Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Epson 2200 vs 7600 comparison?

Reply
Thread Tools

Epson 2200 vs 7600 comparison?

 
 
Big D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
Hello. I'm starting a small home photography business and I'm trying
to finalize my choice of printing. I don't intend to print anything larger
than 13"x19" currently, so I think the Epson 2200 would be perfect for me,
but if there's any quality difference in the output from the 7600 vs the
2200 or the 2200 is known for crapping out, I'll go with the 7600 instead.

So, is the Epson 2200 a reliable printer with output every bit as high
quality as the 7600?

Thanks!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rafe B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 13:12:32 GMT, Big D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hello. I'm starting a small home photography business and I'm trying
>to finalize my choice of printing. I don't intend to print anything larger
>than 13"x19" currently, so I think the Epson 2200 would be perfect for me,
>but if there's any quality difference in the output from the 7600 vs the
>2200 or the 2200 is known for crapping out, I'll go with the 7600 instead.
>
>So, is the Epson 2200 a reliable printer with output every bit as high
>quality as the 7600?



I don't believe there's a significant difference in the quality of
the output between a 2200 and 7600 or 9600.

Nor for that matter will there be a significant difference in
reliability, overall.

The 7600/9600 will have a somewhat lower cost per print
simply because it uses much larger cartridges.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Young
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
> "Big D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> Hello. I'm starting a small home photography business and I'm trying
> to finalize my choice of printing. I don't intend to print anything larger
> than 13"x19" currently, so I think the Epson 2200 would be perfect for me,
> but if there's any quality difference in the output from the 7600 vs the
> 2200 or the 2200 is known for crapping out, I'll go with the 7600 instead.
>
> So, is the Epson 2200 a reliable printer with output every bit as high
> quality as the 7600?
>
> Thanks!


You might want to investigate the forthcoming Stylus Pro 4000 that Bill Hilton
alerted us to in this post:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 9:30 AM EDT
Subject: New Epson 17" wide pigment ink printer

> Just saw a product announcement for the Epson Stylus Pro 4000 in a photo
> magazine. Seems like the long-awaited upgrade of the 3000.
>
> Highlights include
>
> -- Ultrachrome pigment inks (same as used in the 2200, 7600, 9600) except you
> can load all 8 flavors simultaneously and it will automagically select between
> photo black and matte black, depending on paper type (currently you have to
> switch manually and flush the ink lines, which can waste up to $100 worth of
> ink in the 9600/7600 models each time you do it).
>
> -- 17x22" sheets or 17" wide roll papers, perfect for printing 16x20" prints
> (a sweet spot for art fair sales). Apparently the same rich set of Epson
> papers is supported, with ICM profiles.
>
> -- Accepts the 220 ml ink carts so ink costs will be a fraction of the 2200.
>
> -- Learning from Canon, they've added additional nozzles and it prints
> 16x20" @ 1440 dpi in "just over 10 minutes".
>
> -- 2,880 dpi with 3.5 picoliter droplet size.
>
> -- $1,800 cost is roughly midway between the 2200 (13" wide carriage, not a
> "Pro" model) and the 7600 (24" wide "Pro" model).
>
> Sounds like a nice fit for those who want to print 16x20" (or 16x24" from
> uncropped 35 mm) but don't want or need the features (or size) of the 7600.
>
> No word on availability yet.
>
> Bill



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
>From: Big D http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

>Hello. I'm starting a small home photography business and I'm trying
>to finalize my choice of printing. I don't intend to print anything larger
>than 13"x19" currently, so I think the Epson 2200 would be perfect for me,
>but if there's any quality difference in the output from the 7600 vs the
>2200 or the 2200 is known for crapping out, I'll go with the 7600 instead.
>
>So, is the Epson 2200 a reliable printer with output every bit as high
>quality as the 7600?


These use the same inks (be sure to get the Ultrachrome pigments) but the
7600/9600 models are made by the Epson Professional group and designed to
tighter tolerances, with less variance between units and less variance over
time. The 2200 is a Consumer Group model, a very nice printer but not built to
the same tolerances.

For example, according to Bill Atkinson (who did the profiling for the 9600
much better than Epson did) the 76/96 models profiled well and will stay
accurate to those profiles for years, while the 2200 profiles aren't as
accurate since there's a bigger delta-E between individual units and, according
to Bill's best guess, they'll drift a bit within a year or so.

