2200 vs R 1800

[mickey_brandt]

I have the 2200 and I'm happy with it

 

What (if any) are the advantages of the R 1800 over the 2200?

I know it's a newer model, but it doesn't cost more them the 2200, in

fact it costs less

 

Thanks,

 

Mickey

[frank_dzambic]

The 1800 is much better at printing on glossy paper. And it has a smaller ink drop size.

[jtk]

This is discussed extensively on the Yahoo Epson printer site and the Yahoo B&W print site.

 

Some say the R1800 isn't as good with B&W or with color on *matte* papers as is the 2200. This is probably especially the case when people use non-Epson inks and bulk ink systems.

 

There seems mixed opinion about the quality of R1800 glossy in B&W compared to glossy from the 2200 in B&W when used with MIS "glop" combined with MIS carbon inks (in other words, some say thee 2200 looks better in glossy if you want to use MIS non-OEM ink)...

 

I've found Moab Entrada to be an exceptionally good glossy paper in the 2200 with OEM pigments. Infinitely better than Epson glossy. There's almost no bronze in most images but the white highlites are not glossy, so are noticable.

 

fwiw, I dislike glossy or semi-gloss generally, especially dislike the look of resin papers, and the 2200 makes a better matte print...but if I had to deliver glossy for commercial purposes or if I simply didn't care, I'd use the R1800.

[finepics]

I have just read a review of the R1800 in the British Journal Of Photography. The author states that "when it (R1800) was first announced there was speculation that this was the replacement for the trailblazing A3+ Stylus Photo 2100 launched in 2002. However, where the 2100 was innovatory, the R1800 simply emulates the R800, so I think the successor to the 2100 is still to come".

 

Although print quality was not disputed (and monochrome output has improved) he criticised shortcomings in the software and the usual problems of costly ink cartridges and appallingly lacking descriptions of driver settings and features in the user manual. The main differences are in the use of the Red and Blue inks which replace Light Magenta and Light Cyan. The gloss optimizer was noted for reducing the intensity of highlights by imparting a light grey tint that was especially noticeable on whites. It is not a huge difference but one that seems to counteract one of the characteristics that it is intended to enhance. Draw your own conclusions! (I won't get rid of my 2100 for a while yet)

[mike_levine]

I've been trying to decide between these two in order to jump into digital printing too.

 

My main issue is that i like the "matte" finish i can get at photo labs, but it seems like it is really a "lustre" type finish.

 

When people say that the r1800 is not too good with "matte" papers, are they talking about "lustre" or traditional flat "matte" papers? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated!

 

-Mike

[elliot_n]

I have the same question as Mike. I like matte photographic papers - specifically Kodak

Endura Supra paper in the 'N' finish - and I would like to approximate this look with an A3

inkjet printer. (The prints would be for 11"x14" portfolios.)

 

Which printer (2200 or R1800) and which paper would best suit my needs?

[finepics]

The article I quoted from earlier goes on to say that Matte papers are generally regarded as a true art medium and the test results indicated that the best performance came from using a smoother surface texture paper such as Epson Enhanced Matte or Watercolour papers. I agree with that as I now only use Epson Archival/Enhanced Matte for all my work, the only exception would be to use a high quality art paper for work I might sell such as Hahnemule Photo Rag (a matte paper).

 

The lustre or Pearl type paper will not give as crisp a result as matte paper partly because of bronzing which is a well known problem with pigment inks, this will affect either the 2100 or the R1800 and is something that Epson is working on for the next generation of printers.

 

The R1800 is slightly cheaper than the 2100 (which lends weight to the argument that it is not a replacement for the 2100) but apart from that I don't think there is much to choose between them (and some people are still very happy with the older 1290 A3 printer, which has just been updated to USB 2.0 and called the 1290s, and is cheaper still - worth considering).

 

I have spent a long time getting my printing right and the sharpness of a decent matte print is exceptional, when its framed behind glass you would not see that its a matte print. See if your local dealer/supplier will do some test prints for you to compare.

[Spearhead]

The R1800 cannot print on canvas whereas the 2200 can. If this doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter. However, for me, despite the advantages of the R1800 over the 2200 (both blacks in place, gloss optimizer), I can't make the move because this is a killer for me.

