Epson 2200 replacement?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Einton Newstein, Jan 5, 2004.

  1. Epson 2200's price is dropping, and many mail order big guys such as
    B&H are increasing the supplies of its refurbished items. It looks a
    sign of the coming of the new relacement.

    It won't be hard to guess its key features: less than 1.5pico drops,
    more than 8 "ultrachrome" inks, long roll, large format paper
    handling, prints on any surface, comes with replacible clog-resist
    head, and $699 street price.
    Einton Newstein, Jan 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Einton Newstein

    Buster Guest

    On 4 Jan 2004 18:11:18 -0800, (Einton
    Newstein) wrote:

    >Epson 2200's price is dropping, and many mail order big guys such as
    >B&H are increasing the supplies of its refurbished items. It looks a
    >sign of the coming of the new relacement.
    >
    >It won't be hard to guess its key features: less than 1.5pico drops,
    >more than 8 "ultrachrome" inks, long roll, large format paper
    >handling, prints on any surface, comes with replacible clog-resist
    >head, and $699 street price.


    Have you seen how Epson's marketing "geniuses" sell ink? The
    cartridge packaging is such that no other boxes (including Epson's)
    can be stacked atop them, owing to their oddly slanted lid and stiff
    upright back. Also the boxes are at least twice as large in volume as
    necessary, and in particular, the front dimensions are quite oversize.
    This is can only be an attempt to monopolize a retailer's available
    shelf space.

    The cartridges themselves are another matter. With the "smart chip"
    glued on to discourage refilling, they don't stop there. The internal
    sponges are designed to deteriorate quickly, thus minimizing the
    cart's value for refilling. For the 2200, the cart's have an added
    plastic shroud of some sort that forms the top, thus making an
    accurate drill-through process a little more challenging.

    Can anyone guess Epson's next great "marketing break-throughs" that
    are likely to accompany the 2200's replacement?
    Buster, Jan 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Einton Newstein

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:13:30 GMT, Buster <> wrote:


    >Have you seen how Epson's marketing "geniuses" sell ink? The
    >cartridge packaging is such that no other boxes (including Epson's)
    >can be stacked atop them, owing to their oddly slanted lid and stiff
    >upright back. Also the boxes are at least twice as large in volume as
    >necessary, and in particular, the front dimensions are quite oversize.
    >This is can only be an attempt to monopolize a retailer's available
    >shelf space.



    It's a shame all right but -- particularly with Epson
    printers -- there's no need to put up with it.

    Buy a CIS for your printer, buy bulk ink, and be
    done with all that. Your cost-per-page for ink
    will drop to less than 1/10 what you pay now.


    rafe b
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Jan 5, 2004
    #3
  4. Einton Newstein

    Buster Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:20:41 GMT, Rafe B. <>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:13:30 GMT, Buster <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Have you seen how Epson's marketing "geniuses" sell ink? The
    >>cartridge packaging is such that no other boxes (including Epson's)
    >>can be stacked atop them, owing to their oddly slanted lid and stiff
    >>upright back. Also the boxes are at least twice as large in volume as
    >>necessary, and in particular, the front dimensions are quite oversize.
    >>This is can only be an attempt to monopolize a retailer's available
    >>shelf space.

    >
    >
    >It's a shame all right but -- particularly with Epson
    >printers -- there's no need to put up with it.
    >
    >Buy a CIS for your printer, buy bulk ink, and be
    >done with all that. Your cost-per-page for ink
    >will drop to less than 1/10 what you pay now.
    >
    >
    >rafe b
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com



    CIS is a great idea for large-volume printing, but otherwise there's
    another "gotcha": limited shelf life for pigment-based inks.
    Buster, Jan 5, 2004
    #4
  5. Einton Newstein

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 04:35:04 GMT, Buster <> wrote:


    >CIS is a great idea for large-volume printing, but otherwise there's
    >another "gotcha": limited shelf life for pigment-based inks.



    Who said ya gotta use pigment inks <G>.

    Also consider -- when ink cost goes to near
    zero (as it does with a CIS) you're likely to do
    a lot more printing...

    You're right, though... if your print volume is
    low, pigment inks in a CIS can be a problem.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Jan 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Einton Newstein

    Tom Monego Guest

    Epson is counting on a lot of the customers for the 2200 to go to the 4000,
    just want to sell as many 2200's as they can while the 4000 is on hold.
    Yes more than twice the price, but $1500 less than a 7600 (with table), more
    features, including going on any table, and can do a 16x20, as big as alot of
    folks want.

    Tom


    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    >Epson 2200's price is dropping, and many mail order big guys such as
    >B&H are increasing the supplies of its refurbished items. It looks a
    >sign of the coming of the new relacement.
    >
    >It won't be hard to guess its key features: less than 1.5pico drops,
    >more than 8 "ultrachrome" inks, long roll, large format paper
    >handling, prints on any surface, comes with replacible clog-resist
    >head, and $699 street price.
    Tom Monego, Jan 5, 2004
    #6
  7. 4000 looks a total different beast to me. I rarely print larger than
    13x19. In fact, in the traditional world, 11x14 is all I need. That's
    the best size for my personal office and home's wall. Larger than that
    looks awfully show-off. --largely due to the facts that I don't have
    things that good yet. My rule of thumb, 5x7~8x10 is for the table-top
    stands, and 8x10~11x14 is for hanging on the wall. 17" and beyond?
    must be for the Clinic's lobby or something.

    Also, 4000 takes too much real estate as well as too much cash. For
    2200 repacement, Epson better not to count on it.




    (Tom Monego) wrote in message news:<zbhKb.52525$Fg.37605@lakeread01>...
    > Epson is counting on a lot of the customers for the 2200 to go to the 4000,
    > just want to sell as many 2200's as they can while the 4000 is on hold.
    > Yes more than twice the price, but $1500 less than a 7600 (with table), more
    > features, including going on any table, and can do a 16x20, as big as alot of
    > folks want.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    >
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > >
    > >Epson 2200's price is dropping, and many mail order big guys such as
    > >B&H are increasing the supplies of its refurbished items. It looks a
    > >sign of the coming of the new relacement.
    > >
    > >It won't be hard to guess its key features: less than 1.5pico drops,
    > >more than 8 "ultrachrome" inks, long roll, large format paper
    > >handling, prints on any surface, comes with replacible clog-resist
    > >head, and $699 street price.
    Einton Newstein, Jan 6, 2004
    #7
  8. Einton Newstein

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 5 Jan 2004 22:00:22 -0800, (Einton
    Newstein) wrote:

    >4000 looks a total different beast to me. I rarely print larger than
    >13x19. In fact, in the traditional world, 11x14 is all I need. That's
    >the best size for my personal office and home's wall. Larger than that
    >looks awfully show-off. --largely due to the facts that I don't have
    >things that good yet. My rule of thumb, 5x7~8x10 is for the table-top
    >stands, and 8x10~11x14 is for hanging on the wall. 17" and beyond?
    >must be for the Clinic's lobby or something.
    >
    >Also, 4000 takes too much real estate as well as too much cash. For
    >2200 repacement, Epson better not to count on it.



    The 4000 isn't a replacement for the 2200.
    It's far more than that.

    If anything, it's a replacement for the ancient
    3000, which was introduced around six years
    ago and was an industry standard for much
    of that time.

    The 4000 will appeal to those who want a
    bulk-ink printer for C sized prints and who
    aren't quite ready for the $3K price of the
    7600.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Jan 6, 2004
    #8
    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:
    876
    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:
    775
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 13, 2003
  3. Grady R. Thompson

    Epson 2200 vs. Epson 4000

    Grady R. Thompson, Dec 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    828
    Rafe B.
    Dec 5, 2003
  4. C Wright

    Epson 2200 Replacement??

    C Wright, Jan 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    324
    Dave R knows who
    Jan 31, 2005
  5. Ken
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    440
Loading...

Share This Page