Which printer would you buy?

[bvstaples]

What to get….what to get.

My faithful old Epson 1280 finally died. No matter what I do, the heads seem to be shot to sheet. I cannot get them to work. So now I need another printer. Being 1) the frugal bass-turd I am; 2) the poor starving artiste I aspire to be; and 3) at the mercy of a penny-pinching household CFO (though I love her dearly), I cannot afford something like a brand spanking new 3880 or even 2880. So it’s off to the used market for me.

I have a couple of opportunities, both Epsons: first is a gently used 2200 with about a dozen and a half extra cartridges; and the other is a barely used R1800. Both are within my “budget” with the R1800 having the advantage (it’s cheaper).

So I am seeking comments on these two printers. Opinions. Pros and cons. I use my printer primarily for imaging, about 70% B&W and 30% color. I print on a variety of substrates, such as Epson Mattes, Harmann and Hahnemuhle papers, but I also like to print on oddball stuff (like 140 lbs. Arches Rag). I use PhotoShop as my primary image editor, and may like to utilize third party RIPs and such.

Given the above, if you had to choose between these two printers, which would you choose and why? The 2200 uses more conventional ink sets, while the 1800 uses the “Hi-Gloss” with Red and Blue enhancers and Gloss Optimizer (I’m not really sure what this does). The 1800 has a smaller droplet size and a higher resolution, though I personally cannot tell the difference above the 2880 dpi range (old eyes). The 1800 prints on things like DVDs (not that I will), while the 2200 has a straight through paper path for thick materials. What I’m really looking for is quality prints from my LF negs, which are scanned and post processed before output. Both machines can probably pull this off, but which is "better" in our particular ways.

So, opine away, and thanks in advance.

Brian

[Tyler Boley]

70% B&W dictates the 2200 over the 1800, which has only one black ink, at least the 2200 has an additional light black, and there are decent QTR setups available for it.
Most papers you mention are matte, so again that leans toward the 2200. On the other hand, if you want decent occassional gloss and are willing to forgo the better B&W result, the 1800 would be better. But it has very finicky thick paper feed, as an office printer.
Either way you sacrifice one result for another.
You'd be far ahead with a used or refurbished 2400.
It could be argued the 1800 will be more similar to your 1280 past experience...
Tyler

[Preston]

I agree with Tyler. The R2400 is a very nice printer, and will serve you well for your needs.

--P

[JMB]

If I had to choose between these two printers, I would get a Durst 8x10 enlarger, 4 or 5 big trays, and some chemicals. :) --JB

[Lenny Eiger]

I think that Epson printers are designed with a breakage date. If it's a factory refurb with a warranty that 's one thing. If not, I would get a new credit card and just buy the damn thing. Sorry about the CFO, but she has got to realize how important art is to you. If the other one is broken, you are dead in the water...

Good luck,

Lenny

[Steve Wadlington]

I have a 1800 for color. It's touchy and tends to band.

I have a 2400 for BW. I use a CIS. Ink carts will eat your dollar reserve. Watching 10mils of ink pump out each time you change a cartridge is discouraging.

[Preston]

"I have a 2400 for BW. I use a CIS. Ink carts will eat your dollar reserve. Watching 10mils of ink pump out each time you change a cartridge is discouraging."

I have a R2400, as well, and this is my only complaint about it. Otherwise. it makes beautiful prints (I print color, primarily).

--P

[Brian Ellis]

I used a 2200 for about three years doing a lot of b&w with QTR. It worked very well, never had a problem with it. I'm not familiar with the 1800 so I can't compare them but I don't think you'd go wrong with the 2200 as long as it's in good shape. You might also consider the 2400, which uses the newer Epson inks IIRC and may not be much more than a 2200. The one downside to the 2200 for me was that the cartridges are small so you have to replace the inks fairly often and they aren't cheap.

Too bad about your 1280. Those were amazing printers, I still have mine. It's about 8 years old and used by my wife every day, never had the first problem with it (or any other Epson printer of the four I've owned).

[Frank Petronio]

I still use a 2200 w QTR and Harman FB Gloss for B&W and get compliments from photographers on my prints.

I'd probably stick w the same series, the 2400 or higher, next time. I think the Epson drivers are better for the newer prints and I might be able to forego the Quad Tone RIP (which is a pain to install).

Ink is the killer of course, if you print any volume then they are very uneconomical.

[bvstaples]

OK thanks to all who have offered me advise. After looking at everything available, I’ve decided to buy a smaller printer to hold me over for the “household chores” while I seek out a printer that will better serve me into the future. Recently I saw a “gently used” (it’s run 300 prints through it) Epson 2880 for $250.00. I’ve also seen a slew of Canon PIXMA 9000 for about the same price, mostly new. Seems Canon had a deal where it was more economical to buy a 5D and printer together and get the rebate than it was to buy the camera alone. I would probably buy up the Epson now, except the guy is not answering his ad!

Anyway, it did give me a chance to go look at the Canon printers. What I found was that for the 9000, I liked the color output better than the Epson, but the B&W was better on the Epson 2880. I’m presuming the mix of inks is geared more for color in the Canon and better for B&W in the Epson. Of course the salesman was of little help! But based on this presumption, I saw that the Canon 9500 had almost the same mix of inks as the Epson and wondered about its B&W output. The unit at the store I went to was not up and running so I couldn’t compare.

So once again I turn to the forum as my font of quality information about all things photographic. Is anybody using the Canon printers, and if so, why you chose them over the Epson.

Many thanks in advance.

Brian

[Mike Anderson]

I'm looking for low budget BW printing too. I've been toying with the idea of refurbed Epson 1400 ($179 now, a week ago was $159) and a BW MIS cartridge set (about $100). And I guess I'd need a QTR for $50. So that's $329 for a basic BW setup.

But I get the impression this kind of setup is obsolete, that newer $400-$500 printers with included drivers are just as good at black and white and less hassle and can still print color. The HP 8850 and 9180 interest me, I've heard lots of good things and lots of bad things about them.

I'm still trying to sort this out.

...Mike

[Peter De Smidt]

IMO, the $400-$500 printers with OEM inks will not produce as good of BW prints as the other option you're considering. In addition, if you need to vary the tone with OEM, you'll be using color inks, whereas with a BW set you can use neutral/cool Eboni or HP PK inks along with warmer carbon inks.

I prefer the "Epson Refillable Cartridges 1440" at : http://store.inkjetcarts.us/1400-c472.aspx to the MIS cartridges. Plus, they are cheaper. I'd recommend getting a second set and filling it with cleaning fluid. Using cleaning fluid/cartridges is much easier on the printer than running cleaning cycles.

[CantikFotos]

I still use a 2200 w QTR and Harman FB Gloss for B&W and get compliments from photographers on my prints.

What inks do you use?

[Patrick Dixon]

Should anyone want a copy of the 'Epson Printer Adjustment Program' for the 2200/2100, just pm me.