Does ANYBODY have a bad thing to say about the R2400?

I can't recall reading anything negative about these printers. Surely

they've been out long enough now to have one or two disgruntled

users? No, I'm not looking for trouble, but if they are the be-all,

end-all printers we've been waiting for, I might start saving my

coins a bit more seriously. And they are a LOT of coins here in New

Zealand, believe me.

First off, I have zero serious inkjet printing experience/savvy. That said:

 

Photo-i has in-depth reviews of both the R2400 and the R1800. I have read both, fairly carefully. It was atleast a month back, so getting a little fuzzy, but what I came away with from these two reviews:

 

1. The two are fairly close mechanically.

 

2. The 2400 is optimized for "purist" black and white, through it's software and inkset.

 

3. The 2400 makes some less than optimum compromises in glossy colour printing. Something in the way it applies some sort of gloss overlay.

 

4. The 1800 is better in this regard: glossy colour.

 

5. The 1800, with a bit of PS tweaking, can produce black and white "close" to the quality of the 2400.

 

As I said, I am clueless on the subject. Just considering 11x17 format inkjet purchase, so reading up. The reviewer at Photo-i comes across as very knowledgable, and his methods of testing and comparison seemed very thorough and exhaustive.

I've used a 2200 for the past couple of years and have been following chat about 2400/4800 closely.

 

I think concensus is that, like the 2200, the 2400 approaches perfection operationally (eg. neither one ever clogs or has inherent mechanical weaknesses). 2200 requires a printer drive other than Epson's for fine B&W ( I use Quadtone QTRgui ) whereas Epson's OEM driver is apparently excellent for 2400.

 

Non OEM ink reliability is the only area I've read ANY operational complaints with 2400 OR 2200 (reliability of refillable cartridges).

 

My impression is that there is no comparably good machine from other manufacturers, with the exception that HP Designjet 130 may make better blacks in B&W, albiet with paper issues.

it uses ink and the ink is expensive.

Good point, Byron. The fact that printer ink costs more per liquid ounce than the finest champagne is pretty ridiculous, isn't it? I'm currently only printing 8.5x11, color on a Canon s900 (Canon inks) and B&W on an Epson C84 with the MIS EZ ink. I'm looking into using the refillable MIS cartridges on each of these machines, but am pausing to consider the 2400 because it does both, and of course the larger size. But the ink costs - ouch!

OK, not the FINEST champagne, but you get my point.

Jim,

 

OEM ink outcost even the finest champagne. Extrapolate how much a 2oz cartridge will cost you when you've used a pint of ink per cartridge set.

The cost of paper is a lot lower than the cost of photo paper and the cost of pigment is incredibly low by comparison to the cost of chemical processing of color paper.

 

MIS is undoubtedly the best of the non-OEM, but unlike Epson it has quality control issues. Switching to non-OEM makes sense if one wants something special tone-wise (MIS does), but it's silly as a cost control measure unless one's time has no value.

 

The analogy to champagne is repeated over and over...a bad analogy. Champagne is a cheap luxury, Epson pigments are an incredible bargain when one considers their perfection. A better analogy might compare Epson pigments to polio vaccine (both are perfected).

It takes less ink than champagne to bring me joy. Maybe cocaine is a better analogy. Anyone have any price comparisons ?

 

I have an R2400 and I like it a lot. I have never had a head clog. Thusfar have printed on matte paper exclusively.

 

The only downside is that Epson purges the print lines when you change cartridges (and all the inklines not just the one corresponding to the cartridge you changed). On a R2400 this is annoying but not disasterous (on the large format printers this can cost you US$100 in ink). If this only happened when you ran out of ink it wouldn't be such a big deal but you are supposed to swap the black ink cartridge when switching from gloss to matte paper.

 

It would indeed be a lot of coins. I suggest you use the neat plastic notes.

 

I never bought photography equipment in NZ but it might be cheaper to get one shipped from the US, HK, or Singapore. I know guys in Australia get things shipped from the States.

 

Where are you in New Zealand ?

I don't quite agree with John here, I think the costs of chemical processing vs digital

printing are roughly the same. Then again, there is a lot more waste with chemical

printing, if you are really serious about quality.

 

The hardware for good old analog printing is a lot more expensive, though, and doesn't

allow for a fraction of the manupilation of the outcome like digital does.

 

I still have a tank processor and 4x5 enlarger which I've been using for a dozen years, it

has become completely vain with the arrival of the R2400; it's print quality is stunning.

 

Back to topic, I do have something negative to say: after a couple of weeks of light use,

two print heads were clogged and needed 5 cleaning cycles to work properly again.

You're right, John. Analogies are useless when you're trying to get real information. Alistair, I'm in Wellington. I think an R2400 costs about $2200 NZD here, or about $1500 USD. Yes, I could easily buy from the US and have it shipped here and save a lot. Not sure what that does to the warranty, though.

$1500US for a 2400? thats piracy! I can get it for just under $800 stateside ( granted, i

live here ) but still! i would definately order one from the US or HK even. just DONT pay

$1500US, thats almost the price of the Epson 4800 here! ($1600US)