Is the Epson R2880 the best b/w printer?

[certain_ratio]

A new printer was the last thing on my mind before I started looking through Epson's website last night. Very

impressive to say the least. Though for price I'm more eyeing up the R2400.

 

My present printer is the Epson 1290s.

 

I really have read alot of reviews, but I can't seem to find any comparisons against other manufacturer's. Nothing

apart form the odd comment.

 

So simple question, for the home user..what do you think is the best b/w printer on the market at the moment?

 

...and no, I don't want to be swapping around alot of Lyson inks! I've tried that already...I also like colour.

 

Thanks.

[steven_.]

I own neither printer but I understand that the 3800 right out of the box makes great b/w prints. AT Atlex the 2800

costs 700 and you get $100 worth of ink making the initial cost of the printer $600 and each cc of replacement ink

costs $1.12. The 3800 costs $1150 and you get $432 worth of ink making the real cost of the printer $718.Each cc of

replacment ink for the 3800 is $0.60. The 3800 prints up to 17x22 and the 2880 up to 13x19. For an initial $118 more

than the 2880 you get much more printer and over the life of the printer it will ultimately cost you less.

[steven_.]

I own neither printer but I understand that the 3800 right out of the box and makes great b/w prints. AT Atlex the 2800 costs 700 and you get $100 worth of ink making the initial cost of the printer $600 and each cc of replacement ink costs $1.12. The 3800 costs $1150 and you get $432 worth of ink making the real cost of the printer $718.Each cc of replacment ink for the 3800 is $0.60. The 3800 prints up to 17x22 and the 2880 up to 13x19. For an initial $118 more than the 2880 you get much more printer and over the life of the printer it will ultimately cost you less.

[bobmichaels]

I have used my 2400 for 3 years. I have several friends who have 3800s. They seem to work exactly the same for b&w printing using the ABW mode. Both make incredible b&w prints just the way they come from Epson.

 

I have no first hand knowledge of the 2880 but it appears to do b&w exactly the same as the 2400/3800. The 2880 primary advantage according to Epson is "Vivid Magenta" or something like that. Honestly, I never had a problem with my magenta colors not being vivid enough.

 

Epson wants to replace the 2400 because the ink cart chips have been reverse engineered by 3rd parties. You can reset the 2400 chips and reuse the carts. The 3800 chips were designed so they cannot be reverse engineered and I am sure the 2880 chips will be the same.

 

Be aware of the size of the 3800. It takes up quite a bit of desk real estate. If you print enough to keep the inks from going stale dated, the ink is more economical.

 

Refurbished 3800s (as good as a new one) are almost always available for Epson direct for $950 including shipping. Refurbished 2400s are sometimes available there for $600. My last 5 Epson printers have all been refurbished.

 

The direct answer to your question in my opinion is that the best b&w printer currently is the 2400 for 13x19 or the 3800 for 17x? The 2880 does not fit in with any consumer advantages and has the disadvantage of being new and unproven plus more expensive.

[jerryrock]

The real difference is the size of the ink cartridges. Epson makes a ton of money from selling ink and keeping the ink

cartridges tiny like the ones in the "new" R2880 insures their profit margin.

 

This printer would have been a great choice, had they gone the way of the 3800 and constructed a new printer with larger ink

cartridges making printing more cost effective.

[godfrey]

My prior printer for B&W work as an Epson 1270 with MIS quad-tone inkset and QuadToneRIP software. The quality was

excellent, but the consistency and cost of ink was quite high. I don't have great records on it, but I know just from looking at

my print inventory that I only managed to make a couple of hundred prints at most with that printer before giving up in

frustration due to the consistency problems.

 

The R2400 and R3800 share the same inkset. Both are superb for printing B&W, with either fully color-managed workflow or

using the driver's ABW mode. I've been printing with the R2400 since October 2005. The R2400 has proven to be 100%

consistent and reliable, and produces quality prints on par with or better than the 1270/ink/RIP system. I've produced over

2000 prints with the R2400.

 

My usual exhibition prints are 11x14 inch image area on A3 paper. I keep track of how many prints I make and all my ink

cartridge replacements. That size print has cost me $1.41 per print in ink on average, based on a per cartridge cost of $12

for ink. It also varies a little paper by paper. The R3800 ink carts cost three times as much but hold five times as much ink,

so if you're printing a lot you'll find a substantial savings on the price of ink over time.

 

I have no experience with the R2880 ... If the ink carts are of similar size and price as the R2400, and there is a substantive

improvement in the quality somehow, it could be a better purchase than the R2400. It likely won't compete with the R3800 on

overall economy due to the size of the ink carts.

 

Godfrey

[bobmichaels]

Let me suggest you "run the numbers" to find if the reduced cost per ML of ink in the 3800 will pay for the increased purchase price over the 2400. I found you need a very high volume of prints to make the 3800 cost effective.

 

Actually, it takes somewhere around 3,000 8x10 prints to make the 3800 a better deal if you don't need the large print size of the 3800. This is a simplification that ignores the time value of money and opportunity cost that we MBAs worry about from 9 to 5.

 

FWIW, my experience with the Epson 2400 being rock solid reliable over the years matches Godfrey's. I used to be proud of the great b&w prints I made with my 1280 using MIS inks because it required some real skill in printing and maintenance of the printer. Then I bought a 2400 and found that all of that had become automatic.