«

If this has been asked, and I missed the thread, I apologize. I will
be purchasing a new printer soon to replace my Epson 1270, with which
I have been completely happy. If the largest print I am likely to
make will be 11x14, is there any reason to buy the 4000 over the 2200?
The price difference is substantial, so I wonder if there is a
difference in quality, too, or just output size? Thank you.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:23:55 -0600, Grady R. Thompson <>
wrote:

>If this has been asked, and I missed the thread, I apologize. I will
>be purchasing a new printer soon to replace my Epson 1270, with which
>I have been completely happy. If the largest print I am likely to
>make will be 11x14, is there any reason to buy the 4000 over the 2200?
>The price difference is substantial, so I wonder if there is a
>difference in quality, too, or just output size? Thank you.


If you do a lot of printing, the 4000 will have lower
operating costs due to its much larger cartridges.
(110 or 220 ml.) Cost per page (for ink) will probably
be about half what you get on the 2200.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

In article <>,
says...
> If this has been asked, and I missed the thread, I apologize. I will
> be purchasing a new printer soon to replace my Epson 1270, with which
> I have been completely happy. If the largest print I am likely to
> make will be 11x14, is there any reason to buy the 4000 over the 2200?
> The price difference is substantial, so I wonder if there is a
> difference in quality, too, or just output size? Thank you.
>
Just max print size and capacity of ink cartridges.

--
Robert D Feinman

Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
http://robertdfeinman.com

"Robert Feinman" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In article <>,
> says...
> > If this has been asked, and I missed the thread, I apologize. I will
> > be purchasing a new printer soon to replace my Epson 1270, with which
> > I have been completely happy. If the largest print I am likely to
> > make will be 11x14, is there any reason to buy the 4000 over the 2200?
> > The price difference is substantial, so I wonder if there is a
> > difference in quality, too, or just output size? Thank you.
> >
> Just max print size and capacity of ink cartridges.

One other consideration, the 4000 uses 8 ink tanks, with both the photo
black and matte black installed full time, eliminating the swap routine of
the 2200, 7600 and 9600. I might buy the 4000 for that feature alone.

The ability to do 16x20's and the ink cost will be about 1/4 of the 2200.
Inkjetart.com estimated the ink cost for the 2200 to be $2/sqft and the 4000
will be $.50/sqft. That is with the 110ml carts the printer will take the
220ml with which the ink will save you another 20percent. So if you are ding a
lot of prints, it pays for itself, just get a table that can hold 85lbs.


Tom

In article <>, says...
>
>If this has been asked, and I missed the thread, I apologize. I will
>be purchasing a new printer soon to replace my Epson 1270, with which
>I have been completely happy. If the largest print I am likely to
>make will be 11x14, is there any reason to buy the 4000 over the 2200?
>The price difference is substantial, so I wonder if there is a
>difference in quality, too, or just output size? Thank you.

That feature alone for $1,800 ??????????????

"Jerry McG" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> One other consideration, the 4000 uses 8 ink tanks, with both the photo
> black and matte black installed full time, eliminating the swap routine of
> the 2200, 7600 and 9600. I might buy the 4000 for that feature alone.

"Grady R. Thompson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> If this has been asked, and I missed the thread, I apologize. I will
> be purchasing a new printer soon to replace my Epson 1270, with which
> I have been completely happy. If the largest print I am likely to
> make will be 11x14, is there any reason to buy the 4000 over the 2200?
> The price difference is substantial, so I wonder if there is a
> difference in quality, too, or just output size?

1. If you're using OS X, every time you switch matte and photo black on
the 2200, you have to delete and reconfigure the printer in software. If
you switch a lot and your time is worth a lot, that increases the value
of the 4000.

2. You will spend less on ink in the long term with the 4000 compared
to your 1270, but you will take a breathtaking hit in ink investment,
particularly if your ink use is relatively low. On the 1270, most people
kept 1 or 2 spare color carts around, and 1 spare black. Total cost,
about $45-70 sitting around in spare ink carts.
The 110 ml carts for the 4000 are about $80 each and the 220s are
$150 (wildly approximate prices). Just one spare 110 each means
you've got $650 in spare ink sitting around. If you go for the 220s,
that's more like $1200 in ink sitting on the shelf at any time.

Russell Williams
not speaking for Adobe Systems

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:34:38 GMT, (Tom Monego)
wrote:

>The ability to do 16x20's and the ink cost will be about 1/4 of the 2200.
>Inkjetart.com estimated the ink cost for the 2200 to be $2/sqft and the 4000
>will be $.50/sqft. That is with the 110ml carts the printer will take the
>220ml with which the ink will save you another 20percent. So if you are ding a
>lot of prints, it pays for itself, just get a table that can hold 85lbs.
>
>
>Tom
>
>In article <>, says...
>>
>>If this has been asked, and I missed the thread, I apologize. I will
>>be purchasing a new printer soon to replace my Epson 1270, with which
>>I have been completely happy. If the largest print I am likely to
>>make will be 11x14, is there any reason to buy the 4000 over the 2200?
>>The price difference is substantial, so I wonder if there is a
>>difference in quality, too, or just output size? Thank you.

Ink sellers now have high-quality pigment-based inks available in bulk
for the 2200 carts, so ink cost should not be a problem if you're
willing to refill. These inks are (as expected) considerably more
expensive than dye, but it's still a very cheap way to print. As to
permanence, the tests these manufacturers provide seem to show that
they hold up even better than Epson's own inks. The chips reset just
like all the other Epson carts.

What ink sellers are you referring to?


"Matt" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Ink sellers now have high-quality pigment-based inks available in bulk
> for the 2200 carts, so ink cost should not be a problem if you're
> willing to refill. These inks are (as expected) considerably more
> expensive than dye, but it's still a very cheap way to print. As to
> permanence, the tests these manufacturers provide seem to show that
> they hold up even better than Epson's own inks. The chips reset just
> like all the other Epson carts.
>

>2. You will spend less on ink in the long term with the 4000 compared
>to your 1270, but you will take a breathtaking hit in ink investment,
>particularly if your ink use is relatively low. On the 1270, most people
>kept 1 or 2 spare color carts around, and 1 spare black. Total cost,
>about $45-70 sitting around in spare ink carts.
>The 110 ml carts for the 4000 are about $80 each and the 220s are
>$150 (wildly approximate prices). Just one spare 110 each means
>you've got $650 in spare ink sitting around. If you go for the 220s,
>that's more like $1200 in ink sitting on the shelf at any time.
>
>Russell Williams
>not speaking for Adobe Systems

Atlantic Exchange has the 110ml carts for $70 and the 220's for $112, still a
lot of $ on the shelf, but you are printing 8x more prints. One thing about
large cartridge Ultrachromes, they should be used in 6 months time due to
settling of the pigments.

Tom