Epson 2200 vs. Epson 4000

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Grady R. Thompson, Dec 3, 2003.

  1. 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.
    Grady R. Thompson, Dec 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Grady R. Thompson

    Rafe B. Guest

    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
    Rafe B., Dec 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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, Dec 3, 2003
    #3
  4. Grady R. Thompson

    Jerry McG Guest

    "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.
    Jerry McG, Dec 3, 2003
    #4
  5. Grady R. Thompson

    Tom Monego Guest

    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.
    Tom Monego, Dec 3, 2003
    #5
  6. Grady R. Thompson

    Sam Smith Guest

    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.
    Sam Smith, Dec 3, 2003
    #6
  7. "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
    Russell Williams, Dec 4, 2003
    #7
  8. Grady R. Thompson

    Matt Guest

    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.
    Matt, Dec 4, 2003
    #8
  9. Grady R. Thompson

    Sam Smith Guest

    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.
    >
    Sam Smith, Dec 4, 2003
    #9
  10. Grady R. Thompson

    Tom Monego Guest


    >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
    Tom Monego, Dec 4, 2003
    #10
  11. Grady R. Thompson

    Matt Guest

    On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:33:14 -0800, "Sam Smith" <>
    wrote:

    >What ink sellers are you referring to?
    >

    How about these:
    http://www.find-me.org/epson_ink_refill.htm
    http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/arcinks2.html
    http://www.inkjetart.com/archival_inks/generations.html
    http://www.mediastreet.com/index.html
    -Matt


    >
    >"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.
    >>

    >
    Matt, Dec 4, 2003
    #11
  12. Grady R. Thompson

    Mark Herring Guest

    > 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


    Are there any continuous feed systems yet for the 7600 and 4000? It
    seems this would be the answer for the "big guys".

    -Mark
    (e-mail markh, not m_herring)
    Mark Herring, Dec 4, 2003
    #12
  13. Grady R. Thompson

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 4 Dec 2003 07:28:14 -0800, (Mark Herring)
    wrote:

    >> 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

    >
    >Are there any continuous feed systems yet for the 7600 and 4000? It
    >seems this would be the answer for the "big guys".



    Yes, lots of folks have made CIS adaptations for 7600/9600
    series printers, but really -- the standard cart is 110 or 220 ml.
    For most folks, that's already a years' supply, at least.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Dec 5, 2003
    #13
    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:
    859
    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:
    751
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 13, 2003
  3. Sbtypesetter

    Epson 2200 vs Stylus Pro 4000

    Sbtypesetter, Sep 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    298
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Sep 7, 2004
  4. Ken
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
  5. nobody

    To Epson 4000 or not to Epson 4000?

    nobody, Mar 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    785
Loading...

Share This Page