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.

    Mark C
    Mark C, Aug 6, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mark C

    Lisa Duskis Guest

    A friend of mine has the Epson 2200 and the 127
    Lisa Duskis, Aug 6, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mark C

    Rafe B. Guest

    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.
    Rafe B., Aug 7, 2003
  4. Mark C

    Rafe B. Guest

    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.
    Rafe B., Aug 7, 2003
  5. Mark C

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Rafe B.
    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

    "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 Hilton, Aug 7, 2003
  6. Mark C

    Rafe B. Guest

    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.
    Rafe B., Aug 8, 2003
  7. How about a direct 800 number so you don't have to call at your own expense to
    get technical questions answered.
    Gregory W. Blank, Aug 8, 2003
  8. Mark C

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Rafe B.
    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).
    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.
    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.
    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
  9. I switched from a 1270 to a 2200 (not voluntarily; a houseguest trashed the

    I've used Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper almost exclusively, using
    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
    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
    after printing, and color balance was significantly affected by ambient
    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
    Wilhelm and he said he was working on a paper about just such effects (it's
    up on his website, and I was not hallucinating -- the effect is real and
    Prints come off the 2200 much closer to their final appearance -- I can
    color right away. And they're not nearly as affected by temperature or
    And the Epson profiles are better (the 1270 profiles were created before
    shifted ink manufacture to China, which threw color balance off). I throw
    many fewer prints with the 2200.

    2. Reduced gamut is not an issue. I expected this to bother me, but the
    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
    to the dye inks. I'm not sufficiently motivated to switch to matte black for
    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
  10. 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
    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.