Anything new better than Epson 2200 for quality, speed etc.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Flierbk, Sep 17, 2003.

  1. Flierbk

    Flierbk Guest

    With some new printers now out am wondering if anything gives the 2200 a run
    for the money, speed, color quality or other features?


    Flierbk, Sep 17, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Haven't seen anything yet that's comparable in quality plus gives truly
    archival output.

    The best but maybe most costly aspect of the Epson is the matched paper and
    ink combos, plus the readily available supplies. It's a complete system and
    is becoming a standard.
    Gerald G. McGeorge, Sep 17, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Flierbk

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Flierbk"
    The other 13x19" printers from Canon and Epson offer similar excellent image
    quality at a lower price than the 2200. Canon is typically much faster, if
    that's a concern.

    The big advantage of the 2200 is the much longer estimated print life. Unless
    you need that then the other printers are good choices too.

    (has Epson 2200 and 1280, prefers the 2200)
    Bill Hilton, Sep 17, 2003
  4. Flierbk

    Stuart Guest

    The only other comparable alternate is the Canon i9100.
    And its faster ... and a finer resolution(?)

    I will be upgrading soon but I still cannot make my mind up between the
    Epson 2200 (or 2100 as they market it in Europe) and The Canon i9100.

    I know that Epson probably just has the edge but the thought of waiting 20
    mins for an A3 print rather deters me.

    I would be interested in other folk's opinions on this.
    Stuart, Sep 17, 2003
  5. Flierbk

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Stuart"
    Print at 1440 instead of 2880, the print quality difference is miniscule unless
    you're viewing the print thru a loupe.

    The 2200 has three connections, parallel port or Firewire (1394) or USB 2.
    Avoid the parallel port, it's much slower.

    Doing this gets the print times down well under 20 minutes, probably more like
    8-10 minutes for A3, but it's still not as fast as the Canon since the Canon
    has more print nozzles.

    Bill Hilton, Sep 17, 2003
  6. Flierbk

    Rafe B. Guest

    Epson 4000. "Leaks" published today in some Dutch
    trade journal, so we'll probably hear more about in
    the next few days. This info is 2nd hand but comes
    from a very reliable source on the EpsonWideFormat
    group on Yahoo.

    This is the long awaited successor to the 3000. A2
    size, 8 colors, 220 ml ink tanks. This is a pro-grade
    printer, likely to cost around $2K or so initially.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Sep 18, 2003
  7. Flierbk

    JIM Guest

    I'd second that, for most 'normal' people; however, even knowing I can't see
    the diff, the German in me almost always selects 2880 for the keepers;) It
    takes its toll though in time, especially if you do much 11x14" and up.
    Think my latest stopwatch run on a 13x19" indicated in excess of 17 minutes.
    I don't print those sizes out in batches, so the print times don't concern
    me that much - now, if you have a customer standing there waiting for you to
    hand them the print in these sizes, you better sharpen your communication

    Shoot'em up, print with anything, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest will
    love you for it!!

    JIM, Sep 18, 2003
  8. Flierbk

    FOR7b Guest

    I'd second that, for most 'normal' people; however, even knowing I can't see
    Just another reason why I went to traditional photo paper through a Noritsu or

    FOR7b, Sep 18, 2003
  9. Flierbk

    JIM Guest

    Can't get 11x14 + outta does scheens though can you? Maybe the newer Noritsu
    or Frontier has the capability, but my pro shop ran an older Noritsu and
    anything bigger than 8x12" was a custom job........

    Shoot'em up, print any size, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest will love
    you for it!!

    JIM, Sep 18, 2003
  10. Flierbk

    Paul L Guest

    If you don't mind me asking - why do you prefer the 2200 to the 1280? I'm trying to decide between these two myself...
    Paul L, Sep 20, 2003
  11. Flierbk

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Several reasons ... longer print life, wider variety of Epson papers (six
    excellent papers for the 2200) including Velvet Fine Art and Radiant
    Watercolor, better ICM profiles so I get a better screen <-> print match,
    better black/white prints.

    The 1280 costs less and does better on the glossiest paper (PGPP) but otherwise
    I thought the 2200 was the best choice for me.
    I think the best way to decide is to look at prints of the same file from each
    printer, which is what I did before buying the 2200. This site sells test
    prints, if you want to judge for yourself, though it gets expensive if you buy
    many different paper types.

    Bill Hilton, Sep 20, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.