My new 2400 compared to my 2200

Started Jun 20, 2005 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Ira Blumberg
Contributing MemberPosts: 932Gear list
Like?
My new 2400 compared to my 2200
Jun 20, 2005

I just got a 2400 that I ordered about a week ago. No one in my area (Sililcon Valley) had received even the first shipment of these printers and when I found a reasonably reputable east coast mail order house offering in stock units for $829 & free shipping I gave up on local vendors and ordered.

I have had a 2200 almost since they first appeared which feels like about 2.5 years. I had a real love/hate relationship with the 2200. I got it for its long lasting prints and in that regard, I have not been disappointed. Compared to all my previous ink jet printers, the 2200 produced water-proof and long lasting prints on a wide variety of papers.

Unfortunately, the profiles that Epson shipped initially were terrible. As a result, I had a magenta cast on almost everything I printed. Also, the metamerism was a pain. As a result, I got to invest in the Eye-One Display profiling system. This was a big help and really straightened out the color cast problems with my 2200. However, nothing really fixes the metamerism, so I just lived with it. By the way, the later released 2200 profiles were a huge improvement over the initial release. I compared them to my custom profiles and other than getting a bit more shadow detail in my profiles, I couldn't see much difference. Finally, I was always very disappointed in the images printed on glossy paper. I tried a number and several gave better results than PGPP, none were satisfactory. I ended up focusing on Premium Luster and got good results with it.

When I saw the initial reviews of the 2400 I got interested for several reasons. First, while I have not done any B&W since my darkroom days, I am interested, but never tried it due to all the problems I had read about with ink jet printing. Second, the reduced metamerism sounded promising. Third, the reduced bronzing suggested that glossy prints might actually look good. Fourth, I am a sucker for the newest gadgets

Well, after 24 full hours of ownership, I have the following observations.

1. Color prints on Premium Luster printed on the 2400 look quite similar to those printed on the 2200 with a good profile. However, the 2400 prints looked very good even with the standard Epson profiles. Also, the 2400 prints showed far less metamerism. I was surprised by how good the 2200 color prints looked. I was actually expecting the 2400 to be much better, but realized that there was not too much better possible. I am however, very pleased with the reduced metamerism. So far, I have seen just a hint of hue change under some nasty flourescent light, but no big changes going from incandescent to day light.

2. There is no comparison between glossy prints. The 2400 prints look like really glossy prints. On the 2200, glossy prints came out muted and muddy, even with a custom profile. The 2400 has really fixed this problem. I have to look very hard to find any evidence of gloss differential. Just looking at the prints in a normal manner, I can't see any gloss problems.

3. General operation is much smoother on the 2400. On the 2200, Epson suggested feeding only 1 sheet of photo paper at a time. This is a pain if you have lots of sheets to print as you have to load each. Also, my 2200 has gotten difficult recently and frequently refused to feed even a single sheet or ends up grabbing it at an angle. By contrast, the 2400 is capable of dealing with a whole stack of photo paper and feeds it very smoothly. This is a significant improvement.

4. I have not tried any B&W, so I can't comment on that.

5. Is the 2400 a must have upgrade from the 2200? It depends, but likely probably not. It is clearly better in every way that I can see (other than lacking the auto paper cutter for roll paper, but I never used that). However, if you want to print color on semigloss paper (I never use matt, so I can't comment on that either) it does seem that the 2200 with a good profile can do a pretty good job. If printing glossy is really important, the 2400 is much better, but perhaps the 1800 is an even better choice for glossy. Nonetheless, if you don't mind spending another $850, the 2400 is a nice upgrade.

Ira

 Ira Blumberg's gear list:Ira Blumberg's gear list
Fujifilm X100S
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow