Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson 3800 or 4880?  (Read 9859 times)
pollardd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« on: October 23, 2007, 04:56:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I am in the market for a 17" printer and am trying to decide between the Epson 3800 and the new 4880.  While I believe some elements of the new *880 series are to be found in the 3800, is the new 4880 sufficiently better than the 3800 to warrant paying the extra $700 CDN?  While the size, weight and cartridge size of the 3800 suit my needs, better is better.  Or can we expect a new 3880 any time in the near future?  Then the question becomes buy now or wait.  

Any thoughts?

David
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2884



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2007, 05:19:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am in the market for a 17" printer and am trying to decide between the Epson 3800 and the new 4880.  While I believe some elements of the new *880 series are to be found in the 3800, is the new 4880 sufficiently better than the 3800 to warrant paying the extra $700 CDN?  While the size, weight and cartridge size of the 3800 suit my needs, better is better.  Or can we expect a new 3880 any time in the near future?  Then the question becomes buy now or wait. 

Any thoughts?

David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148217\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Would roll paper benefit your workflow?  4880.

Do you need to switch blacks frequently?  3800.

Use a lot of ink?  4880 has lower ink cost.

Just a few things significant enough they may sway a decision.

Image quality is very good on both, I suppose some images may be better on the 4880 with the new magenta inks.
Logged

pollardd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2007, 05:06:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank's Wayne.  Roll feed would be a plus but is not essential; the 3800's ink cartridge is probably better for the volume of printing I do.  Changing out the black cartridges could be an issue or not.  I'm currently using mostly Epson Premium Semigloss but do occassionaly use matte paper.  Based on the reviews I'm anxiously waiting to try both the Harman Gloss FB AL and Epson Exhibition Fiber papers; as I believe both use the photo black ink (PK), and if the results are what I hope, changing out to matte black (MK) may not be an issue after all.  I'm printing both colour and B&W images.

In most respects I think the 3800 would suit my requirements.  The 4880 becomes an option if it is more reliable (i.e. fewer clogs, etc.) and produces better output with the new vivid magenta ink.  If, however we were to see a 3880 any time soon (say in the next 2-3 months) waiting becomes an option.

Thank's again.

David
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2007, 12:49:54 AM »
ReplyReply

You need to think long and hard about the black swap issue; it's not just a matter of convenience, it's a matter of flushing $60-70 of ink away when you swap blacks on the 4000/4800 based on the estimates I've seen.

It's a shame the 3800 doesn't have at least basic roll paper support, this decision would become so much easier IMHO.

I think the chances of a 3880 in the next 2-3 months are slim to none. Maybe in 2008....
Logged

pollardd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2007, 07:36:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank's Jeff, sounds like a deal breaker unless I could stick to either the PK or MK cartridge.

David
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2884



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2007, 03:13:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You need to think long and hard about the black swap issue; it's not just a matter of convenience, it's a matter of flushing $60-70 of ink away when you swap blacks on the 4000/4800 based on the estimates I've seen.

It's a shame the 3800 doesn't have at least basic roll paper support, this decision would become so much easier IMHO.

I think the chances of a 3880 in the next 2-3 months are slim to none. Maybe in 2008....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed on the black ink swap.  The 4800 uses less ink than the 4000 did, because it flushed all 8 lines and the 4800 only flushed 4.  Estimated ink for a swap on the 4800 is around 90ml, or around $40 in ink.  So the round trip is about $80.  I read somewhere, but can't find it now, that the 4880 now only flushes 2 colors instead of 4, which would cut the cost to around $40 for the round trip. Still quite a big higher than the 3800(which I believe is around $5-6 for the round trip), but  1/2 the cost on a 4800.

One other advantage of the 4880 is it will support 16bit drivers under OS X 10.5.  I'm not sure that will translate to any visible difference although many canon users claim they can see the difference with Canons 16bit driver.

I think the new head technology, new screening technology,  and especially the new inks make the 4880 the machine of choice if selecting between the 4880 and 3800, unless you need to switch blacks more than occasionally.

I tend to agree with you on a possible 3880.  I would be surprised to see it before PMA, and not even sure it's anywhere in sight.  Who knows, they may not even plan on doing it.
Logged

Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2007, 08:49:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Agreed on the black ink swap.  The 4800 uses less ink than the 4000 did, because it flushed all 8 lines and the 4800 only flushed 4.  Estimated ink for a swap on the 4800 is around 90ml, or around $40 in ink.  So the round trip is about $80.  I read somewhere, but can't find it now, that the 4880 now only flushes 2 colors instead of 4, which would cut the cost to around $40 for the round trip. Still quite a big higher than the 3800(which I believe is around $5-6 for the round trip), but  1/2 the cost on a 4800.

One other advantage of the 4880 is it will support 16bit drivers under OS X 10.5.  I'm not sure that will translate to any visible difference although many canon users claim they can see the difference with Canons 16bit driver.

I think the new head technology, new screening technology,  and especially the new inks make the 4880 the machine of choice if selecting between the 4880 and 3800, unless you need to switch blacks more than occasionally.

I tend to agree with you on a possible 3880.  I would be surprised to see it before PMA, and not even sure it's anywhere in sight.  Who knows, they may not even plan on doing it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For the 4000 the cost to swap blacks is $0.  Photo and matte are always in place.  Having said that, my 4000 runs pretty well 50% ink on the paper and 50% needed for cleaning cycles.
Logged
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2007, 10:43:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Or, not to spoil the epson party, the canon ipf5000 or 5100 provide roll paper support, free Matt and photo black switching and also give nice output. May be worth a look.

Mike.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2884



WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2007, 04:54:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Or, not to spoil the epson party, the canon ipf5000 or 5100 provide roll paper support, free Matt and photo black switching and also give nice output. May be worth a look.

Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would second that thought . Personally I don't like the canon paper tray, and the interface is a little tougher to wade through, but the 6100 I've been testing is an improvement over the 5000, and the output is stellar. The new black inks are visually better.

From a print quality perspective I don't think there is enough difference to base a choice on, so it really is about features/price/size/UI .. things like that.

The Canon is kind of large for a 17" printer.  Another potential downside is paper profiles.  For this reason I'd stick with the 5100 as the calibration means profiles from paper makers will be much more consistent.  The only question remaining is whether good profiles will be made by paper manufacturers, something the epsons won't have a problem with.  If you make your own profiles, then a non - issue.

All good choices depending on what you need to print.
Logged

pollardd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2007, 04:56:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Tim - it sounds like you've had a fair amount of blockage problems.  Would you go the Epson route again?  Or is it less of a problem with the newer models?

Mike - I'm not wedded to Epson, in fact I've been using a Canon i9900 dye printer for the last three years with excellent results; the issue with the ipf5100 is for me the price.  Current Vistek pricing is $1299 for the 3800, $1999 for the 4880, and $2349 for the 5100 (current sale prices in $CDN).  Also the 5100 comes with starter tanks so I would need to outlay for ink sooner rather than later; this may be the same for the 4880 but at least the purchase price is less.

Thank's everyone for the comments.  Decisions, decisions!

David
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2007, 05:46:47 PM »
ReplyReply

That's a shame about the Canon pricing in Canada, here in the US the ipf5100 is actually $200 cheaper than the 4880.

My main concerns with the Canon are gloss differential (some reports say it's considerably worse than the K3 inks), and the in ability to use a single ICC profile for some paper types in both roll and cut-sheet because many of the paper type selections are limited to one or the other feed.
Logged

Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2007, 06:03:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Tim - it sounds like you've had a fair amount of blockage problems.  Would you go the Epson route again?  Or is it less of a problem with the newer models?

Mike - I'm not wedded to Epson, in fact I've been using a Canon i9900 dye printer for the last three years with excellent results; the issue with the ipf5100 is for me the price.  Current Vistek pricing is $1299 for the 3800, $1999 for the 4880, and $2349 for the 5100 (current sale prices in $CDN).  Also the 5100 comes with starter tanks so I would need to outlay for ink sooner rather than later; this may be the same for the 4880 but at least the purchase price is less.

Thank's everyone for the comments.  Decisions, decisions!

David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll make that decision when (I'm guessing the next model - pure speculation) there's no cost to switch inks.  I do about half matte (archival and velvet) and half premium luster.  When that happens, I'll check out the state of the competition.  Part of the blockage problem is that I don't print every day - but over the couple of years I've had it, only one power cleaning.   I'm not wedded to Epson either, but space is an issue, and I really would have a tough time with any larger footprint.
Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2007, 08:08:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Also the 5100 comes with starter tanks so I would need to outlay for ink sooner rather than later; this may be the same for the 4880 but at least the purchase price is less.

In the past the Epson's have always come with full-size inks.  I would assume that will continue.

The starter inks are just bs to reduce the apparent cost.  Like you don't really *need* ink?      Oh well ...

Best,
Michael
Logged
pollardd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2007, 08:51:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank's Tim - as I now understand it, your 50% wastage is partly due to blockage and partly due to changing between the two black ink cartridges.  If your output was largely with one paper type or the other (say 80/20 or 90/10) where wastage would then be less of a problem, would you be happy to upgrade to the 4880?

