Posted by John Klotz on January 14, 2009 at 4:23 PM
It got an excellent review at Photo-I. What do you think? I am also looking at the Canon 9500(weak B&W? and the Epson 2880 (inkhog?). All opinions aprecitiated! You folks are always knowlegable and helpful!
John
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 14, 2009 at 5:48 PM
John,
If you can save the little bit extra, I can't stress enough how much better the 3800 is. This 17" printer is simply much cheaper to operate. The B9180 has the right idea with the larger ink tanks, but they are priced at the same $/mL as all the other 13" printers. The 3800 is 40% cheaper per mL than any of the 13" printers.
It only takes about 3" more in width on the desk and maybe 6" more in depth. It stores the inks above the paper path to save desk space.
Posted by Jack Garrett on January 15, 2009 at 12:24 AM
I would stay away from the Canon 9500. We sell them in our store and I was considering it and wound up going with the Epson R1900. The Canon has this thing where about one inch from the end of the print. it stops and starts again...if you look close you can see a very thin soft area in that part of the image. I had the same issue with my I9900 and it continued on in their newer 9000 and 9500. I'm extremely satisfied with my R1900 and the 2800 is an excellent printer, especially for B&W. I've never been a fan of HP...I dont like their paper.
Jack
Posted by Jack Garrett on January 15, 2009 at 12:25 AM
PS... the epsons are inkhogs but fro me the color is worth it.
Jack
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM
The HP paper, at least the high end stuff is made by Hahnemuhle, and I regard them as one of the finest paper makers in the business. Most art printers don't tie themselves to the printer manufacturer's paper anyways. For instance, I print on a mix of Epson and Ilford papers using ICC profiles.
I think the big thing going for the B9180 is that it uses larger ink tanks than the others in that class, but it costs the same amount/mL as the other 13" printers. The 17" printers drop the cost per mL by 40%-66% depending on the model. However, you would change inks less often with the B9180 and that would result in some cost savings.
I have no idea whether the HP uses a different amount of ink per unit of paper, but I highly doubt it. Epson made a big improvement in their ink consumption per unit f paper in the X800 line and I would think this has carried into the rest of the newer printers. What kills on the lower end Epsons is that even changing 1 ink tank causes all the print heads to re-prime and waste ink and that a cleaning cycle can use up 1mL from cartridges that only contain 12mL to start with. That head cleaning still requires 1mL of each ink in my 3800, but this time out of 80mL carts and those mL only cost 60% of cost in the 13" printers.
Posted by John Klotz on January 15, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Well darn! I guess I will have to make do with the 3800... Thanks for all the info. I have always liked the Epsons and all my pints are from the Epson 9800. I have a guy here in COS that does a great job! Email if you would like his number. I just always felt it wasn't completely my work if I did not make the prints. See ya'll at the shindig!
Discussion
5 repliesJohn
If you can save the little bit extra, I can't stress enough how much better the 3800 is. This 17" printer is simply much cheaper to operate. The B9180 has the right idea with the larger ink tanks, but they are priced at the same $/mL as all the other 13" printers. The 3800 is 40% cheaper per mL than any of the 13" printers.
It only takes about 3" more in width on the desk and maybe 6" more in depth. It stores the inks above the paper path to save desk space.
Jack
Jack
I think the big thing going for the B9180 is that it uses larger ink tanks than the others in that class, but it costs the same amount/mL as the other 13" printers. The 17" printers drop the cost per mL by 40%-66% depending on the model. However, you would change inks less often with the B9180 and that would result in some cost savings.
I have no idea whether the HP uses a different amount of ink per unit of paper, but I highly doubt it. Epson made a big improvement in their ink consumption per unit f paper in the X800 line and I would think this has carried into the rest of the newer printers. What kills on the lower end Epsons is that even changing 1 ink tank causes all the print heads to re-prime and waste ink and that a cleaning cycle can use up 1mL from cartridges that only contain 12mL to start with. That head cleaning still requires 1mL of each ink in my 3800, but this time out of 80mL carts and those mL only cost 60% of cost in the 13" printers.