Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Buying my first printer, epson 3800 or 2400  (Read 28554 times)
Sunesha
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« on: November 18, 2007, 03:09:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Good evening,

My name is Daniel, a photo enthusiast not a pro. I been using a local printshop for doing my prints. Which has become a quite expensive and unpredictable experience. My main software for printing is Adobe Lightroom with Photoshop CS2(havnt afford the upgrade yet).

The thing that puzzle my choices is print cost. I understood after I bought "Camera to print", which was excellent instruction video to start understand photo printing. The gear showcased there was execellent.

The price difference between the 2400 and 3800 is quite large. Also when to account the paper cost printing A2 size paper it was a bit higher. But on the other hand I am appealed to the bigger prints and the cartridges seems to hold more ink. But I have hard time to count the cost diffrence?

Also havnt read a good review of 2400, had read couple off 3800. Most the reviews read about 2400 hasnt really got me understanding what the diffrence would be beetween this two.

Anyone can explain how you make a cost estimation?

I think I would print around 20-30 A3 prints a month. I have calibrated screen and understand that part of printing. But as landscape, architecture photo enthusiast. I am not really sure what I am gonna be pleased with. If money wasnt a issue I would go for 24 inch printer in a heartbeat.

Are there any option in the price range of 2400 and 3800 worth looking at also?

As framing photos do you think a 13 inch printer makes a large enough print for a landscape with forest detail? (has mostly done 24-30inch(something, not used to the inch system) )

Got good source for very cheap frames(Ikea) ;-) and love giving away prints to friends, often photos of landscapes or buildings that has a special meaning for them. Sorry for my lengthy post, but having problems to decide for myself and looking for people to push me to any direction.

CHeers,
Daniel
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 03:12:16 PM by Sunesha » Logged

Daniel Sunebring, Malmoe, Sweden
Homepage: Sunesha.se
Non-native english speaker and dyslexian, so excuse my mistake in grammar and spelling."
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2007, 03:20:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I would definitely go for the 3800 over the 2400.  Lower cost per ml of ink, and from reports signficantly less problems with clogging.  Main drawback would be lack of roll feed.

If you are looking at a 17 inch printer in that price range, another choice would be the Canon iPF5000.  Available at fire sale prices from itsupplies.com (and probably other places, but this is the lowest price I have seen and my dealings with itsupplies have been very good).  The Canon is very large, and there are other factors that may be an issue.  You can read more here:

http://canonipf.wikispaces.com

Edit: Just noticed you are in Sweden, don't know about availability of iPF5000 there.

--John
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 03:22:02 PM by John Hollenberg » Logged
Sunesha
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2007, 03:35:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would definitely go for the 3800 over the 2400.  Lower cost per ml of ink, and from reports signficantly less problems with clogging.  Main drawback would be lack of roll feed.

If you are looking at a 17 inch printer in that price range, another choice would be the Canon iPF5000.  Available at fire sale prices from itsupplies.com (and probably other places, but this is the lowest price I have seen and my dealings with itsupplies have been very good).  The Canon is very large, and there are other factors that may be an issue.  You can read more here:

http://canonipf.wikispaces.com

Edit: Just noticed you are in Sweden, don't know about availability of iPF5000 there.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153935\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks alot John,

After following the link you provided I found alot off new review links that I havnt seen  before. Also a user experience review that seem to be written by yours truly. Like user experience review more technical spec reviews. I now have alot more research to look into.

The iPF5000 and 3800 is about same price here in sweden after doing a price check with price checker tool. After thinking alot about I want a 17 inch more than a 13 inch. Bigger is more interestning in prints ;-)

Heh, always fun to do buy research almost as fun to use new equipment. Only bad thing that this printer is swallowed my scotland trip this summer. Gotta work so I afford anyway.

But I spend almost half a printer per year doing prints in printshops. Hopefully I will earn my printer in 2 years ;-)

Cheers,
Daniel
Logged

Daniel Sunebring, Malmoe, Sweden
Homepage: Sunesha.se
Non-native english speaker and dyslexian, so excuse my mistake in grammar and spelling."
Marty C
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2007, 03:44:19 PM »
ReplyReply

The problem you run into will be the fact that you will out grow the printer. This has happened to me on many occasions. The list below goes back to 1995 when I started doing this. Most of the time I just needed a better and bigger printer, but there were some cases where I killed it trying 3rd party inks.

