, and am pushed for space in my home office, which is also upstairs, so the cost, bulk and weight of the Epson 4800 and the Canon ipf5000 all put me off rather.

On the face of it, the Epson 3800 meets my needs nicely. The initial price of 1199UKP is already tumbling (dropped by 250UKP), so this printer is approaching affordable - now around 60% of the price of the ipf5000 or 4800.

The thought that the printer may be "transitonal" in some sense does make me wonder. However, there is nothing else on the market which meets my cost, weight and size restrictions at the moment, and though I'm sure HP and Canon will provide solutions for me in the future, I'd rather not have to wait another year or so. If the Epson 3800 is a capable printer, which we'll soon know when Michael gets his copy for review, then I think on balance I'll get one, and be happy to run it for a number of years. My view is that we're now at the point in the printer market where the products have matured enough that it is not necessary to have the latest technology; the changes each year now seem incremental, rather than revolutonary. However, if others differ from this viewpoint, please do feel free to express yourselves!
Logged

Just one more frame, dear...
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 650


« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2006, 02:23:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Every printer on the market is a 'stop-gap' product.

There is no arrival at 'This is it' and there never will be.
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2006, 08:41:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Every printer on the market is a 'stop-gap' product.

There is no arrival at 'This is it' and there never will be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree 100% with this. Even if the 3800 is soon superceded by, say, a x900 series with K4 inks, if the 3800 is a wonderful printer then it's a wonderful printer.

Eric
Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2006, 10:53:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree 100% with this. Even if the 3800 is soon superceded by, say, a x900 series with K4 inks, if the 3800 is a wonderful printer then it's a wonderful printer.

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Basically, that's what I've come to see--the recent improvements in all seem to be more evolutionary than revolutionary--and incremental.

 I printed with a 1280 for a number of years and bought the 2200 as soon as it came out--almost exclusively for archival reasons.  I"m more than ready to upgrade and had anticipated buying the 2400 since I really don't need a volume printer with large carts, huge size, etc.  Then--the HP9180 arrived--and it made me reconsider.  And then----the 3800 which has all the 2400 has and then some (and I really am anxious to have the capability to print on larger media when I choose--not all the time, but I do have clients for whom I've had to send to other printers).  I think its made for folks like me--lower volume printers who want excellent prints, little metamerism and when I use luster papers, as little 'bronzing' and GD as possible without resorting to the 'glop' printers (I CAN spray if necessary for GD if its overly offensive).  

 I'm interested mostly, I think, in finding a good solution for mono prints (I've used QTR in the past--and may still go to a dedicated b/w printer with the 2200), larger media, the better K3 inks---and a not huge printer with not huge carts.  At present there is no other alternative out there--if there was I would be in more of a dilemma.   Several of us that are happy about the 3800 being introduced were taken to task, more or less LOL (on another forum)---for not understanding that the 4800 or the Canon iPF5000 were the workhorses that we MUST need--they just don't get the fact that there are lots of people out there like me.

 I feel sure I can be happy with it for a number of years as I've been with my other printers--and it won't get hard knocks in my work area *smile* so it doesn't have to be a tank.  However, that being said, I'm anxious for more 'real life' reviews---the ones I've read have been excellent, so---hope Michael gets his, among others, before mine ships (preordered) as a bit more input to consider.

Diane
« Last Edit: November 24, 2006, 10:59:04 AM by picnic » Logged
Ken Tanaka
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2006, 11:08:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Indeed, as others remarked above, all tech products are transitional and "stop gap".  Chasing the ultimate product is like a greyhound chasing a track rabbit.

If the 3800 produces prints as good as the 2400 and its K3 siblings, finally solves the silly PB/MK dance, and occupies a smaller footprint than the 4xxx printers it will be worth every penny.  The extra 4" of print width will, at least for me, be a nice but unnecessary bonus feature.  I outsource my very occasional large print jobs; it makes far more cost and space sense for me.  

I'm only interested in the latest technology to the extent that is solves real problems or provides genuinely useful new capabilities for me.  Contrary to what casual observation might often suggest this is about photography, not computers.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2006, 11:13:20 AM by Ken Tanaka » Logged

Best Regards,
- Ken Tanaka -

www.KenTanaka.com
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2006, 11:37:37 AM »
ReplyReply

BTW, I'm assuming you've seen InkJetArt's report on the few hours they had to spend with a 3800 recently:

http://www.inkjetart.com/3800/report/index.html

It's obviously not comprehensive, given that they had limited time, but good reading anyways.

Eric
Logged

pflower
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2006, 02:39:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Well for what it's worth (and probably not much at this point) mine arrived yesterday.  I was planning on a 7800 but decided to wait until epson do something about the photo/matte black swapping fiasco.  In the UK the 3800 is about 45% cheaper than the IPF 5000 and half the size which prompted me to go for it.  Also the sample prints I got from the 5000 were truly dreadful so I was disinclined to go with the company that produced them.  Of course I am sure the printer is wonderful.

First thoughts - very easy to set up - 20 minutes to get it up and running (some of which was spent looking for a pair of scissors to open the cartridges).  Predominantly plastic and easily lifted by one person.  But much more substantial than my 2100.  Seems very well made and very solid.  Very quiet and _much_ quicker.  Possibly the first printer I have used which makes it feasible to even consider printing at 2880.

Only initial problem was that the first print was disasterous due to one of the blacks being clogged - possibly didn't shake the cartridge enough when installing.  Since then I have printed about 20 A3+ and a lot of proofs.  I print on Photo Rag but have been playing with Fine Art Pearl as well.  Using the canned profiles for Archival Matte and Enhanced Matte for photo rag the prints I am getting are very close in colour to those from a properly profiled 2100 with Lyson photochrome inks.   The colours are very close indeed - and what I want.  Will probably order some profiles next week but would expect only subtle improvements.

Not perhaps the truly dramatic improvement I had (half) hoped for, but the prints certainly have a little more bite to them and more detail than the 2100.  I don't think it has persuaded me to reprint my entire portfolio immediately, but definitely very good prints and an improvement.

I think that I heard someone else mention this - I printed a number of very dark prints - subtle (well I think so) detail in the shadows running to deep black with limited highlights.  Coming out of the printer the print didn't even begin to match the monitor - much too dark with no detail at all.  Half an hour later the print had changed considerably - the detail was back and (canned profile notwithstanding) was very close to the monitor.  Strange.  I will experiment a bit more on that next week.

B&W  on photo rag is very good with the AWB.  Even though these were converted digital colour images and I didn't really work at them.  Fine Art Pearl not so good, I suspect I have a lot more work to do on working out the best media settings and dpi to get separation in the shadows and look at the right profile to use with that paper.

Swapping from matte black to photo black painless but takes about 2 or 3 minutes.  Haven't monitored the ink loss but trust epson's assessment that it is minimal.


All in all a very solid printer.  Definitely happy with the purchase.
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2006, 03:20:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think that I heard someone else mention this - I printed a number of very dark prints - subtle (well I think so) detail in the shadows running to deep black with limited highlights. Coming out of the printer the print didn't even begin to match the monitor - much too dark with no detail at all. Half an hour later the print had changed considerably - the detail was back and (canned profile notwithstanding) was very close to the monitor. Strange. I will experiment a bit more on that next week.

B&W on photo rag is very good with the AWB. Even though these were converted digital colour images and I didn't really work at them. Fine Art Pearl not so good, I suspect I have a lot more work to do on working out the best media settings and dpi to get separation in the shadows and look at the right profile to use with that paper.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not sure if I mentioned it on this forum or not, but David Tobie of IP mentioned that on the DigitalB&W list---and I did post it on the dpreview printer forum.   He, too, felt the prints were ruined but that as it dried (I think he said about 20 minutes but I would not want to be quoted on that LOL) the shadows opened, the print looked like the monitor.  This phenomen could scare those that haven't heard about it---but I"m wondering if other K3 printers do this also--the inks are the same--some other things not quite.

Thanks for the little review.  One of my strong interests is toned mono prints so I"m anxious to try it.  After years with the 1280, then the 2200 with QTR---I'm looking forward to seeing other possibilities.

I forgot to ask where, geographically, you are---assuming in Europe somewhere though.

Diane
« Last Edit: November 24, 2006, 03:21:36 PM by picnic » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2006, 04:22:31 PM »
ReplyReply

You should let any inkjet print dry completely before critically examining it. 24 hours is not unreasonable for Epson prints, especially if they are going to be framed under glass (you can get fogging otherwise). When profiling, I let all prints dry 24 hours before measuring the patches; otherwise the profiles will not be as accurate.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2006, 07:54:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree 100% with this. Even if the 3800 is soon superceded by, say, a x900 series with K4 inks, if the 3800 is a wonderful printer then it's a wonderful printer.