[jtk]

There are all sorts of true mattes that work beautifully on the 2200.

 

An outstanding example is Epson Enhanced Matte, brilliant white, dead matte, very sharp.

 

I treat it as a benchmark, but my preference for finished matte prints is Moab Entrada Natural, which isn't whitened, is slightly warm.

 

These have absolutely no gloss and don't look like resin-coated paper (which I don't like).

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

There is a good review of the R1800 at photo-i.com, a British web site. Interestingly, the screen shots from the review show an option for grayscale printing. This is not available in the US version. When I e-mailed Epson support they said you can't use it and it's not available. OF course I downloaded it from the Epson-uk site and everything seems to work fine so far. I just did this last night though so I haven't really had a chance to truly test the quality of b&w. My color output has been fantastic from the R1800. John you confused me a bit saying Entrada is a glossy paper when it's in fact matte, as you said in your last post. Are you using a spray on glosser? Also, according to Paul Roarke and other sites I've read, EEM is not acid free and therefore not archival, in spite of its old name which I think was archival matte. Anyone know anything different on this issue? Also, the R1800 is wicked fast. With my 1280 I could watch a Frineds rerun while it was printing a 13 by 19. The 1800 did it in about 5 minutes.

[jonathan_gentry]

I'm seeing alot of comments here by 2200 owners that appear to be justifying keeping their printer. The 2200 prints do not really compare to the prints from the R1800 when it comes to printing on glossy paper or luster paper. The R1800 prints are excellent. Matt performance of the R1800 is excellent as well. I don't agree that the 2200 is better at matt paper. I only think the smaller drop size does not show up a difference between the printers as well on matt paper. If there was an advantage of the 2200 over the R1800 it would be that the icc profiles for Matt paper are more mature because of it's age. Give the R1800 some time and more profiles will be availabe. You will probably start hearing that the 1800 is just as good. The printer is faster and will print on canvas if you run it through the rear feed. I select the watercolor paper setting when printing canvas. I'm waiting on more canvas to come in so I can judge the quality. So far I've fed standard artists canvas through just to see if the printer would phisically take such a thick material and it did. Now I'm waiting on real printing canvas papers. I'll keep you posted.

 

-Jonathan

[larry n.]

Jonathan,

 

If you are referring to my comments, I am actually a recovering R800 owner and have never owned a 2200, although I use one occasionally. Unless the R1800 has improved both the software and hardware over the R1800, it will have serious limitations, including:

 

(1) The R800 "Black Only" setting prints in color. This is a well-documented "feature" and, as of several months ago" there was no solution. If you are interested in b&w printing, just cross this one off your list (see also note below re: lack of availability of 3rd party inks).

 

(2) On Epson's Enhanced Matt Paper, greens and blacks print poorly.

 

(3) Although Epson tries to market it as an "8-cartridge" printer, it is a 6-color printer. After comparing output from the R800 and 2200, it is quite clear that two shades of black are better than smaller black droplets. Compared to the Canon i9900 true 8-color system, the R800's gamut is lacking (Particulary the greens. Anyone print landscapes?)

 

(4) Although the R1800 is new, the R800 has been out for several years. When do you expect the paper profiles to mature?

 

(5) Inks are incredibly expensive due to the tiny cartridges and the odd behavior of the software drivers. For example, once the ink level goes below a certain level, you can print but you can't clean the nozzles. End result: if you need to clean the nozzles (which you have to do quite ofte), you will have to change the cartridge. Changing one cartridge will use ink from all cartridges. Any cartridges that were close to empty will now go over the hump and require changing. I can go on, but you get the point.

 

(6) Quality on glossy prints is overrated. It's not quite as good as drugstore prints.

 

(7) There are no bulk ink systems, which compounds the problem of the ink costs.

 

(8) There are no 3rd-party inks, including dedicated black-and-white inks, which produce outstanding results in the 2200, the 1280 and even older printers.

 

My solution is to get the Epson 4000. It has a slightly smaller ink droplet than the 2200. It comes with a bulk ink system (standard cartridges are 110 ml or 220 ml -- very economical if you print any volume whatsover).

 

Most importantly, the paper profiles are already "mature". No need to wait.

 

I realize that the 4000 is not for everyone, due its size and initial investment. For me, at least, that was a small price to pay for these improvements.