1995- Photo Sylus  lasted 10 years
1998  Epson 1270  gave back to Epson
1999 Epson 2000 sold after 1 year
2001 Epson 1280 Killed with 3rd party Ink
2002 Epson 1160 Killed with 3rd party B&W ink
2002 Epson 2200 Alive and well
2005 Epson 9600 Sold after 1 year
2006 Epson 9800 Alive and well Great Printer
2007 Epson 3800 just ordered one.

As you can see, my printers have grown because of the larger sizes I do and that happened very fast. My advise to you is buy the 3800 if you can swing it. The 2400 is a great printer but it is to costly to run and it is getting old.
Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2007, 04:05:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
After following the link you provided I found alot off new review links that I havnt seen  before. Also a user experience review that seem to be written by yours truly. Like user experience review more technical spec reviews.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, but don't let the review I wrote scare you off.  A lot of things have improved since then, and we have so much information at the Wiki that I would say the iPF5000 is certainly a viable choice.  As a matter of fact, I am planning to buy a 24 inch printer and the iPF6100 is at the top of my list, ahead of the Epson 7880.

For a listing of current Known Problems that might affect your purchase decision, see this link:

[a href=\"http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Considerations+Before+Buying+This+Printer]http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Considerati...ng+This+Printer[/url]

--John
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1463


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2007, 08:14:32 PM »
ReplyReply

The difference between the initial cost of the two printers is about the same as a complete set of 80ml ink carts for the 3800. Given their larger capacity, you can make many more prints with the 3800 before you need to replace the carts (which are then less expensive per milliliter of ink). You might check for any Epson rebate offers, too.

The 3800 is my first digital printer since giving up my darkroom several years ago. So far I have been having a lot of fun with it. The prints are terrific, as is the convenience. I just came downstairs this evening to print a couple of images, and made a few 8x10's and a 12x12-inch print (on 13x19-inch paper), in about 30 minutes. I could never have done that in a wet darkroom.

I have no knowledge of the Canon printer.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
robertwatcher
Guest
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2007, 11:46:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
and from reports signficantly less problems with clogging. Main drawback would be lack of roll feed.

I have never had my 2400 that I have printed thousands of prints off of over the last 2 years clog once. It has worked flawlessly. The only clogging issues I ever had with Epson printers were with their single catridge printers - all of the new ones have separate cartridges that are very reliable. Also there is Roll paper capabilty with the 2400 - it just doesn't have the nice integrated paper cutter that came with my previous 2200.

Oh - and by the way - the prints from either the 2400 or 3800 are identical. They both use the same K3 inks.

Yes - there are savings with the larger ink cartidges. But I'm not so concerned about that as my print prices are ample to cover any cost of producing prints. The 2400 is compact and sits on my desk perfectly beside my computer monitor. It handles all of the paper I want to use including heavy weight watercolour papers and canvas. I absolutely love the 13"x19" size and use it over the more common 11x14 as an option for my clients. It is a great wall size print when matted using say a 24"x24" frame or even wide matted in a larger one. The 3800 and 4800 largest print size is of no real use to me as I don't like and so prefer not to offer a 16x20 print. My options are 13x19 and 20x30 or 24x36. And so if I was really wanting to have my ideal large format printer and save on inks, it would be the 7800 printer to get the 24 inch prints that I currently send out to have printed. But they don't come often and so I can't justify the expense, space and upkeep of the large printer. Yes it would look good - but I'd bet that I'd end up using my 2400 for 99% of my printing.

Nothing wrong with the 3800 and the price is fairly reasonable for that format a printer - but my preference is still with the 2400 for my own use and for the same incredible colour images, black and white images, watercolour and canvas print images that all of the other larger format Epson printers offer.

Code:
Also havnt read a good review of 2400,

There are many reviews talking about how great the 2400 is.  Here's one I can quickly come up with from Moose Peterson:

http://moosepeterson.com/digitaldarkroom/e.../epson2400.html

And another from David Brooks at Shutterbug:

http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews...ters/1205epson/
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 12:00:38 AM by robertwatcher » Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2007, 08:06:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have never had my 2400 that I have printed thousands of prints off of over the last 2 years clog once. It has worked flawlessly. The only clogging issues I ever had with Epson printers were with their single catridge printers - all of the new ones have separate cartridges that are very reliable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Every Epson printer that I have had (2200, 2400, 9600) has had significant clogging problems.  A couple of friends have had similar problems.  I live in an area where humidity generally runs around 60%, so that isn't the problem.  I understand the Epson 3800 is better.