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How come I keep finding myself in complete agreement with people named Eric?  

Eric (M.)
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
claskin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2006, 10:49:02 PM »
ReplyReply

The thought that the printer may be "transitonal" in some sense does make me wonder. However, there is nothing else on the market which meets my cost, weight and size restrictions at the moment, and though I'm sure HP and Canon will provide solutions for me in the future, I'd rather not have to wait another year or so. If the Epson 3800 is a capable printer, which we'll soon know when Michael gets his copy for review, then I think on balance I'll get one, and be happy to run it for a number of years. My view is that we're now at the point in the printer market where the products have matured enough that it is not necessary to have the latest technology; the changes each year now seem incremental, rather than revolutonary. However, if others differ from this viewpoint, please do feel free to express yourselves!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86823\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]


David,
My comments hold far less credibility than those made after especially the initial impressions of those that already have the printer. Yes I believe that this printer is the harbinger of perhaps a new series from Epson. However, no one has any printer this size, weight and price with outstanding output from an inkset with an excellent track record. I was speculating based upon what I believe to be some acurate insights. I may be wrong. However, whether I am right or wrong, if this printer fits your usage now, go for it. I don't think anyone will bring something out to compete with it. Remember HP and Canon simply don't have the long track record Epson has.

I hope that this answers your concerns.

Carl
Logged

Carl Laskin
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2006, 07:33:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Now that we have multiple big players in the inkjet printer market now (Epson, HP, Canon) we might expect shorter upgrade cycles due to competition. Perhaps not on the same aggressive schedule as the DSLR market, but faster than it has been. This might pressure the consumer towards "upgradeitis" but on the plus side it will consumer better choices. On the negative side, a consumer might suffer from having too many choices!

Eric
Logged

DavidRees
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2006, 01:56:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Carl,

Your comment was very helpful to me, as have been the responses others have added. I happen to pretty much agree with you -- I think Epson are quickly going to have to upgrade the K3 inkset with additional inks, and the resulting printers will also incorporate some useful additional functionality, in order to stay competitive -- and if Epson have any desire to hold into the market share they've taken in the space, they'll move forward PDQ. So the 3800 will be shortlived, I think. Nonetheless it is the first printer which addresses my current needs. It is particularly annoying to me that here in the UK, the price of the 3800 is only a little less than the prices for a 4800 -- I could afford the extra , but have no place in my office where it could fit!

As I intimated in my earlier post, sites here in the UK are already offering the 3800 at quite a bit less than the recommended price from Epson, which sweetens the pill a bit. I've watched the printer market for a couple of years now, and I think early 2007 is when I have to make a purchase. Unless something really good appears on the horizon in the next couple of months, Epson will have one more sale.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2006, 01:57:39 PM by DavidRees » Logged

Just one more frame, dear...
thompsonkirk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2006, 09:48:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Wasn't the 4800 was clearly "transitional" - designed to use the basic 4000 chassis & 8 ink cartridges, when what was called for was a 9-cartridge printer with ready MK-PK switch, & a new approach to non-clogging head design?  I thought these were 2 important reasons for not replacing a 4000.  

I appreciate the comments in this thread, because my 4000 is definitely up past its bedtime: still too much metamerism, & no way to make good glossy/luster prints, or use the new PK papers without obvious GD.  I'd planned on getting an Ipf 5000 before the end of the year, but have been concerned because its additional 6" width would cramp my fixed & limited workspace.  So I hope Michael can offer a review soon - nobody is in a better position to compare 3800 & Ipf 5000.

Kirk
Logged
thompsonkirk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2006, 10:23:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Postscript:

The thread led me to read the IJA site & the 3800 brochure, & I found 3 interessting points:

Plus:

The footprint is only 27x15x10" - a real space-saver.

It will print larger sheets than 17x22", if you cut rolls into shorter lengths.  IJA tried this with their own version of luster paper, & I wonder if it'll work with a heavier paper like 308g HPR.  I've tried cutting rolls before & running them through sheet-feed printers, & the curl of heavy papers sometimes caused them to rub against the print head.  (Maybe Michael can try this for his review.)

Questionable:

The specs for system requirements for Mac say "OSX 10.4.7 or higher (universal binary)."  Does this mean the driver was written for, & only for, new G5 Macs?  If so, amazingly dumb - a straight shot to the foot?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad