Excellent step up from R2400

Started Oct 14, 2011 | User reviews
Ken Ballweg
New MemberPosts: 12Gear list
Like?
Excellent step up from R2400
Oct 14, 2011

I can only second the majority of what has been said, but add the perspective of someone who used, and frequently wanted to abuse an Epson R2400. When I could get the 2400 to feed properly, I really liked the prints the it was capable of, but I had invested in it because I do a lot of panoramic landscapes, and wanted to be able to print custom lengths to roll paper. The best that could be said for the 2400''s roll paper feeding was that it was whimsical at times and down right diabolical the rest of the time even after trips to the shop to be sure it wasn't mechanical issues.

The R3000 has been in comparison a joy to use. Paper feeding is no longer taking up the majority of my printing time, and the larger ink cartridges are, while expensive, undoubtedly cheaper than the smaller ones once you factor in the ink wasted to head cleaning and changing blacks for glossy or matte paper. I also got it direct from Epson for a considerable discount in the US, making it cheaper than what I paid for the R2400. I do see differences between prints I made with the R2400 and the 3000 which I believe is partially due to the additional "vivid magenta" cartridge, and the finer dot distribution.

I do use the wi-fi connection because of the physical layout of our house makes a wired connection inconvenient, and it works very well and has become a "feature" that I didn't think I would care that much about, but value greatly now. I don't have as much issue as others with the odd art paper path, again because compared to the R2400 it's such an improvement that it's hard to fault.

Problems:

My main complaint is less one of mechanics and more to do with Epson marketing. Though I believe they have corrected this subsequently, the initial product specs on the Epson site specifically said that it would handle various widths of roll paper. After a long afternoon struggling to load 8.5" wide rolls, I found an obscure page on their support site saying, in essence, "Opps our bad." because, unlike the 2400 it only takes 13" rolls which negates one of the main reasons I had for buying it.

 Ken Ballweg's gear list:Ken Ballweg's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot G11 Canon EOS 60D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +4 more
Ken Ballweg's score
4.5
Average community score
4.4
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads