Digital BW, The Print

From what I've seen, 2400 B&W prints lack advantages (other than ease)
over 2200 and newer cheaper Epsons assuming dedicated B&W inks and
classic 35mm-shooting roots/aspirations. 

Dots in 2200/MIS grays are seen primarily with loupes on highest
resolution versions of highest gloss papers, and not on the
silver-simulating semi-gloss papers that "art" photographers
increasingly use...certainly not on softer rag papers. I'll concede a
smidgen to pixel peepers, but not to people who most enjoy photographs
as images :-) 

I'll note obvious differences in aesthetic between digicam shooters
and film/scanner types, such as myself.  

I use a Nikon scanner @ 4000ppi, so my midsize (11X17)prints show
sharply resolved grain, reflecting the developer and film choice
(clearly with Acros and Rodinal, minimally with Acros and Emofin, not 
overtly grainy with Neopan 400 @ 1000). Ability to see grain, even
when very fine (as with Emofin/Acros), was an important print goal for
many in wet darkroom practice, an evidence of fine enlarging...though
there were some among us who pretended their 35's were 4X5, which is
another story. 

Black-Only does typically make dots more obvious...it's a crude/happy
approach that can nonetheless look wonderful in smaller (e.g. 6X9)
prints...it helps especially with soft (focus) original images printed
small.  

IMO IMO IMO IMO, probably not relevant to digicam users.

 John Kelly