RE: new printer

["Lloyd O'Daniel" <lodaniel@bham.rr.com>]

I just did some number crunching that suggests that the per print cost
of the 2100/2200 might be substantially less than its predecesors. We're
not talking CIS levels, but maybe tolerable. I never have understood
cartridge capacity data based on text or 5% coverage as being
meaningful. Perhaps someone else could enlighten me on how to convert
that to approximate number of "typical" photo prints. Anyway, Epson's UK
site also lists the capacity of each color cart in number of 8x10's of a
particular "bike" image. (I haven't seen that image and can't comment on
how typical it is. But, at least it's a photo.) The ink consumption for
this image varies greatly from color to color. Light black is used most
and the primaries are used least. I assume this means that the printer
relies heavily on light black for neutrals rather than CMY in order to
reduce metamerism.

In any event, I took this data and converted it to square inches and
extrapolated for other print sizes. I then found the retail cost of 2200
carts on the US Epson site store at $10.76 each. (I had though/feared
they might be double that.) Based on all of this, an 8x12 comes in at
$0.64, a 12x18 is $1.45, and a full-bleed 13x19 is $1.66. (I chose these
for full-frame 35mm prints.) This is substantially less than I have
heard from friends and on the various lists with 2000P's, etc.

My interest in this printer has risen. In some ways, it is superior to
the 7600. At $10.76 or less per cart and the usual less ink in the
system on desktop printers vs the big ones, switching from photo to
matte black to optimize for the full range of papers is more practical
than the $112 flush of the 7600/9600. I can't wait to see print samples.

Lloyd



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com [mailto:owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com]
On Behalf Of Jerry Olson
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:56 PM
To: epson-inkjet@leben.com
Subject: Re: new printer


Mike,

Because I print a LOT of prints, and the 2200 cartridges are quite
small. But you may be right about the 1280. Until I actually see a print
from the 2200, l would find it hard to believe that it could be a lot
better than the 1280. I have NO complaints with the 1280, except it
would be nice to print an occasional large print.  If the 2200 had finer
dots, it wouldn't matter at all to me. I cannot see dots with a 4x Loupe
in 1280 prints. I don't think the resolution is different, is it?  So
you may be right. The inks probably would be the only reason to get the
2200, and they are just too expensive for me. Remember I'm a tightwad.
Also, I'm really satisfied with Generation 4 and MIS archival inks!

Jerry



Michael Greer wrote:
> 
> --- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@rrv.net> wrote:
> > Wait for the new 2200 Epson. It will be a photographer's dream 
> > printer, It has nearly everything any photographer could want, up to

> > 13x44 inches. EXCEPT one. It is too new for a CIS system, so it will

> > be awhile until one is ready, if you want to use bulk inks.
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> Why would anybody buy a 2200 and even consider using non Epson 
> UltraChrome ink? The whole reason for getting a 2200 is to gain access

> to the UC ink with the 7th lite black hue. If one wants to use bulk 
> ink, then they're better off with a less expensive but very capable 
> 1280. That is, unless the bulk ink they use is syphoned from UC inks 
> from 7600/9600 ink carts. That will lower print costs, but the intial 
> cost of this setup will almost be as much as the printer. The CIS will

> run about $200. Carts for the 110ml UC ink run about $55 each (B and H

> Photo). You need 7. Therefore, you need $385 worth of ink. But that 
> should last a long while. B and H prices the 220ml carts at $90 each. 
> Therefore, it will cost you $630 in ink. But this should last a very, 
> very long time.
> 
> So a CIS and the 2200 is an attractive solution. Just realize the 
> upfront cost will not be insignificant.
> 
> =====
> Visit my digital photography web site along with a lot of other 
> interesting stuff at http://www.mikegreer.com. Also, Greer and 
> Associates (http://www.greeraa.com) offers studio photography, digital

> imaging services, web site design/construction, and training.
> 
> Mike Greer
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup 
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> -
> Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate 
> subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.


-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.