--John
Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2007, 09:48:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Epson R2400:
* can print on sheet and roll paper
* can print only 13" wide
* cheaper to buy
* more expensive to keep running due to ink cost
* switch between matte black and photo black tedious and expensive

Epson 3800:
* can print on sheets only, no roll paper
* can print up to 17" wide, can still be lifted by a single person
* more expensive to buy but comes with 9 x 80 ml of ink
* cheaper to keep running due to lower ink cost
* switch between matte black and photo black quick and fairly cheap

An A3 size colour print uses approx. 2 ml of ink so a set of eight 13 ml cartridges will last through approx. 50 A3 prints (provided you're using up all colours evenly). Eight 80 ml cartridges are good for more than 300 A3 prints. So in order to get the same number of prints as with the 3800, with the R2400 you'd need to buy approx. five additional sets of ink cartridges, at a total cost of about $400 - $500 US. Don't forget to take the value of the ink sets coming with the printers into consideration!

-- Olaf
Logged
jpmulligan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2007, 09:55:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Every Epson printer that I have had (2200, 2400, 9600) has had significant clogging problems.  A couple of friends have had similar problems.  I live in an area where humidity generally runs around 60%, so that isn't the problem.
Try running an Epson in an area with 35-40% typical humitidy, you will be running head cleanings every other day. That's why I sold my 7600 and went to the Z3100, I got tired of dumping 40% of my ink trying to keep my printer unclogged. Since I switched to the HP last April, I have not had a single head clog.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2007, 12:10:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since I switched to the HP last April, I have not had a single head clog.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Odds are, you have...you just don't know it since clogged nozzles get mapped out and spare nozzles get picked up and used...and that's fine until you run out of unused nozzles–at which point you'll need to replace the heads.

And a comparison of the 7600 series with the original UltraChrome inks and the current the current series with K3 inks isn't accurate since the head was redesigned and the ink reformulated to help eliminate clops and the new 3800 head is even further advanced from even the 2400. The 3800 has better error diffusion halftoning and smaller dots. So, the 3800 is an upgrade from the 2400 even if the K3 inks are the same. And Andrew Rodney, who lives in Santa Fe where the relative humidity is about 9% on average has not had clogging problems with his 3800.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 12:15:11 PM by Schewe » Logged
Sunesha
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2007, 06:02:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I am more than grateful for your valuable input from all off you. After reading reviews and information sites on the 3800 and iPF5000. I think roll paper will be a more cost effective solution for me. Thou now I am really thinking alot about the weight on the Canon printer. Sure indeed, beeing a weight training swedish viking   it is alot to move around even for me  

But I think its great their two valid options for me.

One thing I know about myself, is that I am like Marty. I just wished that had the money for this expensive hobbey or was good enough to maybe earn some money. Thou beeing ex-musican I learnt that money have killed my pleasure with music.

I think both printers seems very viable. So I will try to do some real scouting for some real-life experience with both. I will have do some budget estimations how much the cost will differ between them.

I am not after best possible print, but a good enough to please me. I think both printers will do great prints at least after reading reviews. I have no idea what printer my current print-shop uses, but they always want their prints in Adobe-RGB. So it is down to printing cost. The cheaper prints I can do the more prints I will do.

As always this like a hard choice for me as choicing beetween Nikon and Canon cameras.

Thanks alot again,
Logged

Daniel Sunebring, Malmoe, Sweden
Homepage: Sunesha.se
Non-native english speaker and dyslexian, so excuse my mistake in grammar and spelling."
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2007, 06:42:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thou now I am really thinking alot about the weight on the Canon printer. Sure indeed, beeing a weight training swedish viking   it is alot to move around even for me  
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I think the Canon is almost 50 kg with the roll feed.  I limit myself to 10 presses (over my head, elbows locked) each night  

--John
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1463


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2007, 07:35:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think both printers seems very viable. So I will try to do some real scouting for some real-life experience with both. I will have do some budget estimations how much the cost will differ between them.


