Cost Analysis of the Epson 2200 vs 1200

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark C, Aug 6, 2003.

  1. Mark C

    Mark C Guest

    I am trying to decide which printer to buy. The Epson 1280 or the 2200.
    Has anyone ever done a cost per page comparison between the two? Yes I
    realize that there are many variables.....but just an average cost per
    letter size sheet, color, printed at 300 dpi......?

    Any info, thoughts, opinions (except those stating that I am an
    asshole....see prior threads), would be appreciated.

    Thanx,
    Mark C
    Nashville,TN
    Mark C, Aug 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark C

    Lisa Duskis Guest

    A friend of mine has the Epson 2200 and the 127
    "Mark C" <> wrote in message
    news:bgr1vr$rn667$-berlin.de...
    > I am trying to decide which printer to buy. The Epson 1280 or the 2200.
    > Has anyone ever done a cost per page comparison between the two? Yes I
    > realize that there are many variables.....but just an average cost per
    > letter size sheet, color, printed at 300 dpi......?
    >
    > Any info, thoughts, opinions (except those stating that I am an
    > asshole....see prior threads), would be appreciated.
    >
    > Thanx,
    > Mark C
    > Nashville,TN
    >
    >
    >
    Lisa Duskis, Aug 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark C

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:49:06 GMT, (Gregory W.
    Blank) wrote:

    >Depends on the need, for promo stuff only get the 1280, for
    >art get the 2200. I have the 1280, Epson support sucks.
    >
    >That stated, and I cannot state it enough Epson support sucks.
    >You might consider a CIS unit that lowers the print price all most in
    >half.



    That may be your experience. I've found the in-warranty
    support to be superb. A new printer was on my doorstep
    the next day, along with a call slip to send to old one
    back. Can't ask for more than that.



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Aug 7, 2003
    #3
  4. Mark C

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 03:08:10 GMT, Lucas Tam <>
    wrote:

    > (Bill Hilton) wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> I have both of these and while I haven't bothered doing any detailed
    >> cost analysis it seems like the 1280 runs about 20-25 8x10's per color
    >> cart, with each black cart lasting 4-5 color carts, so figure about
    >> $1.25 - $1.50 for ink per 8x10. It's a bit higher on the 2200 but not
    >> much. I wouldn't let ink cost be the determining factor when deciding
    >> between these two.

    >
    >Anyone know how the 2200 compares with say a Canon i9xxx series printer?
    >
    >Seeing the Inkjet news site cost per sq foot is only 3.50... I might
    >considering getting a printer to do panoramas.



    The 2200 and i9100 are different animals.

    Get the Epson if you really care about your prints lasting
    a very long time.

    Otherwise, get the Canon. The Epson uses pigment inks;
    their one big advantage is print longevity. But almost
    everything else suffers -- contrast, gamut, and the range
    of papers you can print on.

    Aside from that, print quality will be very good on either
    one. The Canon is faster, has unchipped carts, and has
    a removable (ie user-replaceable) print head.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Aug 7, 2003
    #4
  5. Mark C

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Rafe B.

    >The Epson uses pigment inks;
    >their one big advantage is print longevity. But almost
    >everything else suffers -- contrast, gamut, and the range
    >of papers you can print on.


    I disagree with everything you say here, and I have both the Epson 1280 and the
    2200 and have tested them throughly.

    "Contrast" is similar on both printers. You get a much smoother gradation of
    greys on the 2200 thanks to the extra light black (grey) ink, immediately
    obvious when you print out a test pattern on both printers.

    "Gamut" ... I have a program that plots the various ICM profiles for each paper
    so you can see the width and depth of the gamuts. The extra ink of the 2200
    means you have a wider gamut with the photo black ink on the glossy papers
    compared to the 1280 inks. With the matte black ink on the 2200 (for the matte
    paper and the art papers) the gamut is similar to the 1280 gamut on matte
    paper.

    "The range of papers you can print on" ... well, the 2200 has full ICM support
    for six Epson papers, Premium Glossy, Semi-Gloss, Luster (with the Photo black
    ink), and Watercolor-Radiant White, Velvet Fine Art paper (from Somerset
    Velvet), and Matte-Enhanced (these print better with the matte black ink).
    Print life ranges from 50 to 90 years. You can also buy other arty papers with
    ICM support, plus Canvas for the wide carriage models.

    By contrast, if you want your prints to last the 1280 is limited to the matte
    HW and the ColorLife (like Luster) and these still have a Wilhelm fade rating
    of 18 - 26 years. There are good glossy papers for the 1280 but the print life
    is poor, and there are no Epson-supported papers for the 1280 comparable to the
    Watercolor-RW and Velvet FA. I give the edge to the 2200 for "range of papers
    you can print on", especially if you're working in an ICM flow and want the
    prints to last.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Aug 7, 2003
    #5
  6. Mark C

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 07 Aug 2003 16:00:01 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
    wrote:

    >>From: Rafe B.

    >
    >>The Epson uses pigment inks;
    >>their one big advantage is print longevity. But almost
    >>everything else suffers -- contrast, gamut, and the range
    >>of papers you can print on.

    >
    >I disagree with everything you say here, and I have both the Epson 1280 and the
    >2200 and have tested them throughly.
    >
    >"Contrast" is similar on both printers. You get a much smoother gradation of
    >greys on the 2200 thanks to the extra light black (grey) ink, immediately
    >obvious when you print out a test pattern on both printers.
    >
    >"Gamut" ... I have a program that plots the various ICM profiles for each paper
    >so you can see the width and depth of the gamuts. The extra ink of the 2200
    >means you have a wider gamut with the photo black ink on the glossy papers
    >compared to the 1280 inks. With the matte black ink on the 2200 (for the matte
    >paper and the art papers) the gamut is similar to the 1280 gamut on matte
    >paper.
    >
    >"The range of papers you can print on" ... well, the 2200 has full ICM support
    >for six Epson papers, Premium Glossy, Semi-Gloss, Luster (with the Photo black
    >ink), and Watercolor-Radiant White, Velvet Fine Art paper (from Somerset
    >Velvet), and Matte-Enhanced (these print better with the matte black ink).
    >Print life ranges from 50 to 90 years. You can also buy other arty papers with
    >ICM support, plus Canvas for the wide carriage models.
    >
    >By contrast, if you want your prints to last the 1280 is limited to the matte
    >HW and the ColorLife (like Luster) and these still have a Wilhelm fade rating
    >of 18 - 26 years. There are good glossy papers for the 1280 but the print life
    >is poor, and there are no Epson-supported papers for the 1280 comparable to the
    >Watercolor-RW and Velvet FA. I give the edge to the 2200 for "range of papers
    >you can print on", especially if you're working in an ICM flow and want the
    >prints to last.



    What glossy papers work well with the 2200?
    Or work at all?

    What about metamerism?

    And while your 2200 is (by definition) fairly new, I suspect
    that heads on 2200s will fail and clog at a higher rate than
    on dye ink printers.

    You are applying a longevity criterion to your paper
    selection on the 1280, but I've already conceded that
    the 2200 is the obvious choice if longevity is a concern.

    If one's taste runs in the direction of matte papers or
    watercolor papers, pigment inks are fine, and you
    generally won't miss the lower contrast.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Aug 8, 2003
    #6
  7. How about a direct 800 number so you don't have to call at your own expense to
    get technical questions answered.


    In article <>, Rafe B. <> wrote:

    > That may be your experience. I've found the in-warranty
    > support to be superb. A new printer was on my doorstep
    > the next day, along with a call slip to send to old one
    > back. Can't ask for more than that.


    --
    Check out my website @
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
    Gregory W. Blank, Aug 8, 2003
    #7
  8. Mark C

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Rafe B.

    >What glossy papers work well with the 2200?
    >Or work at all?


    Professional Semi-gloss prints and looks great for landscapes, etc. Premium
    Luster (similar to ColorLife) prints and looks great, especially for portraits,
    but is not as glossy. Both of these require the "photo black" 7th ink.

    The PGPP (Premium Glossy) has the pooling of black inks when viewed at an
    angle, which is annoying to some (including me).

    Then there are the 3rd party papers mentioned by Flycaster.

    So compared to the 1280, you have more choices even of glossy paper if you
    factor in print life (anyone selling prints can't accept the shorter print life
    of Glossy Film -- 2 years -- or PGPP with the 1280).

    >What about metamerism?


    A big problem with the first Epson pigment printer, the 2000p. Not a problem
    at all for the 2200, they sacrificed some print life and added the 7th ink to
    combat metamerism and it seems to have done the job.

    >And while your 2200 is (by definition) fairly new, I suspect
    >that heads on 2200s will fail and clog at a higher rate than
    >on dye ink printers.


    The 2200 has been shipping in the US for over a year now and typically the
    product cycle on the Epsons is 12-18 months, so it's actually "old". I haven't
    heard of any heads failing, and as for clogging, I've only had to run one
    cleaning cycle on mine, one nozzle of yellow didn't fire one time. This is
    much better than the 1280, where I have to clear the nozzles every 10th time I
    print or so. So there's no data to support this guess.

    >If one's taste runs in the direction of matte papers or
    >watercolor papers, pigment inks are fine, and you
    >generally won't miss the lower contrast.


    One benefit of the 2200 is that you can use either photo black or matte black
    for the 7th color, and get excellent results on either class of paper.
    Bill Hilton, Aug 8, 2003
    #8
  9. "Rafe B." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 07 Aug 2003 16:00:01 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
    > wrote:


    > What glossy papers work well with the 2200?
    > Or work at all?
    >
    > What about metamerism?


    I switched from a 1270 to a 2200 (not voluntarily; a houseguest trashed the
    1270).

    I've used Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper almost exclusively, using
    supplied
    Epson profiles. I'm planning to test some custom profiles for the 2200 from
    Digital Photo Outback this weekend.

    My impressions so far, after a few hundred prints from the 1270 and a couple
    of
    hundred from the 2200:

    1. By far the biggest change I see is in the improved temperature / humidity
    /
    dry-down behavior. Prints from the 1270 shifted green/magenta for a day or
    more
    after printing, and color balance was significantly affected by ambient
    temperature
    and humidity when printing (I learned not to take showers while the printer
    was running). I thought I was nuts when I first noticed this, but I ran into
    Henry
    Wilhelm and he said he was working on a paper about just such effects (it's
    now
    up on his website, and I was not hallucinating -- the effect is real and
    significant).
    Prints come off the 2200 much closer to their final appearance -- I can
    judge
    color right away. And they're not nearly as affected by temperature or
    humidity.
    And the Epson profiles are better (the 1270 profiles were created before
    they
    shifted ink manufacture to China, which threw color balance off). I throw
    away
    many fewer prints with the 2200.

    2. Reduced gamut is not an issue. I expected this to bother me, but the
    difference
    is subjectively smaller than I expected.

    3. Bronzing bugs me sometimes when looking at the prints bare (Epson PGPP
    is a worst case). It's not much of an issue with prints
    behind glass. I tweaked the ink coverage down and didn't see
    significant improvement. I've heard that third party RIPs that change the
    ink balances do much better on both bronzing and metamerism, but I'm
    not willing to spend the money.

    4. Black printing on plain paper with the photo black ink looks grey
    compared
    to the dye inks. I'm not sufficiently motivated to switch to matte black for
    the
    occasional letter, but it makes all text and line graphics on plain paper
    look poor.

    5. Metamerism is in the same ballpark as what I got from the dye inks.

    Russell Williams
    not speaking for Adobe Systems
    Russell Williams, Aug 8, 2003
    #9
  10. In article <o1TYa.1607$>,
    "Russell Williams" <> wrote:

    > And the Epson profiles are better (the 1270 profiles were created before
    > they
    > shifted ink manufacture to China, which threw color balance off).


    I've noticed this problem. Where can one get a profile for the new ink?

    --
    Ed Fortmiller | | Hudson MA
    *
    * To avoid getting a lot of SPAM junk mail, I have altered my REPLY-TO
    * address. PLEASE remove the leading "RUBBISH" from my REPLY address.
    * Any Email sent to the address without removing "RUBBISH" will
    * automatically be discarded without me even seeing it.
    Ed Fortmiller, Aug 8, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kirby

    Epson 2200

    Kirby, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    871
    Kirby
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. nobody nowhere

    Re: Epson printer 2200 - Epson semi-gloss paper

    nobody nowhere, Jul 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    765
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 13, 2003
  3. Sbtypesetter

    EPSON 2200 CONTINUOUS ROLL? COST/PRINT?

    Sbtypesetter, Sep 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    386
    Flycaster
    Sep 18, 2003
  4. Grady R. Thompson

    Epson 2200 vs. Epson 4000

    Grady R. Thompson, Dec 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    781
    Rafe B.
    Dec 5, 2003
  5. Ken
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    404
Loading...

Share This Page