I've been using the Epson 2200 for about a week now, upgrading from the 1270 and 1200 (which I have had dedicated to MIS quadtone inks for B&W). I owned a 2000P when it first came out (gave up on that printer after about a month's worth of use). I use a Nikon D100, and Canon G2 cameras.
Here are some of my thoughts just to add to the many that have been posted since the 2200 hit the stores:
While reduced, metamerism is definitely still a problem with the 2200. All one has to do is hold a print in an area where he can flood it with both daylight or tungsten light and switch back and forth. I have a little room with a skylight in the ceiling. I can hold the print in that room and look at it like that, or simply flick a lightswitch on and see an obvious difference. The difference is not subtle at all, it is blatant. The print turns a very definite green when held under sunlight. On the other hand though, I think I can probably live with the metamerism this time. The 2000P was so bad, I found it to be totally unuseable.
While also improved, the blacks (I have only used the photo black so far) are still not nearly as rich as the blacks produced by the 1270. With the 2000P, I could never really get a decent black at all, but at least with the 2200, I can boost up contrast and deal with it.
Holding prints at an angle will result in seeing the ink sitting on the paper, as it does not sink down the way the 1270 inks do. This is a minor annoyance.
Tonal range of the 2200 is far superior to that of the 1270. It is the first digital inkjet printer which I have seen which produces a tonal range and smoothness from color to color to look like a conventional photographic print. By comparison, 1270 prints look a little posterish when held side by side next to a 2200 print.
Print speed is much improved over the 2000P and just about equal to that of the 1270.
While seperate ink cartridges are definitely a good idea, Epson is ripping us off on the price of these cartridges. Replacing a whole set of cartridges costs almost twice as much as replacing the two 1270 cartridges.
I very much regretted my 2000P purchase. I was willing to bend over backwards to accept some of the shortcomings of the 2000P just to have print longevity. Unfortunately, the shortcomings were too many and too big. On the other hand, the shortcomings of the 2200 are relatively minor in comparison and now I feel that I will definitely retire both my 1270 and 1200 printers.
BTW, B&W output from the 2200 (IMHO) is much better than that of the MIS quadtones on the 1200. One thing that has been rarely discussed (and probably unknown to many) is the fact that even the MIS quadtone B&W inks have an orange shift problem. I saw it myself after leaving some prints on top of my laser printer one day (good source of ozone). I was absolutely stunned by the B&W which came out of the 2200 when I tried it. It is capable of producing some of the best B&W prints I have ever seen (darkroom or not). The only drawback being the matmerism. While totally neutral under tungsten lighting, the blacks turn a greenish black under daylight.
At any rate, once again...I am happy with the 2200 but there is definitely still some room for improvement.
Jay
Here are some of my thoughts just to add to the many that have been posted since the 2200 hit the stores:
While reduced, metamerism is definitely still a problem with the 2200. All one has to do is hold a print in an area where he can flood it with both daylight or tungsten light and switch back and forth. I have a little room with a skylight in the ceiling. I can hold the print in that room and look at it like that, or simply flick a lightswitch on and see an obvious difference. The difference is not subtle at all, it is blatant. The print turns a very definite green when held under sunlight. On the other hand though, I think I can probably live with the metamerism this time. The 2000P was so bad, I found it to be totally unuseable.
While also improved, the blacks (I have only used the photo black so far) are still not nearly as rich as the blacks produced by the 1270. With the 2000P, I could never really get a decent black at all, but at least with the 2200, I can boost up contrast and deal with it.
Holding prints at an angle will result in seeing the ink sitting on the paper, as it does not sink down the way the 1270 inks do. This is a minor annoyance.
Tonal range of the 2200 is far superior to that of the 1270. It is the first digital inkjet printer which I have seen which produces a tonal range and smoothness from color to color to look like a conventional photographic print. By comparison, 1270 prints look a little posterish when held side by side next to a 2200 print.
Print speed is much improved over the 2000P and just about equal to that of the 1270.
While seperate ink cartridges are definitely a good idea, Epson is ripping us off on the price of these cartridges. Replacing a whole set of cartridges costs almost twice as much as replacing the two 1270 cartridges.
I very much regretted my 2000P purchase. I was willing to bend over backwards to accept some of the shortcomings of the 2000P just to have print longevity. Unfortunately, the shortcomings were too many and too big. On the other hand, the shortcomings of the 2200 are relatively minor in comparison and now I feel that I will definitely retire both my 1270 and 1200 printers.
BTW, B&W output from the 2200 (IMHO) is much better than that of the MIS quadtones on the 1200. One thing that has been rarely discussed (and probably unknown to many) is the fact that even the MIS quadtone B&W inks have an orange shift problem. I saw it myself after leaving some prints on top of my laser printer one day (good source of ozone). I was absolutely stunned by the B&W which came out of the 2200 when I tried it. It is capable of producing some of the best B&W prints I have ever seen (darkroom or not). The only drawback being the matmerism. While totally neutral under tungsten lighting, the blacks turn a greenish black under daylight.
At any rate, once again...I am happy with the 2200 but there is definitely still some room for improvement.
Jay