3800 better than 4800?

**JoelBelmont** · 13-Jan-2007, 17:53

No one seems to be finding my quesitons in the 'ink cost justification' thread, so I thought I would start a new one:

I am waiting for a 3800 on order.

In regards to inks, and bypassing epson's expensive inks:
1. The 3800 uses pressurized cartridges (is my understanding)... does this take away the ability to use third party inks/refill cartridges/give epson a monopoly on what inks you can use with it? Has anyone used third party inks with the 3800?

2. MIS lists, in regards to their archival ink: "The estimated archival life will exceed the Epson inks by many times when used with archival paper. They have been tested by Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and rated to last 49 years under display conditions." Epson lists 100-200+years with their inks. MIS is at 49... how is that exceeding epson by several times? Is there a consensus about quality third party inks? Cone seems to be a popular choice..?

Thanks for any input. I am also tossing around the idea of the 4800 instead of the 3800... I will be switching matte/glossy now and then, but can't figure out if the 3800 is worth the extra 33-50% in ink costs, vs. the $50-$75 ink dumps (in swithcing) and possibly not being able to use third party inks.

Thanks,
~Joel Belmont
www.joelbelmont.com

**Greg Lockrey** · 13-Jan-2007, 17:58

The 3800 is too new for third party inks, so no one can give you a for sure answer. I like my 3800 though I use a 9600 in my business. The head is a new design and I like the ease of changing ink types for glossy and matte papers. I bought to see how good this new technology is before the new 44" printer come out with it. It doesn't take rolls, 4800 does, but the 4800 has the old style head to my understanding. I personnaly don't use MIS inks because I don't have time messing with profiles. Bill Atcheson (sp) works just fine for everything Epson thank you.

**JoelBelmont** · 13-Jan-2007, 18:02

Thanks... I have researched the 3800 inside and out, and know the general pros and cons. I just can't figure out if the pressurized cartridges will make epson ink the only option. Which is my guess as to what they will do with the big ones (44") when they are released...

**Greg Lockrey** · 13-Jan-2007, 18:13

Originally Posted by JoelBelmont

Thanks... I have researched the 3800 inside and out, and know the general pros and cons. I just can't figure out if the pressurized cartridges will make epson ink the only option. Which is my guess as to what they will do with the big ones (44") when they are released...

Like I said before, Epson is fine with me. There are way more problems when different inks are used just to save a couple of bucks because in the long run it cost more. Just look at all of those guys who are having problems with their printers that use MIS inks. I don't need the hassle...time is money and I can recoop my cost on the print when my average cost go up, I pass it on to the client. They always understand since they have a idea what it cost to run their little printers. FWIW I haven't had to raise my price in 5 years.

**Kirk Gittings** · 13-Jan-2007, 19:16

There is also a question of build quality. the 4800 is built to professional specs, while the 3800 is not. Compare the two side by side and you can easily see the difference. This may or may not matter in the long run in terms of durability of components.

**Greg Lockrey** · 14-Jan-2007, 07:00

That's true too, you get what you pay for. The 3800 is a nice machine if only to enter the fray. Once you get some knowledge under your belt, you'll know more about digital printing to make more informed decisions when you decide to go large format....if that's the direction your heading. FWIW I paid for the 3800 the first weekend that I owned it running 300 two sided 5x8" cards and a number of 16x20's. So in that regard it is very inexpensive. By the time you wear this machine out, the technology will have improved so much that your'e going to want to get it anyway.

**Chris Strobel** · 18-Jan-2007, 09:47

I think it has more to do than saving a couple bucks.In b&w not all of us are happy with k3 and ABW, and use MIS or Cone inksets and QTR.I asked John Cone about the 3800 and He said "I'd fill em tommorow if I could find reliable empties" so it sounds like its do-able.Got a similar response from MIS on the phone.I also asked Cone about plans for the Canon IPF5000 and He said there were none.As a b&w photographer myself, I had the same quetions as I'm shopping for a 17" machine also.I've looked hard at the Canon, but will probably go with a 4800 due to more options in inksets for b&w.On a side note, I've used an Epson 1160 with various Cone and MIS inksets for six years, and the only problem I have is clogged heads when the machine has sat for long periods of time, which for me has been easily fixed using spongeless carts with windex ran for a few cleaning cycles.

Chris

Originally Posted by Greg Lockrey

Like I said before, Epson is fine with me. There are way more problems when different inks are used just to save a couple of bucks because in the long run it cost more. Just look at all of those guys who are having problems with their printers that use MIS inks. I don't need the hassle...time is money and I can recoop my cost on the print when my average cost go up, I pass it on to the client. They always understand since they have a idea what it cost to run their little printers. FWIW I haven't had to raise my price in 5 years.