My choice came down to the Canon and the Epson 3800, too. I chose the Epson for the smaller size and significantly lighter weight. (The cost of shipping the Canon here on a truck was a consideration, plus it requires two people to carry and set up.) I'm not sure my desk will even hold that much weight.

I do understand the appeal of roll feed. I am limited to cut paper sizes (or those I can cut myself), and there have been times when I wanted an odd size or longer paper length, etc. But the Epson has been great.

--Ken
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2007, 08:21:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would definitely go for the 3800 over the 2400. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153935\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I totally agree, I've had both (well I have the 3800, the 2400 is gone). Absolutely no comparison in terms of speed, print quality, cost effectiveness. Not that much larger foot print, built in Ethernet. This is an easy one, go 3800.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6972


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2007, 09:24:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Odds are, you have...you just don't know it since clogged nozzles get mapped out and spare nozzles get picked up and used...and that's fine until you run out of unused nozzles–at which point you'll need to replace the heads.

................

And Andrew Rodney, who lives in Santa Fe where the relative humidity is about 9% on average has not had clogging problems with his 3800.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fortunately, HP heads are cheap enough to replace (50 bucks or so per channel, and they are said to last a while, though I have no idea of the details). Not so with Canon. Each head costs about 600 dollars, so if or when the two of those need to be replaced it's almost a new printer.

As for clogging, my experience relates to 4 Epson prigment printers living in a humidity range that falls within the Epson specs: 2000P, 4000, 4800 and now 3800. The 2000P, interestingly enough, just didn't clog. I didn't know there was a problem in those days. The 4000 clogged alot. The 4800 clogs less than the 4000 did, but still an unacceptably high proportion of ink is expended on maintenance and de-clogging (about 30%). So far the 3800 has not clogged once and has not even triggered a self-launched head-cleaning. But I have only been using it for the past month and only made 52 prints with it. (I'm using the 4800 for matte and the 3800 for gloss.) The interesting thing about the 3800 so far is that eventhough the machine can sit for a week with no activity, it still doesn't need a de-clog. I think this is real progress, though it is early days in the life experience of this particular unit. I shall be reporting on it more formally once enough time and operating experience is accumulated for a reliable assessment of this machine's performandce under my operating conditions. But so far I am really encouraged. And most important -  the print quality is outstanding.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
_Luca_
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2007, 05:56:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I totally agree, I've had both (well I have the 3800, the 2400 is gone). Absolutely no comparison in terms of speed, print quality, cost effectiveness. Not that much larger foot print, built in Ethernet. This is an easy one, go 3800.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is there really such a big difference in print quality??
Logged
a_krause
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2007, 06:12:45 PM »
ReplyReply

not to hijack the thread but quick question about 3800 vs 2400. i personally own the 2400 and would suggest it in a second. i print mostly [read: only] with moab entrada paper. i usually am printing portfolio spreads with it that are double sided. i have a theory that the since i have to load the paper in the rear sheet loader that there is a small margin of user error where the paper can print on an angle of say 1/16th. which isnt that much, but it can mess things up if its double sided... sooo with all of that said. does the 3800 have a front loader for the thicker water color papers? as i feel that would help with the allignment..
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6972


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2007, 06:19:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
not to hijack the thread but quick question about 3800 vs 2400. i personally own the 2400 and would suggest it in a second. i print mostly [read: only] with moab entrada paper. i usually am printing portfolio spreads with it that are double sided. i have a theory that the since i have to load the paper in the rear sheet loader that there is a small margin of user error where the paper can print on an angle of say 1/16th. which isnt that much, but it can mess things up if its double sided... sooo with all of that said. does the 3800 have a front loader for the thicker water color papers? as i feel that would help with the allignment..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 3800 has three feed options: an auto-feed on the top which can take paper at least 0.37mm thick (Innova F-type gloss which is pretty heavy stuff. One sheet at a time, no problem - I ran some the day before yesterday). There is no alignment issue whatsoever. However, it also has a back feed and a front feed. The front feed is for yet heavier papers and loads easily and precisely.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2007, 06:16:14 AM »
ReplyReply

To add to what Mark said, the Front Feed on the 3800 is intended for REALLY thick paper: 1 mm to 1.5 mm. A typical "thick" watercolor paper is about 0.5 mm thick -- too thick for the Auto Sheet Feed, too thin for the Front Feed -- so this should be used with the Rear Feed instead.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad