Epson 4880

[AndrewCCM]

Hrmm.. Decisions Decisions.. I have been wanting a 4880 for awhile...But that Canon seems quite interesting as well.. My 2400 is just too wasteful and I get tired of replacing Light magenta constantly.

AndrewCCM added 10 Minutes and 32 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

So does this mean $1299 if I use my R2400 as a trade-in? According to the site, they just need the serial number. Is this actually a trade-in (ie. Sending it in)? Doesn't make sense for $100. I assume it's just a a serial number check that you own a competitive product right?


Qty. Product # Price ea. Total

2157B002AA $ 1,399.00 $ 1,399.00

Canon imagePROGRAF iPF5100 17" Printer **EXCLUSIVE PRINTER SALE THROUGH JUNE 30, 2009**+PLUS FREE ROLL HOLDER +PLUS 1 FREE ROLL 17" PAPER** Add to basket for our Current Deal - We'll

Confirm via E-mail an additional $100 off with qualifying serial #! **
FREE Shipping on all orders over $99.00 (in the contiguous US)

[jeffkohn]

Andrew it sounds like that's the case, I don't think you have to ship the printer in as that would be cost-prohibitive. You'll have to check with them on which printers qualify for that upgrade discount though.

[AndrewCCM]

I looked at the PDF they had listed and the R2400 was on there. However, the odd thing was the dates listed for that rebate were in 2008. Hrmm

So Jeff, (probably a silly question)... For someone such as myself, that doesn't do much printing...but does want the best quality when I do...and hates wasting ink... Does the Canon seem like the best bang for the buck? I have been so burned out on Epson ink costs/clogging/cleaning waste.

$1299 for the printer, roll holder, a roll of paper and free delivery seems like a deal...

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by AndrewCCM

So Jeff, (probably a silly question)... For someone such as myself, that doesn't do much printing...but does want the best quality when I do...and hates wasting ink... Does the Canon seem like the best bang for the buck? I have been so burned out on Epson ink costs/clogging/cleaning waste.

My printing activities are intermittent. I might print quite a bit in a relatively short period of time, and then not print anything at all for a couple of months. My ipf5000 does run periodic cleaning cycles, but it doesn't seem to use much ink for them. And I've never had a clogged head that required me to manually force one or more cleaning cycles. With my 2400, if it had been sitting for a while it wasn't unusual to have to run 2-3 cleaning cycles before I could get a clean nozzle-check test to print.

The big hassle with the small cartridges on the 2400 is not just the much higher price per ml, but also the fact that every time I went to print it seemed like there was a cartridge that needed changed out. And of course changing a cartridge forces a cleaning cycle, which wastes yet more ink from all the other cartridges.

As for my overall impression of the Canon large-format printers, I'm pretty happy. There are some ergonomic annoyances; mainly due to the fact that you have to set the paper type/size both on the printer itself and in the driver software (annoying for me since the printer is in another room, connected via ethernet). There also used to be some limitations on which media type settings could be used with which paper feed path, but for the x100 printers that limitation has been removed with the latest firmware from what I hear.

Whether it will really be worth it for you depends on whether you want to print bigger than 13x19. These printers are not really optimal for making lots of small prints. There is a cassette tray for sheets, but you cannot print borderless on sheets, only rolls. Personally I do almost all of my printing on rolls; usually 16x24 (on 17x25" paper) or 16x20" (on 17x21" paper), and I also like being able to print panos at 16xnn".

If you don't want to make largish prints on roll paper, this 5100 is probably overkill (but so is the 4880). For someone who doesn't need rolls and is going to be printing mostly 8x10's with the occasional 17x22, I think the Epson 3800 would probably be a better choice.

If you want to find out more about the ipf's, I suggest checking out http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/ - lots of FAQ's and good info there.

[venchka]

Andrew, Jeff's large prints (16"x24") from his Canon 5000 look very very good.

[AndrewCCM]

Thanks again for the info...

I would mainly be using it for large prints on specialty papers. Pretty much everything else gets shipped off to the lab. Much easier for me...

I'll keep reading everything I can..

Thanks again.

[TXFZ1]

Found a refurbished Epson 3800 at the Epson store for $895. I'm little concerned about the refurbished part but hopefully it will be okay.

David

[venchka]

Don't worry. If you bought new & had to return it for warrenty service, you would get a refurb back in place of your new printer. The important thing is, "Will you get full ink cartridges?"

[AndrewCCM]

Originally Posted by venchka

Don't worry. If you bought new & had to return it for warrenty service, you would get a refurb back in place of your new printer. The important thing is, "Will you get full ink cartridges?"

Extremely valid point. If you do not get full ink carts... It probably would be better to just buy new...

[venchka]

Originally Posted by AndrewCCM

Extremely valid point. If you do not get full ink carts... It probably would be better to just buy new...

My point exactly. I'm pretty sure that I read in some forum that the refurb units come with full ink carts. TXFZI, please confirm that ok???????

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by TXFZ1

Found a refurbished Epson 3800 at the Epson store for $895. I'm little concerned about the refurbished part but hopefully it will be okay.

David

Have had a Epson refurbished 1280 for 4 years and it has never had a problem. It was like new.

[Murph]

IS it possible to do the Fine Art Print on an Inkjet? Or does it require traditional process, or better yet Albumin/Platinum/etc???

[venchka]

Murph,

I depends. Define "Fine Art Print". You forgot carbon transfer in the traditional list. They are all good. They are all different.

Unless you have a big camera, the traditional process require an enlarged inkjet pritned negative. This can and is being done with much success. Probably an enormous pain in the kazoo to get a decent digital negative. Once you get the bugs worked out and the curves right in Photoshop, the rest should be easy. Platinum/palladium (many folks are making straight palladium prints for cost reasons) is nice. Carnon transfer is just as nice or nicer, more labor intensive, way cheaper.

I participated in a Large Format print exchange. The best prints in my group (2 color and 2 B&W) were mixed: 3 inkjet & 1 silver. Framed and hung on a wall, 99 folks out of 100 couldn't pick the silver print.

Look into making digital negatives and carbon transfer printing. There is a gentleman in California who makes 6x6 palladium and/or carbon contact prints of family snapshots. They are sooooo cool. Dust off the Yashica.

[Murph]

She Who Must Be Obeyed, has given permission for the purchase of the 4880! And it only cost me a new dining room table, some chairs, curtains, rugs..... :D

[venchka]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............

Wish I had a deal like that. Enjoy!

Figure out how to drive it & I might pay you to print some enalarged negatives for me.