Reading mode: Light Dark

Epson 2200/2100 or wait for new model?

Go to last post
J

Juan Trujillo

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
486
Reaction score
0
Location
Vilassar de Dalt/Barcelona/Spain, ES
Hi,

The Epson 870 died after a lot of prints and I won't send it for repair. It's the opportunity to get A3 size and I was headed towards the Epson 2200/2100. But I see the new R800 that looks to me that it has better features than the 2200.

Do you think it's good idea to wait for an equivalent to the R800 in A3 format? If so, in the meantime a R300 would be enough? (though they are difficult to get here -Spain-)... or how about Canon? Is their new A3 model (i9100 ?) worth?

Any thought appreciated.

Juan
http://jtrujillo.net
 
Juan Trujillo said:
Hi,

The Epson 870 died after a lot of prints and I won't send it for
repair. It's the opportunity to get A3 size and I was headed
towards the Epson 2200/2100. But I see the new R800 that looks to
me that it has better features than the 2200.

Do you think it's good idea to wait for an equivalent to the R800
in A3 format? If so, in the meantime a R300 would be enough?
(though they are difficult to get here -Spain-)... or how about
Canon? Is their new A3 model (i9100 ?) worth?

Any thought appreciated.

Juan
http://jtrujillo.net
Click to expand...
It's not just a matter of specs; it's the endresult that counts. I'm very satisfied with my 2100
 
A friend who just got an R800 and I ran a bunch of identical printer test targets on my 2200 and his R800.

The R800 output is very good. Not quite as good as the 2200 in a few special areas, and better than the 2200 in two respects:

R800 better than 2200:
  • the gloss optimizer eliminates the problem of seeing layers of color on unframed prints viewed at an angle.
  • the 'Best Photo RPM' mode (which is something like 5880dpi) does in fact show more detail than the 2200 2880 mode. Of course, I had to get out my 10x loupe to see it...
2200 better than R800:
  • the shadow details are slightly better on the 2200. My 2200 prints shadows down to 8,8,8; the R800 looks like about 12,12,12.
  • the highlights are sacrificed by a miniscule amount for the gloss optimizer. I.e., with the optimizer on, you can't tell the difference between 254 and 255 on the r800, but on the 2200 you can.
These are pretty small differences.

I would love to get large-format version of the R800. I'd like to believe that Epson will introduce the follow-on for the 2200 this summer (when the 2200 is two years old), but I haven't seen any hints on that (beyond wishes like mine). Has anybody else?

John
F. Las van Bennekom said:
Juan Trujillo said:
Hi,

The Epson 870 died after a lot of prints and I won't send it for
repair. It's the opportunity to get A3 size and I was headed
towards the Epson 2200/2100. But I see the new R800 that looks to
me that it has better features than the 2200.

Do you think it's good idea to wait for an equivalent to the R800
in A3 format? If so, in the meantime a R300 would be enough?
(though they are difficult to get here -Spain-)... or how about
Canon? Is their new A3 model (i9100 ?) worth?

Any thought appreciated.

Juan
http://jtrujillo.net
Click to expand...
It's not just a matter of specs; it's the endresult that counts.
I'm very satisfied with my 2100
Click to expand...
 
I do a fair bit of printing on glossy papers so I would like to have the gloss optimizer. The i9100(new one is i9900) is not as archival as the 2200 or the R800. I personally have seen too many complaints about fading with Canon prints to be comfortable getting a Canon. I am also hoping a new version of the 2200 will have improved B+W although that really is not a priority item for me.

Since your printer is dead you have to consider that a new version of the 2200 probably wont be out till fall and maybe not even then. No one knows for sure. Can you wait 5/6 months with no printing(at least at home)? You could get the 2200 now and be printing away. 2200 sould like a good printer. It has some issues but so will the new version. Just depends on how important those deficits and strengths are to you.
Juan Trujillo said:
Hi,

The Epson 870 died after a lot of prints and I won't send it for
repair. It's the opportunity to get A3 size and I was headed
towards the Epson 2200/2100. But I see the new R800 that looks to
me that it has better features than the 2200.

Do you think it's good idea to wait for an equivalent to the R800
in A3 format? If so, in the meantime a R300 would be enough?
(though they are difficult to get here -Spain-)... or how about
Canon? Is their new A3 model (i9100 ?) worth?

Any thought appreciated.

Juan
http://jtrujillo.net
Click to expand...
 
John Sack said:
The R800 output is very good. Not quite as good as the 2200 in a
few special areas, and better than the 2200 in two respects:

R800 better than 2200:
  • the gloss optimizer eliminates the problem of seeing layers of
color on unframed prints viewed at an angle.
  • the 'Best Photo RPM' mode (which is something like 5880dpi) does
in fact show more detail than the 2200 2880 mode. Of course, I had
to get out my 10x loupe to see it...

2200 better than R800:
  • the shadow details are slightly better on the 2200. My 2200
prints shadows down to 8,8,8; the R800 looks like about 12,12,12.
  • the highlights are sacrificed by a miniscule amount for the gloss
optimizer. I.e., with the optimizer on, you can't tell the
difference between 254 and 255 on the r800, but on the 2200 you can.

These are pretty small differences.

I would love to get large-format version of the R800. I'd like to
believe that Epson will introduce the follow-on for the 2200 this
summer (when the 2200 is two years old), but I haven't seen any
hints on that (beyond wishes like mine). Has anybody else?

John
F. Las van Bennekom said:
Juan Trujillo said:
Hi,

The Epson 870 died after a lot of prints and I won't send it for
repair. It's the opportunity to get A3 size and I was headed
towards the Epson 2200/2100. But I see the new R800 that looks to
me that it has better features than the 2200.

Do you think it's good idea to wait for an equivalent to the R800
in A3 format? If so, in the meantime a R300 would be enough?
(though they are difficult to get here -Spain-)... or how about
Canon? Is their new A3 model (i9100 ?) worth?

Any thought appreciated.

Juan
http://jtrujillo.net
Click to expand...
It's not just a matter of specs; it's the endresult that counts.
I'm very satisfied with my 2100
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The printer refered to as 2200 or 2100 has a third name,the PM4000PX.The PM4000PX was the first to be sold and that was in Japan only.Tomorrow is it's second birthday.For a 2200 replacement keep an eye on Japan.As was with the R300,R800,2200 and Pro 4000,Japan will see new models first.

Canons dye ink doesn't fade any differently than Epsons dye ink.Most fading issues come from the paper chosen and your enviorment.If you were happy with your dye inked 870 for so long the coming i9900 with 8 color cartridges might be perfect.

Another option is an Epson 1280/1290 using pigment ink.Very easy to swap between a B&W inks and a color ink set.A cheaper option for A3+ archival prints than the 2200.

http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/arcgpcarts.html
http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/bwpage.html

The 2200 will yield better b&w than the R800 due to the presence of the Lt Black ink.The R800 limit is letter size,cannot do letter size borderless,no black only or roll paper cutter option and the ink is more expensive.

After owning A3+ size printers and larger it's impossible to go back to the restrictions of letter size(A4).
 
The comparison we did showed that the R800 had some colors more "vibrant" (one of the test images was spools of yarn on the test page at i-photo), but the 2200 showed more detail. This could have been something the printer driver was doing with contrast, possibly; I can't say.

For me, since I have a 2200, I'll wait and expect Epson to replace it when it is two years old (in about 6 months). I still haven't seen rumors though. And if you need a printer now, and don't need 13x19 size, I'd say go with the R800 over, say, a 960 (which I have) and a 2200. This is especially true for photos that won't be framed I think (photos that will be framed don't need a gloss optimizer; the glass does that!).
Sage said:
John Sack said:
The R800 output is very good. Not quite as good as the 2200 in a
few special areas, and better than the 2200 in two respects:

R800 better than 2200:
  • the gloss optimizer eliminates the problem of seeing layers of
color on unframed prints viewed at an angle.
  • the 'Best Photo RPM' mode (which is something like 5880dpi) does
in fact show more detail than the 2200 2880 mode. Of course, I had
to get out my 10x loupe to see it...