That said, there have been few reports of problems with the 2200 so if you're
pretty sure you'll only go 13x19" it's a good choice. Note the larger models
use much bigger ink tanks (110 ml and 220 ml) so the ink costs are much less
per page with them than with the 2200.

If you're going to be switching between the matte black and the photo black
inks often the 2200 is a better model for you since it burns about a buck of
ink to make the switch while the 9600/7600 suck up about $100 worth of ink
every time you make the switch.

You might also take a long hard look at the new Epson 4000, which uses the same
Ultrachrome inks. This is a Pro model which will start shipping in January
(already a backlog of up to 200 orders at some stores), uses the larger ink
tanks for lower running costs, sells for $1,800 and prints up to 17x22" or 17"
wide on roll paper. It also lets you keep both photo and matte black loaded at
the same time, bypassing the $100 hit on the 96/76 when you switch. Cool.

Here's a link with some info on the 4000:

http://www.inkjetart.com/4000/index.html

Bill
(has a 2200, has ordered a 4000, didn't have room for a 7600 but wanted one ...
)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Big D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
> less variance over time. The 2200 is a Consumer Group model, a very
> nice printer but not built to the same tolerances.
> For example... the 2200
> profiles aren't as accurate since there's a bigger delta-E between
> individual units and, according to Bill's best guess, they'll drift a
> bit within a year or so.


That was what I was concerned about...

> That said, there have been few reports of problems with the 2200 so if
> you're pretty sure you'll only go 13x19" it's a good choice. Note the
> larger models use much bigger ink tanks (110 ml and 220 ml) so the ink
> costs are much less per page with them than with the 2200.


Do you have accurate numbers on the cost per page with the 2200 and the
7600? I'm finding hard data on these printers difficult to dig up.

> You might also take a long hard look at the new Epson 4000, which uses
> the same Ultrachrome inks. This is a Pro model which will start
> shipping in January (already a backlog of up to 200 orders at some
> stores), uses the larger ink tanks for lower running costs, sells for
> $1,800 and prints up to 17x22" or 17" wide on roll paper. It also
> lets you keep both photo and matte black loaded at the same time,
> bypassing the $100 hit on the 96/76 when you switch. Cool.


Wow, well the 4000 sounds PERFECT... It's unfortunate that it won't be out
for another 2 months, though.

Well, good food for thought. Thanks!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Hatch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
"Big D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns942B632692C8supagoatatverizonDne@130.81.64 .196...

>
> Do you have accurate numbers on the cost per page with the 2200 and the
> 7600? I'm finding hard data on these printers difficult to dig up.
>

Cost per page will vary depending on media used and amount/density of
coverage. The 7600 has a built in function that will report on the last 9
jobs and will report exact ml of ink used and paper used in mm.

Once you know what the ink is costing per cartridge it's really easy to
determine the cost per print. Ink carts cost about $100 for the 220 ml ones
and they can be used in the 7600. I used $102 per cartridge to calculate my
costs so ink cost runs .46 cents per ml. A report I ran a couple of days ago
show:

A 16x20 image printed on 24" wide paper with 100% very dense ink coverage
used 3.366 ml of ink. Ink cost = $1.548.

6 pages of images 24" wide by 10" high, of mixed sizes (printed using
Qimage) all with 100% coverage used 12.179 ml ink. Ink cost = $5.60.

Because I know the cost of my paper per sq inch I have calculated the cost
of an 8x10 on Premium Luster paper at 80 cents each and have tested that
cost over and over and it runs *very close*.

Please note the I print all images using 1440 dpi as the default for the
printer.

HTH

--
"Just as the Left was anti-anticommunist,
so too then are they anti-antiterrorist." --Robert Spencer
http://www.bobhatch.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
>> Note the larger models use much bigger ink tanks (110 ml and
>> 220 ml) so the ink costs are much less per page with them
>> than with the 2200.




>From: Big D (E-Mail Removed)


>Do you have accurate numbers on the cost per page with the 2200 and the
>7600? I'm finding hard data on these printers difficult to dig up.


You want data, we got data ... some of it conflicting, some of it with more
caveats than you might want.

http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_03-14-03.html ... scroll down to the
third header, "REAL LIFE EPSON 2200 PRINTING COSTS" ... this claims for the
2200 it's around $2.51 per sq/ft or $1.49 per 8x10" print when ink was $11.95
per cart. It's now down to $10 / cart at most places so this would drop to
around $2.03 per sq/ft and $1.24 per 8x10 print. (Plenty of caveats in these
numbers since a lot depends on the image, but I haven't seen anyone claim these
numbers are too far off the mark either way).

