Digital BW, The Print

Ken

I'm not sure about image quality - I suspect out of the box you'd be hard
pressed to tell the difference but I have not tested this.  There is no
doubt that the 4800's qualities over the 2400, other than the extra width,
are its robust construction and the maintenance of initial tolerances over
time.  I've just gone back to using my 2100 to play with the Nanochrome inks
and it's really a dinky little toy by comparison.  I suspect that the 2400,
while exhibiting massively improved output over the 2100, is of the same
construction.  If you don't want the extra size and are prepared to buy a
new printer in 3 years time to get the latest and greatest then the 2400
would likely serve you well.

FYI - the ink savings with the 220ml carts in the 4800 are considerable - if
you aren't changing K inks all the time - and could well cover a lot of the
extra expense over time depending on how much you are printing.

I would not buy Imageprint until you've used the (either) machine a
significant amount.

Steve


> From: Ken Carney <kcarney1@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:40:24 -0600
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Epson 4800 vs. 2400 question
> 
> 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