Done with the scanner. Now for the printer

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Napierkowski, Mar 5, 2004.

  1. I wish to thank everyone for thier input (pun) on scanner choices for my
    particular application. Because of this inpu,t I went with the Epson 4870 and I
    must say the initial results scanning some test media were simply outstanding.
    So thank you.

    Now for the printer. What are, in your views, the pros and cons, of the Epson
    2200 and the Canon i9900 printers? Which would you own and why? Are their any
    other printers out there in the same quality output range you'd recommend I
    look at? That Epson 4000 will have to wait for about a year as I'm still
    chocking on the estiamted $880 for a complete set of ink carttridges for it.
    Objective? Gallary quality FA prints - B&W and some color.

    Thanks in advance.

    David N.
    David Napierkowski, Mar 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. David Napierkowski

    Jim Waggener Guest

    Of the two you mention I believe only Epson has the archival ink.
    As far as the Epson 4000 cartridges a full set of 8 would be $552 retail
    and you only use 7 at a time. (photo black or matte black). And these
    are 110ml cartridges. I have a older Epson 7500 which use the 110's and
    they last a very long time. I'll be upgrading to the 7600 shortly. I also
    large FA prints of my wife's original artwork.

    Jim Waggener, Mar 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. David Napierkowski

    gsum Guest

    Can't help with the smaller printers but the cost of cartridges for the
    Epson 4000 (which uses the same carts as the 7600 which I have)
    is nowhere near as high as you claim. In the UK, these cartridges are
    32 pounds each inc tax or 224 pounds per set. For the 7600,
    Epson paper costs are les than half the costs for the 2200. It is
    more difficult to compare ink costs but I would guess that it is
    about a third to a half that of the 2200.
    If you're doing a reasonable number of prints, the 4000 (or 7600)
    will soon pay for itself.

    gsum, Mar 5, 2004
  4. David Napierkowski

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: (David Napierkowski)
    The Epson prints last much longer (3x - 4x) according to Wilhelm's estimates
    since they use pigment inks. This is important if you are selling your work,
    otherwise it's not important. Print quality would be excellent from either
    model and the Canon costs less and prints faster, two points in Canon's favor.
    Epson has two blacks and seems to be much better gray-balanced for b/w
    It will probably take you a year to get one anyway since there's such a huge
    backlog of orders for it :) The 110 ml carts are under $70 so a set of 8 would
    be less than $560 compared to $80 for a full set of 2200 carts, but because
    they are so much bigger than the carts used in the 2200 (which uses the same
    inks) the ink cost per sq/ft is significantly cheaper (maybe 1/3 the cost?)
    with the 4000 than with the 2200, so if you print a lot this will more than pay
    for itself soon enough ... plus you can print 16x20's with the 4000 and if
    you're selling your work you can probably get twice as much for a 16x20 as an
    11x14" print ...

    Bill Hilton, Mar 5, 2004
  5. Thaks for the expert commentary. It's greatly apperciated.

    David Napierkowski, Mar 5, 2004
    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.