Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: epson 4000 vs 4800  (Read 3366 times)
rih
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« on: December 26, 2005, 02:39:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I currently use an Epson 1280 and want to upgrade to a larger format and the new inks.  There are Epson 4000 out there on eBay etc that are lightly used and seem to go for about $1500.  New 4800s are only a bit more $1800 or so.  Which would you recommend?  I understand the 4000 has slots for the two blacks and there is no need to get an RIP or switch.  The 4800 has even newer and ? cooler inks.  I would love some advice.  thanks
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2005, 02:50:30 PM »
ReplyReply

My .02:

1) The new inks deliver clearly superior results on coated photo-papers; better color and tonality overall with less bronzing, metamerism and gloss differential.

2) The new inks also deliver better results on fine-art papers, but here the differences are less significant and maybe not even visible when the prints are mounted behind glass.

3) The new inks deliver better B&W out of the box and the "Advanced B&W" driver in the new Epson printers is probably worth the extra cost by itself if you print B&W on either media -- definitely so if you print B&W on photo-papers.

3a) BUT if you are only going to print B&W on art papers, Roy Harrington's QuadTone RIP is very good with the older inks on matte papers.

4) The cost to swap between Mk and Pk in the 4800 is significant -- about $75 of ink is burned in the swap.  Obvioulsy the 4000 does not have this issue, so if you switch often between Mk and Pk inks and papers you have a difficult decision to make...

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 26, 2005, 02:51:49 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6904


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2005, 04:39:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack, I agree with most of what you say, having now used both the 4000 and the 4800. I would suggest as follows: the decision really depends on the intended usage.

The colour gamut is a bit better on the 4800, but the difference isn't a knock-out one for colour work on matte. Anyone just using it for printing colour on matte papers should probably not make the up-grade unless the cost difference is really minor.

The 4800 prints more neutral blacks and handles coated media better - at the cost of changing the inks. So people who make alot of B&W and alot of coated media prints would probably find the 4800 advantageous, especially accompanied by ImagePrint with Phatte Black ink, according to Michael's review results (I haven't gone that step yet.)

So far, I am also finding the 4800 uses less ink per print, clogs less frequently and requires fewer cleaning cycles to de-clog than was the case with the 4000. The main qualification to this finding is that I've only owned the machine for a couple of months and made about 450 prints with it - not enough of a track record to come to definitive performance conclusions of this kind. Several months from now, I may write more about this.
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
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2005, 05:19:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So far, I am also finding the 4800 uses less ink per print, clogs less frequently and requires fewer cleaning cycles to de-clog than was the case with the 4000.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54346\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's also hard to know if this is a result of mechanical design differences, or due to the recent firmware updates (for both the 4000 and 4800)
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6904


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2005, 05:44:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Tim,

The firmware update for the 4000 post-dates the firmware shipped with the 4800 as far as I know. I'm not sure whether it does more than to improve the efficiency of de-clogging (which itself would be significant). Whether it also makes on impact on the amount of clogging or on ink use per print for the 4000 is something that remains to be determined with experience. If you would like a copy of my tracking spreadsheet (a bit improved since my previous posting) send me your email address and I shall send it to you with some instructions. I am using it religiously for tracking my 4800, so if you do likewise on the 4000 with the new firmware, it could be very interesting to compare results after a few months.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2005, 05:44:55 PM by MarkDS » 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
rih
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2005, 08:40:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to all for the very helpful responses.  I think for the small differential it is probably worth getting a 4800 and will likely do so.  Bob
Logged
RichDesmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2005, 09:40:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Bob,

I had the same dilemma 3 months ago, and went with the 4800. Couldn't be happier, the prints are simply stunning.
Logged
rih
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2005, 07:19:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Rich  thanks  I have reached the same conclusion and am about to order my 4800 Bob
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad