Epson 3800: Interesting info...

[Nill Toulme]

... from the good folks at InkJet Art:

http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_09-26-06.html

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Don Lashier]

... from the good folks at InkJet Art:

http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_09-26-06.html

And http://www.inkjetart.com/Epson_3800_Pro/

I'm glad I waited for a 17" (still using 2200). $1295 and built-in ethernet! Smaller and lighter. I don't care about lack of roll feed - never use it anyway. And comes with full cartridges! I'm glad someone (HP) finally provided some competition.

BTW I'm curious why these printers limit length to 22". With 1.5 aspect it would be nice to print 16 x 24.

edit: corrected length limit from 21 to 22

- DL

 

[Nill Toulme]

????... My 4800 came with full cartridges.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Don Lashier]

????... My 4800 came with full cartridges.

I believe the Canon iPF-5000 comes with "starter" cartridges. Don't know about the Epson 4800, but obviously this printer was designed to knock the legs out from under Canon.

- DL

 

[Nill Toulme]

Yep, and as the IJA people point out, for somebody who does a lot of switching back and forth between photo and matte it's probably be worth picking one up just to dedicate to one or the other.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Diane Fields]

Can't print to 24"---I wonder why? I am on vacation and just got the inkjetart email and haven't read it (though I"ve been waiting). I was hoping for 16 x 24 and roll. I"ll have to read this I guess, but I'm planning to replace (augment) my 2200 so this one was high on the list.

Diane

 

[Nill Toulme]

Probably because it doesn't do roll, only sheets... is there such a thing as 24" sheet paper? I *think* I've only seen 17x22 (which always struck me as strange).

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Don Lashier]

Probably because it doesn't do roll, only sheets... is there such a thing as 24" sheet paper? I *think* I've only seen 17x22 (which always struck me as strange).

17 x 22 is fairly common, but 17" rolls are very rare. My fav (Arches) also comes in 34x47 sheets which would quarter into 17x23.5 and would print 15x22.5 if the printer allowed.

IIRC the 4800 is also limited to 21" despite accepting rolls. Is this an actual limitation or just marketing mumbo?

Maybe I should get out the green marker and just mark my focus screen for 3:4 or 4:5?

- DL

 

[Nill Toulme]

17 x 22 is fairly common, but 17" rolls are very rare. My fav (Arches) also comes in 34x47 sheets which would quarter into 17x23.5 and would print 15x22.5 if the printer allowed.

Yes it's always baffled me that Epson's papers come in 16" rolls rather than 17". Happily I settled on InkJet Art's Micro Ceramic Luster as my standard paper, and it comes in nice 17" x 100' rolls.

IIRC the 4800 is also limited to 21" despite accepting rolls. Is this an actual limitation or just marketing mumbo?

Not so, I frequently print at 16x24. I think there might be some nominal limitation at 44", but Qimage will work around that too for murals.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Don Lashier]

Not so, I frequently print at 16x24. I think there might be some nominal limitation at 44", but Qimage will work around that too for murals.

First, note that the specs say 22", not the 21" I mentioned earlier. But the 4800 also specs 22" for sheet media. I suspect this is not actually a limitation - I've printed much longer than 19" with my 2200 without using a roll or roll setting (using the manual feed setting).

- DL

 

[Tony Bonanno]

I routinely printed 16 x 38-40" prints (roll paper) on the Epson 4000 and do so on the Canon iPF5000. Perhaps they are just quoting cut sheet sizes. I'm sure the 4800 would print beyond 40".

I agree that the starter cartridges that came with the Canon seems a little strange. Ticked me off, but I have to admit, the 90ml starters have sure lasted a long time.

 

[Jack_Flesher]

I suspect that the 3800 will allow for "custom" paper sizes just like all of the other Epson's. If so, it should not be difficult to pre-cut 16" or 17"x whatever" sheets from a 16" or 17" wide roll and feed them into the 3800 as a single sheet...

 

[Erik DeBill]

Does anyone know how the single sheet feeder works on this?

I've run into the problem on my 2200 that thicker fine are papers won't work from the normal feed tray. There's a straight-through path that you're supposed to use instead, but naturally I don't have space behind my printer for a 13x19 sheet.

If the 3800 accepts paper from the front and doesn't extend it out the back, then I might be able to use it without significantly rearranging my working space (and putting a printer where I'd planned to put a scanner).

 

[Ray West]

Hi EriK,

If the 3800 accepts paper from the front and doesn't extend it out the back, then I might be able to use it without significantly rearranging my working space (and putting a printer where I'd planned to put a scanner).

if you were rearranging your workspace, consider making (or getting a local chippy to make) a simple raised stand, on drawer runners, say, for the printer, so it could slide over the top of the scanner when needed to print straight feed, or back in normal use/to use the scanner.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Ray West]

Hi EriK,

If the 3800 accepts paper from the front and doesn't extend it out the back, then I might be able to use it without significantly rearranging my working space (and putting a printer where I'd planned to put a scanner).

if you were rearranging your workspace, consider making (or getting a local chippy to make) a simple raised stand, on drawer runners, say, for the printer, so it could slide over the top of the scanner when needed to print straight feed, or back in normal use/to use the scanner.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Erik DeBill]

if you were rearranging your workspace, consider making (or getting a local chippy to make) a simple raised stand, on drawer runners, say, for the printer, so it could slide over the top of the scanner when needed to print straight feed, or back in normal use/to use the scanner.

That's a good idea. It'd be a rare thing to print and scan simultaneously

I'd be a little worried about vibration, though. Has anyone any experience with print quality when the printer is sitting on something that isn't entirely stable? I get a bit of vibration as it is and I worry a little about getting artifacts on the prints if things move around too much.

 

[Ray West]

Hi EriK,

Such a good idea I had to post it twice!! (too late to delete)

wrt vibration, I guess its due to the sudden starting and stopping of the print head at the end of its travel, maybe the paper advance. I'm guessing it will make little difference, since the mass of everything is far greater than the sheet of paper, so it should all move together. I could wax lyrical on vibration in cast iron machine tools, but not this lightweight plastic area. I think I would stand it on a cardboard box and test as one extreme, say, or if you make your own stand, try it on that.

My r1800 is stood on a simple raised stand, 7/8 thick blockboard sheet platform, 3/8 thick pine sides, 4 inch lift, two 1. 1/2 inch no 8's each side, screwed into edge of blockboard. No problems I've noticed. Generally speaking, increase the mass of the table will reduce its tendency to vibrate - (cast it in concrete ;-) I think its Sherline who fill their 'micro mills' with concrete...

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Nill Toulme]

My 4800 is on a less than perfectly rigid stand and moves noticeably when printing. It doesn't seem to affect print quality at all.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Jack_Flesher]

My 4800 is on a less than perfectly rigid stand and moves noticeably when printing. It doesn't seem to affect print quality at all.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Ditto my 7600, 9600 and curent 7800 -- ALL of them wobble visibly while printing yet it has no visible effect on print resolution or quality even when viewing the print under a loupe. (And yes, I do inspect my prints under a loupe!)

Cheers,

 

[Erik DeBill]

Well, I think I've got 3 good testimonials that it's not likely to cause a problem. Now I just have to figure out how to afford it.

 

[Don Lashier]

I suspect that the 3800 will allow for "custom" paper sizes just like all of the other Epson's. If so, it should not be difficult to pre-cut 16" or 17"x whatever" sheets from a 16" or 17" wide roll and feed them into the 3800 as a single sheet...

Some at LL inquired directly of Epson and the response was from the rear manual feed or standard sheet feed setting, up to 37 inches, front manaul feed setting - up to 24 inches. Good enough for me.

- DL

 

[Erik DeBill]

So... has anyone out there gotten a 3800 and had it long enough to form in-depth opinions? I know there have been a lot of other printers since it came out, but it still seems very interesting. Everyone just stopped talking about it when the competition came out.

 

[Tony Bonanno]

So... has anyone out there gotten a 3800 and had it long enough to form in-depth opinions? I know there have been a lot of other printers since it came out, but it still seems very interesting. Everyone just stopped talking about it when the competition came out.

Hi Erik,

Yeah, I've got a 3800 alongside my iPF5000 in the studio. The Epson is a fine little printer. Compact, and print quality is excellent as are most of the K3 machines. And it is the only printer with half way economical ink cartridge size that will print 5x7 and 4x6 cut sheet (I do a lot of 5x7 for clients). Do I prefer the 3800 to my Canon iPF5000 for larger sizes. NOPE. The Epson has no "vacuum " feature, so if you have any curl on those cut sheets of art paper or photo paper, you can expect some head strikes near the corners, etc. The Epson can't use rolls for panoramas. The Canon, in my opinon, after six months of use does have the potential of richer primaries such as blues and greens. The early reports of larger dot size and trailing edge banding are no longer issues with the Canon. The trailing edge banding which occurred on some machines was simply an adjustment buried in the menu that no one knew about (except apparently engineers in Japan). The latest firmware changed the dot/dithering pattern so that it is pretty much the same as the Epson 3800 at 1440 "superfine", etc, etc. Also, the Canon has all blacks truly on board at the same time. The 3800 has them on board, but they still have to be "switched" to the print head using up ink. The Canon has not had ONE, zip, zero, nozzle issues or clogs in six months of use. The Epson had its first head nozzle clog within a week.

All in all though, the Epson is a fine machine for many users.. not as economical as the Canon (in terms of ink cost), no rolls, but if you don't need rolls, not a problem, handles small cut sheet which is the reason I have one, and has very good print quality and excellent out of the box profiles. The Epson has the familiar interface and Epson provides good support. Canon is still ironing out the the "support" as they are learning about their new product at about the same pace as the users . Also, the Epson makes a fine "back up" printer for 16x20's and 17" media. That's not really a joke. I was in a real jam when one of my old Epson PRO 4000's died in the middle of an important print job with a short deadline (had to outsource rest of job). I sleep a lot better now knowing that I've got two good machines.

The Canon lists for a lot more money, making the Epson attractively priced for a 17" printer. However, if the $500 rebate is still in effect for the Canon, then the only reason I can see buying an Epson is if you don't have room for the Canon. The iPF5000 is truly a bargain with the current rebate.

Just my impressions as an owner of both,

Tony Bonanno

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Erik: I've been working with my 3800 for only a couple of weeks at this writing, having come from an R2400. The 3800 is simply superb on every front. It's much easier on desk/floor space than other large-format printers. It's also much easier to simply move. The prints I'm getting from it are often a bit better than those from my R2400 even though both use the same inkset.

For me, as a moderately frequent printer that has no real need to print wider than 17" at home, the 3800 is absolutely perfect.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ken, is therte any practical restriction on papaer length and weight?

Asher

 

[Diane Fields]

Ken, is therte any practical restriction on papaer length and weight?

Asher

I suppose a practical restriction would really only apply to pano printers. It will print up to 37.4 inches--and since its only 17" wide, only a pano printer would probably want to go that long. There are 17 x 25" papers available now--so you can print 16 x 24 in sheets--both luster and fineart. (IJA and Hawks Mt.) There is a lot of 17 x 22. I'm actually looking for just the right paper for my handbound books--I am using some Red River and IJA (2 different papers) and am looking at the new Innova that is double sided and may be just the thing for 'special' books (these are handsewn so the paper is a major issue).

I agree with Ken. It suits my needs exactly. I'm not a volume printer and have the 3800 on a balcony (my work station) which is gotten to by spiral stairs. Not something I would want to get a 5000 or a 4800 up LOL. I also would be really constricted as to room--this way I have it sitting beside my 2200 and use both. Otherwise I would have to move my whole work station out to my stdio and I'm loathe to do that--for a number of reasons.

I'm using a variety of papers--just delivered a job of handcut 17 x 25 (prints are 16 x 24) on IJA MC luster, matted/framed. Then--I also did a small job of notecards. I was interested in the ability to print smaller media as Tony mentioned.

I have not had a clog since I got it--a bit over 2 months now--not saying I won't but I had great luck with both my 2200 and 1280--and a couple of A4 printers.

All in all--it was the right choice for me---but I suggest that others think about how and when they will use their printer since there are choices out there these days. When its time to replace this printer---I will reexamine my needs and what's available and perhaps it won't be an Epson next time--who knows.

Diane