David
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2884



WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2007, 01:33:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's a shame about the Canon pricing in Canada, here in the US the ipf5100 is actually $200 cheaper than the 4880.

My main concerns with the Canon are gloss differential (some reports say it's considerably worse than the K3 inks), and the in ability to use a single ICC profile for some paper types in both roll and cut-sheet because many of the paper type selections are limited to one or the other feed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Gloss differential of the 5000 series was a problem, but I don't see much difference between the 6100 I have and my epson 3800 or 9800.

As far as profiles, I can't see how a proflie choice is tied to a paper path.  It's true that some paper types have limited paper path choices, (thick papers can't use the paper tray), but I don't think that limits your profile choice.  

As mentioned, the Canon is more expensive but other than that it's really about needs and features.  I believe the 3800 comes with more ink than Canon's "starter" set, and uses much less ink to charge the lines.  Obviously if you switch blacks a lot, eventually the Canon would save you money over the 3800, but  It would probably be in the neighborhood of 200 or more ink swaps before you break even.

I like both printers, and the output between the 3800 and ipf6100 is virtually identical.
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2884



WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2007, 01:35:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For the 4000 the cost to swap blacks is $0.  Photo and matte are always in place.  Having said that, my 4000 runs pretty well 50% ink on the paper and 50% needed for cleaning cycles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148818\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


My bad.  Been so long since I had a 4000 I forgot it had both blacks on board.  The 7600/9600's were the models that flushed all lines.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2007, 01:49:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Gloss differential of the 5000 series was a problem, but I don't see much difference between the 6100 I have and my epson 3800 or 9800.
I know the x100 series had new blacks to reduce bronzing, but I didn't think there had been any other changes that would affect gloss differential?

Quote
As far as profiles, I can't see how a proflie choice is tied to a paper path.  It's true that some paper types have limited paper path choices, (thick papers can't use the paper tray), but I don't think that limits your profile choice. 
The point is that when creating a custom profile, you're going to need to choose the paper type setting that gives the best results for the given paper you're profiling. So if you find that the best paper type setting for Hahnemuhle Photo Rag is only available for one or the other paper path, that limits your options for printing both sheets and rolls with one profile.
Logged

Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2007, 02:10:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thank's Tim - as I now understand it, your 50% wastage is partly due to blockage and partly due to changing between the two black ink cartridges.  If your output was largely with one paper type or the other (say 80/20 or 90/10) where wastage would then be less of a problem, would you be happy to upgrade to the 4880?

David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148937\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

not quite - the 4000 has both inks available at all times, there's no "switching".  All "waste" ink is due to cleaning cycles - this includes clogs, as well as the startup purging/cleaning that happens when the machine is powered on - and even with no clogs, the longer it site, the more ink it cycles on startup.   So as soon as epson has a model with $0 switching I'll consider an upgrade.  From what I've been able to tell from other folks experience is that each successive model has better performance in the not clogging department.  

I also recollect that for either Canon or HP (don't remember which - maybe both) the heads are treated as "consumables" - clogged nozzels are mapped and the other's pick up the slack, so to speak.  So until the life of these "replaceable" heads is evaluated, it's tough to be sure that an HP or Canon will be more economical.
Logged
pollardd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2007, 02:28:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Tim - thank's for the clarification.

David
Logged
zaharia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2007, 03:11:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am in the market for a 17" printer and am trying to decide between the Epson 3800 and the new 4880.  While I believe some elements of the new *880 series are to be found in the 3800, is the new 4880 sufficiently better than the 3800 to warrant paying the extra $700 CDN?  While the size, weight and cartridge size of the 3800 suit my needs, better is better.  Or can we expect a new 3880 any time in the near future?  Then the question becomes buy now or wait. 

Any thoughts?

David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148217\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am in the same decision mode. I have chosen to get the 4880 as I believe the technology is slightly better with the new coated heads and vivid magenta inks as well as being better built as a truly pro printer. The options of using 110 or 220 ml inks is a bonus which will make for cheaper prints. Sure it is $700 more, but you get a few hundred extra in ink to begin with as well. I also like the built in paper cassette on the 4880 which will allow for large unattended print runs.  The roll paper holder is a bonus, but I probably won't use it much if at all. The 4880 will probably also hold its value better than the 3880. All in all, I can always add a new 3880 later when it comes out for $1200 that I could use solely for matte prints. Or possibly when the even newer 17" printer with matte black and photo black comes online (somewhere in the next year or two) with the 11880 technology, the 4880 will still have some resale value.
 I also just finally received a few print samples from Epson done on the 4880 and they are sweet. (one B&W and one color) Not saying that the 3880 couldn't have done as well, but it sealed the deal for me.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad