Epson announce R1800 A3 UltraChrome printer

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <2005021112045670814@deryck.com>,
deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:

> 1.5 picalitre
>
> http://imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1108098105.html

What printer is this intended to replace?

Charles Hohenstein

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Looks like it is intended to compete with the Canon i990.

"Charles Hohenstein" <chohenste@skyenet.net> wrote in message
news:chohenste-3C1A24.09023211022005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <2005021112045670814@deryck.com>,
> deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:
>
>> 1.5 picalitre
>>
>> http://imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1108098105.html
>
> What printer is this intended to replace?
>
> Charles Hohenstein

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles Hohenstein" <chohenste@skyenet.net> wrote in message
news:chohenste-3C1A24.09023211022005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <2005021112045670814@deryck.com>,
> deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:
>
>> 1.5 picalitre
>>
>> http://imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1108098105.html
>
> What printer is this intended to replace?
>
> Charles Hohenstein

Wouldn't it replace the 2100/2200?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The message <MA3Pd.4554$pE1.720@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
from "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> contains these words:


> "Charles Hohenstein" <chohenste@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> news:chohenste-3C1A24.09023211022005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <2005021112045670814@deryck.com>,
> > deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 1.5 picalitre
> >>
> >> http://imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1108098105.html
> >
> > What printer is this intended to replace?
> >
> > Charles Hohenstein

> Wouldn't it replace the 2100/2200?

Logically. I am expecting HP to release a new printer at PMA
using Red/Blue inks.

Deryck

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MA3Pd.4554$pE1.720@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:

> "Charles Hohenstein" <chohenste@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> news:chohenste-3C1A24.09023211022005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <2005021112045670814@deryck.com>,
> > deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 1.5 picalitre
> >>
> >> http://imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1108098105.html
> >
> > What printer is this intended to replace?
> >
> > Charles Hohenstein
>
> Wouldn't it replace the 2100/2200?

That's exactly what I wondered.

Charles Hohenstein

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The message <chohenste-CB9349.11291211022005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>
from Charles Hohenstein <chohenste@skyenet.net> contains these words:

> In article <MA3Pd.4554$pE1.720@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:

> > "Charles Hohenstein" <chohenste@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > news:chohenste-3C1A24.09023211022005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> > > In article <2005021112045670814@deryck.com>,
> > > deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> 1.5 picalitre
> > >>
> > >> http://imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1108098105.html
> > >
> > > What printer is this intended to replace?
> > >
> > > Charles Hohenstein
> >
> > Wouldn't it replace the 2100/2200?

> That's exactly what I wondered.

There are rumours of a further A3 fine art printer, hopefully with larger
ink cartridges than those used by the R800.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1013&m...

Deryck

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Wouldn't it replace the 2100/2200?
>

Yes, because a lot of people (from what I have read) were very disappointed
that
the 4000 (not sure of number) did not use the ink system developed for the
R800 (which
I have and LOVE).

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steven Wandy" <Swandy@si.rr.com> wrote in message
news T7Pd.675$rB3.926580@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>> Wouldn't it replace the 2100/2200?
>>
>
> Yes, because a lot of people (from what I have read) were very disappointed that
> the 4000 (not sure of number) did not use the ink system developed for the R800 (which
> I have and LOVE).

Huh?

The 4000 uses the same huge ultra chrome cartidges as the 7600, 9600.
It is in an different league from any of the desktop printers.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:41:08 GMT, "Steven Wandy" <Swandy@si.rr.com>
wrote:

>>> Wouldn't it replace the 2100/2200?
>>
>
>Yes, because a lot of people (from what I have read) were very disappointed
>that
>the 4000 (not sure of number) did not use the ink system developed for the
>R800 (which
>I have and LOVE).
>


The Epson 4000 replaced the ancient 3000.

It's a scaled down version of the 7600,
with two black carts. It prints 17" wide,
as opposed to 13" on the 2200/1280/1800.

The 4000 is part of Epson's professional
printer lineup, the 2200/1280/1800 are
desktop machines.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:29:33 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"Steven Wandy" <Swandy@si.rr.com> wrote in message
>news T7Pd.675$rB3.926580@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>>> Wouldn't it replace the 2100/2200?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, because a lot of people (from what I have read) were very disappointed that
>> the 4000 (not sure of number) did not use the ink system developed for the R800 (which
>> I have and LOVE).
>
>Huh?
>
>The 4000 uses the same huge ultra chrome cartidges as the 7600, 9600.
>It is in an different league from any of the desktop printers.


For sure, but it lacks the two new primaries
and the 1.5 picoliter droplets.

So these two printers serve very different
markets, and in no way compete with each
other.

The 4000 makes substantially larger prints,
often on fine art paper, and serves a
professional market. The larger droplets
are no problem there.

Prints from the R1800 will be viewed at
closer range, so its smaller dots are
appreciated. I imagine in time there
will be a pro Epson with something like
the R800/R1800 inkset -- but in 110 or
220 ml carts.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:c3ar01p4q974pbs0mu40gvlnciipfdvr30@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:29:33 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steven Wandy" <Swandy@si.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news T7Pd.675$rB3.926580@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>>>> Wouldn't it replace the 2100/2200?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, because a lot of people (from what I have read) were very disappointed that
>>> the 4000 (not sure of number) did not use the ink system developed for the R800 (which
>>> I have and LOVE).
>>
>>Huh?
>>
>>The 4000 uses the same huge ultra chrome cartidges as the 7600, 9600.
>>It is in an different league from any of the desktop printers.
>
>
> For sure, but it lacks the two new primaries
> and the 1.5 picoliter droplets.
>
> So these two printers serve very different
> markets, and in no way compete with each
> other.
>
> The 4000 makes substantially larger prints,
> often on fine art paper, and serves a
> professional market. The larger droplets
> are no problem there.
>
> Prints from the R1800 will be viewed at
> closer range, so its smaller dots are
> appreciated. I imagine in time there
> will be a pro Epson with something like
> the R800/R1800 inkset -- but in 110 or
> 220 ml carts.

The web-site was unclear regarding ink cartridges.
Is this a 10 cartridge printer? -With 8 color plus two black?
Perhaps an 11 cartridge printer (with the gloss optimizer)??
It seemed to imply a new red and blue, but also refers to 8-color...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message news:neuPd.75119$0u.59280@fed1read04...
>
> The web-site was unclear regarding ink cartridges.
> Is this a 10 cartridge printer? -With 8 color plus two black?
> Perhaps an 11 cartridge printer (with the gloss optimizer)??
> It seemed to imply a new red and blue, but also refers to 8-color...

The inkset is the same as the R800's:

Matte Black
Photo Black
Gloss Optimizer
Yellow
Cyan
Blue
Magenta
Red

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jimmy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> The inkset is the same as the R800's:
>
> Matte Black
> Photo Black
> Gloss Optimizer
> Yellow
> Cyan
> Blue
> Magenta
> Red

Do you know if the R800 and R1800 ink cartridges are cross-compatible?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:420e83a9@news.meer.net...
> Jimmy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > The inkset is the same as the R800's:
> >
> > Matte Black
> > Photo Black
> > Gloss Optimizer
> > Yellow
> > Cyan
> > Blue
> > Magenta
> > Red
>
> Do you know if the R800 and R1800 ink cartridges are cross-compatible?

No idea yet, since the printer has been announced but not released.
My guess is, the two will have compatible cartridges, for reasons
stated by others in this thread (the R1800 is a desktop printer).

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:49:28 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:


>The web-site was unclear regarding ink cartridges.
>Is this a 10 cartridge printer? -With 8 color plus two black?
>Perhaps an 11 cartridge printer (with the gloss optimizer)??
>It seemed to imply a new red and blue, but also refers to 8-color...


My guess is it's just the R800 with
a wider carriage.

I misspoke about the 4000 earlier.
It has three black carts not two.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:4gts011rn6ulb5uk4mfmg26utvotsibefi@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:49:28 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>
>>The web-site was unclear regarding ink cartridges.
>>Is this a 10 cartridge printer? -With 8 color plus two black?
>>Perhaps an 11 cartridge printer (with the gloss optimizer)??
>>It seemed to imply a new red and blue, but also refers to 8-color...
>
>
> My guess is it's just the R800 with
> a wider carriage.
>
> I misspoke about the 4000 earlier.
> It has three black carts not two.

The 4000 has photo black (for glossy), light black, and matte black...yes.
It appears that the ink-set for the 1800 does not have a light black, nor does it have
light cyan or light magenta.
I guess they're using "red" and "blue" instead of light cyan and light magenta (??).
In any case...It doesn't appear to have anything particularly strange, save for the glossy
finisher.

This means that the 1800 is essentially a 6 color printer (with two black options--one or
the other, plus the finisher).
The 4000 is a 7 color printer, plus the alternate black (matte or glossy)...but no glossy
finisher.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> The 4000 has photo black (for glossy), light black, and matte
> black...yes.

> It appears that the ink-set for the 1800 does not have a light
> black, nor does it have light cyan or light magenta.
> I guess they're using "red" and "blue" instead of light cyan and
> light magenta (??).

No, that's not what happens. The red and blue extend the gamut a
little bit, and that's all they're used for. The light cyan, light
magenta, and light black (sic) supposedly aren't necessary any more
because the smaller droplets allow for fine halftoning.

> In any case...It doesn't appear to have anything particularly
> strange, save for the glossy finisher.
> This means that the 1800 is essentially a 6 color printer (with two
> black options--one or the other, plus the finisher).
> The 4000 is a 7 color printer, plus the alternate black (matte or
> glossy)...but no glossy finisher.

That's right.

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:110uf0n38heia7e@news.supernews.com...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> The 4000 has photo black (for glossy), light black, and matte
>> black...yes.
>
>> It appears that the ink-set for the 1800 does not have a light
>> black, nor does it have light cyan or light magenta.
>> I guess they're using "red" and "blue" instead of light cyan and
>> light magenta (??).
>
> No, that's not what happens. The red and blue extend the gamut a
> little bit, and that's all they're used for. The light cyan, light
> magenta, and light black (sic) supposedly aren't necessary any more
> because the smaller droplets allow for fine halftoning.

Ah. That makes sense.
It would seem that the larger 3.5 picoliter of the 4000 is basically made-up-for by the
light cyan and light magenta then. Perhaps it's a wash...(?). Perhaps not for tiny
detail...though I must say that it's hard for me to imagine smaller detail than what I can
get from my Epson 4000 at it's highest setting.

I suspect the the 1.5 picoliter plus is more about half-toning (as you say) than it is
about fine detail. I question paper's ability to take advantage of 1.5 picoliter size
drops for detail alone... Maybe someone else has definitive info about that. -I'm just
curious, really. I am wildly happy with the 4000, but if they can best it...more power to
them.
 
-Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:01:27 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:


>Ah. That makes sense.
>It would seem that the larger 3.5 picoliter of the 4000 is basically made-up-for by the
>light cyan and light magenta then. Perhaps it's a wash...(?). Perhaps not for tiny
>detail...though I must say that it's hard for me to imagine smaller detail than what I can
>get from my Epson 4000 at it's highest setting.
>
>I suspect the the 1.5 picoliter plus is more about half-toning (as you say) than it is
>about fine detail. I question paper's ability to take advantage of 1.5 picoliter size
>drops for detail alone... Maybe someone else has definitive info about that. -I'm just
>curious, really. I am wildly happy with the 4000, but if they can best it...more power to
>them.


The 4000 makes large prints that are likely
to be viewed from a larger distance than those
from the R800 and R1800.

The 4000's dots are 3.5 pl versus 1.5 pl in
the R800/R1800. Both of these are quite small,
and the difference will only be apparent
with the sharpest of eyes on the glossiest
of paper surfaces, viewed at very close range.

As the dot size decreases the need for the
"light" colors (lc, lm) goes diminishes.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:110uf0n38heia7e@news.supernews.com...
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> The 4000 has photo black (for glossy), light black, and matte
>>> black...yes.
>>
>>> It appears that the ink-set for the 1800 does not have a light
>>> black, nor does it have light cyan or light magenta.
>>> I guess they're using "red" and "blue" instead of light cyan and
>>> light magenta (??).
>>
>> No, that's not what happens. The red and blue extend the gamut a
>> little bit, and that's all they're used for. The light cyan, light
>> magenta, and light black (sic) supposedly aren't necessary any more
>> because the smaller droplets allow for fine halftoning.

> Ah. That makes sense.
> It would seem that the larger 3.5 picoliter of the 4000 is basically
> made-up-for by the light cyan and light magenta then. Perhaps it's
> a wash...(?).

Apart from the slightly larger gamut.

> Perhaps not for tiny detail...though I must say that it's hard for
> me to imagine smaller detail than what I can get from my Epson 4000
> at it's highest setting.

> I suspect the the 1.5 picoliter plus is more about half-toning (as
> you say) than it is about fine detail.

I'm sure it is. As far as I'm aware, all the Epson printers are
driven at either 360 or 720 ppi. All the rest of the fine details on
a print are halftoning. There's no point generating detail finer than
720 ppi.

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:

> "rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:4gts011rn6ulb5uk4mfmg26utvotsibefi@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:49:28 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The web-site was unclear regarding ink cartridges.
>>>Is this a 10 cartridge printer? -With 8 color plus two black?
>>>Perhaps an 11 cartridge printer (with the gloss optimizer)??
>>>It seemed to imply a new red and blue, but also refers to 8-color...
>>
>>
>> My guess is it's just the R800 with
>> a wider carriage.
>>
>> I misspoke about the 4000 earlier.
>> It has three black carts not two.
>
> The 4000 has photo black (for glossy), light black, and matte
> black...yes. It appears that the ink-set for the 1800 does not have
> a light black, nor does it have light cyan or light magenta. I
> guess they're using "red" and "blue" instead of light cyan and light
> magenta (??). In any case...It doesn't appear to have anything
> particularly strange, save for the glossy finisher.

The R800 doesn't have light black, light cyan, or light magenta
either. With the ultra-small droplet size, it doesn't need them. So
they used the available space in the carriage to add the red and blue
cartridges to extend the gamut.

> This means that the 1800 is essentially a 6 color printer (with two
> black options--one or the other, plus the finisher). The 4000 is a
> 7 color printer, plus the alternate black (matte or glossy)...but no
> glossy finisher.

The 1800 will have a wider gamut than the 4000, just as the R800
does.

(By the way, you guys can all thank me; I'm sure the 1800 announcement
happened when it did because I'd finally broken down and bought an
R800.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:m2ll9pwmk2.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>
>> "rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>> news:4gts011rn6ulb5uk4mfmg26utvotsibefi@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:49:28 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The web-site was unclear regarding ink cartridges.
>>>>Is this a 10 cartridge printer? -With 8 color plus two black?
>>>>Perhaps an 11 cartridge printer (with the gloss optimizer)??
>>>>It seemed to imply a new red and blue, but also refers to 8-color...
>>>
>>>
>>> My guess is it's just the R800 with
>>> a wider carriage.
>>>
>>> I misspoke about the 4000 earlier.
>>> It has three black carts not two.
>>
>> The 4000 has photo black (for glossy), light black, and matte
>> black...yes. It appears that the ink-set for the 1800 does not have
>> a light black, nor does it have light cyan or light magenta. I
>> guess they're using "red" and "blue" instead of light cyan and light
>> magenta (??). In any case...It doesn't appear to have anything
>> particularly strange, save for the glossy finisher.
>
> The R800 doesn't have light black, light cyan, or light magenta
> either. With the ultra-small droplet size, it doesn't need them. So
> they used the available space in the carriage to add the red and blue
> cartridges to extend the gamut.
>
>> This means that the 1800 is essentially a 6 color printer (with two
>> black options--one or the other, plus the finisher). The 4000 is a
>> 7 color printer, plus the alternate black (matte or glossy)...but no
>> glossy finisher.
>
> The 1800 will have a wider gamut than the 4000, just as the R800
> does.
>
> (By the way, you guys can all thank me; I'm sure the 1800 announcement
> happened when it did because I'd finally broken down and bought an
> R800.)

Ah, that's OK.
I am extremely happy with the larger 4000.
With the light cyan, light magenta, and light black, the smaller droplet size/fewer color
comparison is really a non-factor.
The supposed gamut difference remains to be seen...
It sounds like a good idea though.
I hope it is a significant change, and that people are thrilled with the results.

Meanwhile, I'm finding the 4000 to truly be in it's own league in every regard--not only
in terms of it's superb output quality and speed, but especially in terms of intelligent,
trouble-free operation and up-keep. Truly an amazing machine.

To those who may be interested...
The 4000 come with the equivalent of HUNDREDS of dollars worth of ink, when you consider
how much a similar quantity of usable ink would cost if printing on the 2200, R800, or any
other smaller printer--Epson or otherwise. And... Right now (through Feb 28) Epson is
offering $300 worth of media rolls with the 4000. This, along with the huge included ink
quantity really brings it's comparative price DOWN. It may seem expensive at $1799, but
it becomes significantly cheaper very very quickly.
-Not to mention that it cuts paper automatically (or to your specification), aligns,
cleans, monitors istself... and NEVER clogs!
 
Add to this that you can print 17 inches wide...as long as you want...and it's darn near
perfect.
Many folks might be surprised just what a difference 4 more inches of width can make in
terms of imaging possibilities. 16x20s are a breeze, with room to spare.   Heck, the
**paper tray** accepts anything up to 17x22".
-Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2/15/05 3:17 PM, in article m2ll9pwmk2.fsf@gw.dd-b.net, "David
Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

>
> (By the way, you guys can all thank me; I'm sure the 1800 announcement
> happened when it did because I'd finally broken down and bought an
> R800.)

You are not the only one the group needs to thank! I just bought a Canon
i9900 but would have *strongly* considered the Epson 1800 had it been
available!
Chuck

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The message <ObAQd.90477$0u.76880@fed1read04>
from "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> contains these
words:


> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:m2ll9pwmk2.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> >
> >> "rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >> news:4gts011rn6ulb5uk4mfmg26utvotsibefi@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:49:28 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> >>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The web-site was unclear regarding ink cartridges.
> >>>>Is this a 10 cartridge printer? -With 8 color plus two black?
> >>>>Perhaps an 11 cartridge printer (with the gloss optimizer)??
> >>>>It seemed to imply a new red and blue, but also refers to 8-color...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> My guess is it's just the R800 with
> >>> a wider carriage.
> >>>
> >>> I misspoke about the 4000 earlier.
> >>> It has three black carts not two.
> >>
> >> The 4000 has photo black (for glossy), light black, and matte
> >> black...yes. It appears that the ink-set for the 1800 does not have
> >> a light black, nor does it have light cyan or light magenta. I
> >> guess they're using "red" and "blue" instead of light cyan and light
> >> magenta (??). In any case...It doesn't appear to have anything
> >> particularly strange, save for the glossy finisher.
> >
> > The R800 doesn't have light black, light cyan, or light magenta
> > either. With the ultra-small droplet size, it doesn't need them. So
> > they used the available space in the carriage to add the red and blue
> > cartridges to extend the gamut.
> >
> >> This means that the 1800 is essentially a 6 color printer (with two
> >> black options--one or the other, plus the finisher). The 4000 is a
> >> 7 color printer, plus the alternate black (matte or glossy)...but no
> >> glossy finisher.
> >
> > The 1800 will have a wider gamut than the 4000, just as the R800
> > does.
> >
> > (By the way, you guys can all thank me; I'm sure the 1800 announcement
> > happened when it did because I'd finally broken down and bought an
> > R800.)

> Ah, that's OK.
> I am extremely happy with the larger 4000.
> With the light cyan, light magenta, and light black, the smaller
> droplet size/fewer color
> comparison is really a non-factor.
> The supposed gamut difference remains to be seen...
> It sounds like a good idea though.
> I hope it is a significant change, and that people are thrilled with
> the results.

> Meanwhile, I'm finding the 4000 to truly be in it's own league in
> every regard--not only
> in terms of it's superb output quality and speed, but especially in
> terms of intelligent,
> trouble-free operation and up-keep. Truly an amazing machine.

> To those who may be interested...
> The 4000 come with the equivalent of HUNDREDS of dollars worth of ink,
> when you consider
> how much a similar quantity of usable ink would cost if printing on
> the 2200, R800, or any
> other smaller printer--Epson or otherwise. And... Right now (through
> Feb 28) Epson is
> offering $300 worth of media rolls with the 4000. This, along with
> the huge included ink
> quantity really brings it's comparative price DOWN.

Don't forget you use exactly one third of your initial ink supply in
priming the printer
on initial setup. A couple of hundred dollars worth at UK prices.. Then
there is regular
automatic head cleaning. If you don't use the printer frequently a lot
of ink is still
wasted.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/

Deryck

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message news:2005021615293770814@deryck.com...
> The message <ObAQd.90477$0u.76880@fed1read04>
> from "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> contains these
> words:
>
>
>> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
>> news:m2ll9pwmk2.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
>> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>> >
>> >> "rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:4gts011rn6ulb5uk4mfmg26utvotsibefi@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:49:28 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> >>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>The web-site was unclear regarding ink cartridges.
>> >>>>Is this a 10 cartridge printer? -With 8 color plus two black?
>> >>>>Perhaps an 11 cartridge printer (with the gloss optimizer)??
>> >>>>It seemed to imply a new red and blue, but also refers to 8-color...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> My guess is it's just the R800 with
>> >>> a wider carriage.
>> >>>
>> >>> I misspoke about the 4000 earlier.
>> >>> It has three black carts not two.
>> >>
>> >> The 4000 has photo black (for glossy), light black, and matte
>> >> black...yes. It appears that the ink-set for the 1800 does not have
>> >> a light black, nor does it have light cyan or light magenta. I
>> >> guess they're using "red" and "blue" instead of light cyan and light
>> >> magenta (??). In any case...It doesn't appear to have anything
>> >> particularly strange, save for the glossy finisher.
>> >
>> > The R800 doesn't have light black, light cyan, or light magenta
>> > either. With the ultra-small droplet size, it doesn't need them. So
>> > they used the available space in the carriage to add the red and blue
>> > cartridges to extend the gamut.
>> >
>> >> This means that the 1800 is essentially a 6 color printer (with two
>> >> black options--one or the other, plus the finisher). The 4000 is a
>> >> 7 color printer, plus the alternate black (matte or glossy)...but no
>> >> glossy finisher.
>> >
>> > The 1800 will have a wider gamut than the 4000, just as the R800
>> > does.
>> >
>> > (By the way, you guys can all thank me; I'm sure the 1800 announcement
>> > happened when it did because I'd finally broken down and bought an
>> > R800.)
>
>> Ah, that's OK.
>> I am extremely happy with the larger 4000.
>> With the light cyan, light magenta, and light black, the smaller
>> droplet size/fewer color
>> comparison is really a non-factor.
>> The supposed gamut difference remains to be seen...
>> It sounds like a good idea though.
>> I hope it is a significant change, and that people are thrilled with
>> the results.
>
>> Meanwhile, I'm finding the 4000 to truly be in it's own league in
>> every regard--not only
>> in terms of it's superb output quality and speed, but especially in
>> terms of intelligent,
>> trouble-free operation and up-keep. Truly an amazing machine.
>
>> To those who may be interested...
>> The 4000 come with the equivalent of HUNDREDS of dollars worth of ink,
>> when you consider
>> how much a similar quantity of usable ink would cost if printing on
>> the 2200, R800, or any
>> other smaller printer--Epson or otherwise. And... Right now (through
>> Feb 28) Epson is
>> offering $300 worth of media rolls with the 4000. This, along with
>> the huge included ink
>> quantity really brings it's comparative price DOWN.
>
> Don't forget you use exactly one third of your initial ink supply in
> priming the printer
> on initial setup. A couple of hundred dollars worth at UK prices.. Then
> there is regular
> automatic head cleaning. If you don't use the printer frequently a lot
> of ink is still
> wasted.

Still, you are gaining hundreds of dollars in ink--even after priming.
As to the regular head cleaning... I have yet to hear it do this when I'm not printing
something. I leave the power on...and it sits silently and motionless for days.