Digital BW, The Print

Hello all.

After perusing the archives and trying to use yahoo's ineffective
search, I haven't found any specific info regarding the following:

I'm looking into using one of the above as a dedicated BW printer
(using MIS or some other third-party inkset).

The wide-format capability of the 2000p and 1280 aside, is there any
distinct difference between the c86 and those two models when it comes
to Letter-size and smaller printing?

Even though the c86 is part of epson's "budget" line, the c86's
smaller max droplet size (3pico) and higher native res (1440dpi) seems
to suggest it might be superior to the others (4pico max droplet size
and 720dpi for the 1280; 7pico/720dpi for the 2000p). Or does the
extra two inks or something in the nozzle configuration/print head of
the 1280 or 2000p outweigh the c86's "advantages"?

Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks all.

~ J

>I'm looking into using one of the above as a dedicated BW printer
>(using MIS or some other third-party inkset).

>The wide-format capability of the 2000p and 1280 aside, is there any
>distinct difference between the c86 and those two models when it comes
>to Letter-size and smaller printing?

The 1280 can use the more flexible UT2 inkset, which gives you variable
tones on matte and glossy paper without changing any inks.  One option is
also to use the new Gloss Optimizer (Glop) in the UT2 cart for bronze-less
glossy printing.  The 1280 also has some lighter inks in it, so, at least
under a loupe, it might be a bit smoother.

The C86, on the other hand, is easier to learn and deal with in some
respects.  The easy-reload carts are very nice.  There should be easy-refill
1280 carts soon, but they are un-tested at this point.

>Even though the c86 is part of epson's "budget" line, the c86's
>smaller max droplet size (3pico) and higher native res (1440dpi) seems
>to suggest it might be superior to the others (4pico max droplet size
>and 720dpi for the 1280; 7pico/720dpi for the 2000p). Or does the
>extra two inks or something in the nozzle configuration/print head of
>the 1280 or 2000p outweigh the c86's "advantages"?

It's close, but the 1280 is a bit smoother in the highlights.  The 2000P is
an excellent matte printer with the monotone MIS FS or FSN inksets, but I
don't think it's equal to the newer ones for glossy prints.

If all you want to do is 8x10, the C86 with the MIS EZ inkset is hard to
beat and easy on the wallet.  While it doesn't have a "glop" option, at the
8x10 size, the Costco paper is so good and cheap, it is hard to beat that
combination also.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> It's close, but the 1280 is a bit smoother in the highlights.  The
2000P is
> an excellent matte printer with the monotone MIS FS or FSN inksets,
but I
> don't think it's equal to the newer ones for glossy prints.
> 
> If all you want to do is 8x10, the C86 with the MIS EZ inkset is hard to
> beat and easy on the wallet.  While it doesn't have a "glop" option,
at the
> 8x10 size, the Costco paper is so good and cheap, it is hard to beat
that
> combination also.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

I generally prefer satin and matte papers, especially for B&W, so
glossy-printing ability is not really a concern. 

Wide-format capability is tempting but I'm somewhat put off by the
notorious clogging issues with the 1280. Using pigment inks in a
dye-based inkjet seems inherently like a recipe for trouble, though
experiences seem to vary. I'll have to check out the 2000p some more
despite my reservations about the larger droplet size.

Thanks Paul.

~ J