Digital BW, The Print

On Mar 28, 2007, at 6:20 AM, atrembly2001 wrote:

> Hi Johnny,
>
> Thanks for your help. In looking at other posts, I see that Epson
> appears to be the printer of choice. I had a bad experience with
> Epson a few years ago with one of their printers but I guess I'll
> have to look again.

I've had both good and bad, Alan, and so have the people I've known  
who have had HP or Canon printers. I think that's because they're all  
cheaply made and sold to snag more customers for their expensive  
inks. I'd prefer Epson because there is more Epson expertise  
available to you on this list, and I can't imagine doing without this  
list for B&W. Or, if you're on a Mac, on the MacEpsonList, also at  
Yahoo.


> Any idea on the best place to buy one?

When I was shopping for a 2400, Amazon was the best place for me,  
because the price was temporarily less by about $50, shipping was  
free (where it wasn't, the unadvertised shipping charges exceeded any  
price cut), and I don't live in Washington state. My advice is to  
shop around, don't forget the difference shipping and state and local  
sales taxes can make, and don't take a chance, for a small financial  
advantage, on an outlet without a good reputation.


> Do you think it's worth it to have a dedicated b&w printer?

I used to, but now I'd say maybe not if you get a 2400, unless you  
print so much that you need two printers anyway. But then I'm not  
sure it would be best to do it on 2400s. I'm relatively  
inexperienced, though, and eager to hear what others say about two- 
printer configurations. I don't have one of Epson's new dye-based  
printers. But it's occurred to me that one of them might be a useful  
companion to a pigment-based printer if you also print color and,  
when you do, care less about longevity. One of them could double as  
an "office" printer too.
--
Sam