For the larger printers, here's the official Epson numbers, which are highly
suspect and subject to various interpretations:

http://www.inkjetart.com/pro/7600_9600/cost_page.html Note these include
paper and ink, and also note the industry standard test image isn't going to
have the ink coverage most photos would have. They assume 110 ml carts for the
7600 and 220 ml carts for the 9600 but you can use either size in either
printer.

This chart averages out to about 45 cents (220 ml) to 57 cents (220 ml) per sq
ft and the guy who put the page up says you'll often need twice this amount of
ink for "real" photos, plus the tests were done at 720x720 dpi and most of us
will print at a higher dpi than that, but then the ink costs have come down a
bit too.

So you can come up with a range of numbers due to all the variables, but say we
double the 220 ml number to get 90 cents per sq/ft, which is still about half
what the guy with the 2200 saw. Print enough and it will pay off, but the 7600
costs $3,000 and the 2200 costs $650 so you have to print a lot.

Hope this answers more questions than it raises

Bill


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
>From: "Bob Hatch" (E-Mail Removed)

>Because I know the cost of my paper per sq inch I have calculated the cost
>of an 8x10 on Premium Luster paper at 80 cents each and have tested that
>cost over and over and it runs *very close*.


Bob,

Is this just for the ink or does it include the paper cost too? On the 2200
this same print would cost about $1.94 total (70 cents for the paper, estimated
$1.24 for the ink). What dpi are you printing this at, 1440 or 2880 or?

If you're able to print Premium Luster on the 7600 at a total cost of 80 cents
per 8x10 with roll paper and ink cost included you are waaay ahead of the game


Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Hatch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
"Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >From: "Bob Hatch" (E-Mail Removed)

>


>
> Is this just for the ink or does it include the paper cost too? On the

2200
> this same print would cost about $1.94 total (70 cents for the paper,

estimated
> $1.24 for the ink). What dpi are you printing this at, 1440 or 2880 or?
>
> If you're able to print Premium Luster on the 7600 at a total cost of 80

cents
> per 8x10 with roll paper and ink cost included you are waaay ahead of the

game
>
>

Bill, here are some numbers.

Premium Luster paper at Pro Photo Supply in PDX is $134.59 for a 24" wide
roll. This makes the paper .67 cents per sq inch. Ink in the 220 ml
cartridges is $102.00 each. Ink cost is .46 cents per ml. A 16 x 20 print
will use 2.22 sq feet of paper for a paper cost of $1.55. The ink usage for
a 100% covered 16x20 is about 3.366 ml for an ink cost of $1.54 for the
16x20. Total cost for a 16x20 would be $3.09. It's important to point out
the ink cost for the 16x20 was for an image that was 100% covered with
*very* dense ink coverage.

So my estimate of $.80 for an 8x10 is high, kind of. The cost would be .7725
cents per 8x10 if you batch them and can use all paper with zero waste and
this won't happen, but the cost is *close* at .80 cents per 8x10 over time,
because an image on a high key background won't use as much ink as one on a
low key/black background or a scenic with a lot of dark, dense detail.

I print at 1440. I did some images at 2800 and when compared to the ones
printed at 1440 there was not enough difference to make up for the extra ink
and time used.

HTH.

--
"Just as the Left was anti-anticommunist,
so too then are they anti-antiterrorist." --Robert Spencer
http://www.bobhatch.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
Big D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
"Bob Hatch" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:boe442$1cgo99$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de:

> I print at 1440. I did some images at 2800 and when compared to the
> ones printed at 1440 there was not enough difference to make up for
> the extra ink and time used.



This is some excellent information, thanks! I've come to the conclusion
that I'll buy the 4000 when it's released and just pay the premium at the
photo lab to use their 9600 until then so that I can gain some experience
with the process.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
looking for epson 2200 profiles with MIS ink on epson stock Ken Digital Photography 0 02-10-2005 04:13 PM
Epson 2200 vs. Epson 4000 Grady R. Thompson Digital Photography 12 12-05-2003 12:34 AM
Re: Epson printer 2200 - Epson semi-gloss paper nobody nowhere Digital Photography 1 07-13-2003 02:45 PM
Re: Epson 7600 cartridge cover? Bill Hilton Digital Photography 3 07-10-2003 06:33 PM
Re: Epson 7600 cartridge cover? gsum Digital Photography 0 07-10-2003 03:24 PM



Advertisments