Digital BW, The Print

Ken,
I have both printers and I can't see any difference in image quality 
between the two. The 4800 seems to print somewhat faster and the 17" 
width is great and the auto alignment of the heads is a nice touch. 
Paper positioning on the 4800 is very precise...just not very 
accurate to the std listed sizes, but making custom adjustments here 
was no problem. But its a noisy cuss compared to the whisper quiet 
2400. I'm not using a rip on them now and the B&W output is very nice 
with the Epson software after fiddling with the controls a bit on 
both machines. I print color and B&W. The 4800 is a big, heavy duty 
production machine and wants a sturdy stand or table to support it. A 
complete Epson inkset is over $500.00.  With it's smaller footprint, 
the 2400 fits in tighter places. Its a lighter weight unit but seems 
robust and well made. I have to say that both, from a visual appeal 
standpoint, look great if that matters. With your print sizes it 
sounds like the 2400 might be a way to go. 
Good Luck
Lou Meluso

> I have read that the 4800 is "linearized" in production, i.e., to 
tighter
> tolerances, whereas the 2400 is more of a "consumer" product.  So 
far I have
> not been able to determine what this means in practical terms.  I 
don't mind
> springing the extra money for the 4800 if it has inherently better 
image
> quality, although I don't print much larger than 10x15, which lays 
well on a
> 13 x 19 sheet.  As of now I am using the 2200 with UC inks and IP6 
for b&w.
> I would probably get IP for a 4800 or 2400, though some of what I 
have read
> calls into question whether a rip is really needed for b&w, at 
least with
> Epson papers.  Any experience is appreciated!
> 
> Ken
>