Epson 2200 vs 7600 comparison?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Big D, Nov 6, 2003.

  1. Big D

    Big D Guest

    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!
     
    Big D, Nov 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Big D

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 13:12:32 GMT, Big D <> 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
     
    Rafe B., Nov 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Big D

    Steve Young Guest

    > "Big D" <> 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" <>
    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
     
    Steve Young, Nov 6, 2003
    #3
  4. Big D

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Big D

    >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 ...
    )
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 6, 2003
    #4
  5. Big D

    Big D Guest

    > 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!
     
    Big D, Nov 6, 2003
    #5
  6. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "Big D" <> 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
     
    Bob Hatch, Nov 6, 2003
    #6
  7. Big D

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> 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


    >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
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 6, 2003
    #7
  8. Big D

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Bob Hatch"

    >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
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 6, 2003
    #8
  9. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: "Bob Hatch"

    >


    >
    > 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
     
    Bob Hatch, Nov 6, 2003
    #9
  10. Big D

    Big D Guest

    "Bob Hatch" <> wrote in
    news:boe442$1cgo99$-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.
     
    Big D, Nov 6, 2003
    #10
  11. Big D

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Bob Hatch"

    >So my estimate of $.80 for an 8x10 is high, kind of.


    Bob,

    Thanks for all the details, appreciate it.

    Using your own data I get a slightly higher number though ... check my math for
    an 8x10 ...

    >Premium Luster paper <calculates to> .67 cents per sq inch


    OK, so for an 8x10" print with zero borders that would be 80 x .67 => 53.6
    cents for paper. Since you probably don't want to hassle with cutting these
    with zero borders, if you assume .5 inch borders on all sides the 8x10 image
    will need 9x11" of paper, so 99 x .67 => 66 cents. This is about what 8.5 x
    11" sheets of Premium Luster sell for, 70 cents/sheet at Inkjet Art so the
    paper cost is almost a wash. I'd have assumed roll paper would give more
    savings ...

    >The ink usage for a 100% covered 16x20 is about 3.366 ml for an ink
    > cost of $1.54 for the 16x20.


    OK, 8x10 is 25% of 16x20 area-wise so .25 x $1.54 => 39 cents. So ink + paper
    would be 92.6 cents if no margins for cutting or $1.05 if you go with the 1/2"
    margins (and still have zero paper loss everywhere else, which is unlikely).

    This still beats the estimated $1.94 cost of the 2200 by a wide margin though,
    and 39 cents for 7600 ink is much cheaper than the estimated $1.24 for the 2200
    for an 8x10.

    Thanks for the data ... if you print enough then the ink savings pay for the
    7600 pretty quick.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 6, 2003
    #11
  12. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: "Bob Hatch"

    >
    > >So my estimate of $.80 for an 8x10 is high, kind of.

    >
    > Bob,
    >
    > Thanks for all the details, appreciate it.
    >
    > Using your own data I get a slightly higher number though ... check my

    math for
    > an 8x10 ...
    >
    > >Premium Luster paper <calculates to> .67 cents per sq inch

    >
    > OK, so for an 8x10" print with zero borders that would be 80 x .67 => 53.6
    > cents for paper. Since you probably don't want to hassle with cutting

    these
    > with zero borders,


    First mistake. Using the built in functions of the printer you can print a
    borderless 24 x 10. Using Qimage you can layout any number of images and
    image sizes, and not have to worry about borders. So I can drop 3 8x10 or
    equivalents onto the page, then cut off using a fairly large roto cutter.
    (It's big enough to trim the 16" side of a 16x20.

    if you assume .5 inch borders on all sides the 8x10 image
    > will need 9x11" of paper, so 99 x .67 => 66 cents. This is about what 8.5

    x
    > 11" sheets of Premium Luster sell for, 70 cents/sheet at Inkjet Art so the
    > paper cost is almost a wash. I'd have assumed roll paper would give more
    > savings ...


    It does if you print true 8x10's and we do, when we print them because
    that's the only size that fits in our mounts. So the cost of paper is 8" x
    10" = 80 sq in. or 0.5556 sq feet. Cost per 8x10 for paper is 0.5556 x $.67
    or $.37 per 8x10 for paper.

    Now comes the kicker. The price I used to calculate the cost of the paper
    was $134.59 per roll. You can buy it at www.atlex.com for $96.70 per roll
    for the 24" x 100' roll, so your cost per sq foot will drop to $.48 or $.27
    per 8x10.
    >
    > >The ink usage for a 100% covered 16x20 is about 3.366 ml for an ink
    > > cost of $1.54 for the 16x20.

    >
    > OK, 8x10 is 25% of 16x20 area-wise so .25 x $1.54 => 39 cents. So ink +

    paper
    > would be 92.6 cents if no margins for cutting or $1.05 if you go with the

    1/2"
    > margins (and still have zero paper loss everywhere else, which is

    unlikely).

    So we're back to $.37 for paper + $.39 for ink = $.76 per 8x10. Now, there
    will be paper loss, there will be reprints for a number of reasons but the
    cost per print is still very cheap. Using Qimage I can, if necessary, open
    Qimage, select all the images in a directory of images from my D60, select
    all, click on the 4x5 button and Qimage will fill the correct number of
    24x10 pages with images and I can print them. Cost is around $.20 each, and
    I have them in 30 minutes.
    >
    > This still beats the estimated $1.94 cost of the 2200 by a wide margin

    though,
    > and 39 cents for 7600 ink is much cheaper than the estimated $1.24 for the

    2200
    > for an 8x10.
    >
    > Thanks for the data ... if you print enough then the ink savings pay for

    the
    > 7600 pretty quick.
    >

    The printer has paid for its self already. Even if we used your figures of
    92 cents per 8x10 it still beats lab prices. Our lab charges $28.80 for a
    16x20, so every time I print one of those I can put about $25.00 back in my
    own pocket.

    You can probably guess that I kinda like the 7600.
    --
    "Just as the Left was anti-anticommunist,
    so too then are they anti-antiterrorist." --Robert Spencer
    http://www.bobhatch.com
     
    Bob Hatch, Nov 6, 2003
    #12
  13. Big D

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Big D

    >This is some excellent information, thanks! I've come to the conclusion
    >that I'll buy the 4000 when it's released


    Excellent choice. You may want to get on a pre-order list since in the past
    hot selling Epsons like the 2200 were on allocation for the first many months
    and were hard to get.

    The link I gave you earlier had over 200 people sign up to pre-order and when
    they asked for a $100 deposit to guarantee you first shot (with free shipping)
    over 90 people paid the deposit the first two days, so it looks like this
    printer might be a hot seller. You can sign up for multiple vendors if they
    don't require a deposit.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 6, 2003
    #13
  14. There are other factors with the various Epson printers as well:

    7600 is a royal pain to feed sheets into. No sheet feeder --
    hand position along a short printed guide on a flat surface.
    Then you have the paper configuration management issues for
    sizing on the roll or gang printing multiple images across the
    roll.

    2200 has good sheet feeding, but rolls are small, resulting in
    much more curled prints than 7600's rolls.

    Both 2200 and 7600 require swapping black ink carts to go
    between glossy and matte or plain paper. On the Mac this is
    a major pain since the OS X driver requires you to delete
    and reconfigure the printer each time.

    Bottom line: quality is comparable. 7600 is much more
    oriented toward large prints or ganged prints on roll paper,
    while 2200 is more suitable for sheets.

    The 4400 solves the black ink problem by keeping both
    in the printer at all times.

    Actually, I'm waiting to see the quality of the new R800 and whether
    there's an A3+ size version of it.

    The new R800:
    * solves the black ink problem (keeps both blacks in the machine)
    * has small enough ink droplets (1.5 pl) combined with high resolution
    (5600 dpi) so that the light inks are (supposedly) no longer needed.
    Instead, there are extra red and blue inks to expand the gamut beyond
    what any other pigment-based printer can do.
    * solves the differential gloss (bronzing) problem of pigment inks
    on glossy paper by laying down a gloss coat over the inks.

    But the R800 is only 11" wide and isn't shipping until next year, so
    any wide version is probably even later.

    Russell Williams
    not speaking for Adobe Systems
     
    Russell Williams, Nov 7, 2003
    #14
  15. Big D

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Russell Williams"

    >Both 2200 and 7600 require swapping black ink carts to go
    >between glossy and matte or plain paper.


    Note the cost for wasted ink for this move is about $1 for the 2200 since the
    carts are right above the head but about $100 for the 7600 due to the long
    feeder tube to the actual print head ... all the 7600 users I personally know
    just chose one ink set since the cost of switching is almost prohibitive. A
    couple of guys actually bought two 7600's for this reason ...

    >The 4400 solves the black ink problem by keeping both
    >in the printer at all times.


    Probably mean the 4000 instead of 4400, right?

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 8, 2003
    #15
  16. Big D

    JIM Guest

    "Russell Williams" <> wrote in message
    news:ITVqb.334$...
    .....<cut>....
    > But the R800 is only 11" wide and isn't shipping until next year, so
    > any wide version is probably even later.


    Wut's up wid dat Clyde? I mean, why only 11" wide? What kinda marketing ploy
    is this about? The 2200 goes 13" and backing up just to get that other
    cartridge or ability to print on glossy paper just aint-a-gonna-get many
    2200 users to collect up this dude.........even if my 2200 was on its last
    legs, I'd not be opting for a less wide printer????

    Hey Epson, you suffering a brown out causing your engineers to start
    stumbling around in the dark, or what? If'n you had made this boy say 16"
    wide, now that'd be tempting!

    Jim
     
    JIM, Nov 8, 2003
    #16
  17. Big D

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 05:42:58 GMT, "JIM" <>
    wrote:

    >"Russell Williams" <> wrote in message
    >news:ITVqb.334$...
    >....<cut>....
    >> But the R800 is only 11" wide and isn't shipping until next year, so
    >> any wide version is probably even later.

    >
    >Wut's up wid dat Clyde? I mean, why only 11" wide? What kinda marketing ploy
    >is this about? The 2200 goes 13" and backing up just to get that other
    >cartridge or ability to print on glossy paper just aint-a-gonna-get many
    >2200 users to collect up this dude.........even if my 2200 was on its last
    >legs, I'd not be opting for a less wide printer????
    >
    >Hey Epson, you suffering a brown out causing your engineers to start
    >stumbling around in the dark, or what? If'n you had made this boy say 16"
    >wide, now that'd be tempting!



    Well, who said it was aimed at the "2200 users" market?

    For those using a standard US-letter sized printer, it is
    a step up in print size, albeit a modest one.

    The "step up" for 2200 users would be the Epson 4000.

    Or even the 3000, as long as we're talking only about
    print size.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Nov 8, 2003
    #17
    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. gsum

    Re: Epson 7600 cartridge cover?

    gsum, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    850
  2. Bill Hilton

    Re: Epson 7600 cartridge cover?

    Bill Hilton, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,043
    Bob Hatch
    Jul 10, 2003
  3. nobody nowhere

    Re: Epson printer 2200 - Epson semi-gloss paper

    nobody nowhere, Jul 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    807
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 13, 2003
  4. Grady R. Thompson

    Epson 2200 vs. Epson 4000

    Grady R. Thompson, Dec 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    902
    Rafe B.
    Dec 5, 2003
  5. Ken
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    505
Loading...

Share This Page