Hi Bill,
There was quite a bit of discussion about these two printers on the
digital B&W digest and the consensus was, fairly resoundingly, that the
big difference was the improved inks and driver of the 4800 had
virtually eliminated bronzing on glossy papers. Also, apparently, the
B&W mode of the new driver gives very good B&W right out of the box.
With all the other Epsons, it was pretty hard to get good B&W without
aftermarket inks or a RIP. I found the B&W from my 2200 to be dreadful
until I switched to MIS inks, and it sure sounds like the 4000 was the
same. Invariably you had metamerism and bronzing, though you could
control the former by willfully tinting and the latter by using matte
papers (or certain glossy/semi-gloss papers that reduced the bronzing
somewhat). Anyway, at least among those folks, the 4800 represented a
pretty big improvement if B&W was important to you; otherwise, maybe
not so much. They're both built like tanks. If you go for the 4000,
make sure it isn't one of the dual CMYK units, which was aimed at
graphics shops. I can't remember whether or not you could switch tanks
out and convert it to a "regular" unit, but even if you could, you'd
spend a fortune on inks in doing so.
Matthew Born
On Dec 20, 2005, at 9:51 PM, Listar wrote:
> What opinions might there be in Zuikoland about the Epson 4000
> printer? I
> am considering an upgrade from my Epson 1280. An offer of a 4000 at
> $775 has
> been made from a fellow who has had it for about 11 months. Assuming
> it all
> checks out, might that be a good move for printing my e-1 images.
> The other
> choice, should I decide to buy, is the Epson 4800 which has the new K3
> Ultrachrome inks. This option is good bit more expensive. Any
> opinions about
> either of these printers? Bill Barber
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|