2200 better than R800:
  • the shadow details are slightly better on the 2200. My 2200
prints shadows down to 8,8,8; the R800 looks like about 12,12,12.
  • the highlights are sacrificed by a miniscule amount for the gloss
optimizer. I.e., with the optimizer on, you can't tell the
difference between 254 and 255 on the r800, but on the 2200 you can.

These are pretty small differences.

I would love to get large-format version of the R800. I'd like to
believe that Epson will introduce the follow-on for the 2200 this
summer (when the 2200 is two years old), but I haven't seen any
hints on that (beyond wishes like mine). Has anybody else?

John
F. Las van Bennekom said:
Juan Trujillo said:
Hi,

The Epson 870 died after a lot of prints and I won't send it for
repair. It's the opportunity to get A3 size and I was headed
towards the Epson 2200/2100. But I see the new R800 that looks to
me that it has better features than the 2200.

Do you think it's good idea to wait for an equivalent to the R800
in A3 format? If so, in the meantime a R300 would be enough?
(though they are difficult to get here -Spain-)... or how about
Canon? Is their new A3 model (i9100 ?) worth?

Any thought appreciated.

Juan
http://jtrujillo.net
Click to expand...
It's not just a matter of specs; it's the endresult that counts.
I'm very satisfied with my 2100
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
John Sack said:
For me, since I have a 2200, I'll wait and expect Epson to replace
it when it is two years old (in about 6 months). I still haven't
seen rumors though. And if you need a printer now, and don't need
13x19 size, I'd say go with the R800 over, say, a 960 (which I
have) and a 2200. This is especially true for photos that won't
be framed I think (photos that will be framed don't need a gloss
optimizer; the glass does that!).
Sage said:
John Sack said:
The R800 output is very good. Not quite as good as the 2200 in a
few special areas, and better than the 2200 in two respects:

R800 better than 2200:
  • the gloss optimizer eliminates the problem of seeing layers of
color on unframed prints viewed at an angle.
  • the 'Best Photo RPM' mode (which is something like 5880dpi) does
in fact show more detail than the 2200 2880 mode. Of course, I had
to get out my 10x loupe to see it...

2200 better than R800:
  • the shadow details are slightly better on the 2200. My 2200
prints shadows down to 8,8,8; the R800 looks like about 12,12,12.
  • the highlights are sacrificed by a miniscule amount for the gloss
optimizer. I.e., with the optimizer on, you can't tell the
difference between 254 and 255 on the r800, but on the 2200 you can.

These are pretty small differences.

I would love to get large-format version of the R800. I'd like to
believe that Epson will introduce the follow-on for the 2200 this
summer (when the 2200 is two years old), but I haven't seen any
hints on that (beyond wishes like mine). Has anybody else?

John
F. Las van Bennekom said:
Juan Trujillo said:
Hi,

The Epson 870 died after a lot of prints and I won't send it for
repair. It's the opportunity to get A3 size and I was headed
towards the Epson 2200/2100. But I see the new R800 that looks to
me that it has better features than the 2200.

Do you think it's good idea to wait for an equivalent to the R800
in A3 format? If so, in the meantime a R300 would be enough?
(though they are difficult to get here -Spain-)... or how about
Canon? Is their new A3 model (i9100 ?) worth?

Any thought appreciated.

Juan
http://jtrujillo.net
Click to expand...
It's not just a matter of specs; it's the endresult that counts.
I'm very satisfied with my 2100
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Juan Trujillo said:
Hi,

The Epson 870 died after a lot of prints and I won't send it for
repair. It's the opportunity to get A3 size and I was headed
towards the Epson 2200/2100. But I see the new R800 that looks to
me that it has better features than the 2200.

Do you think it's good idea to wait for an equivalent to the R800
in A3 format? If so, in the meantime a R300 would be enough?
(though they are difficult to get here -Spain-)... or how about
Canon? Is their new A3 model (i9100 ?) worth?

Any thought appreciated.
Click to expand...
The prints of the 2100 are absurdly expensive. You´ll be putting in new ink tanks every other day, even with very moderate output.

Why not try a HP Designjet 20PS proof printer? The inks are good for -literally! - hundreds of prints and the price for the printer is about the same (but you get MUCH more ink with it). Plus it´s a real proof printer with very exact color output.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Waldemar
http://www.pbase.com/haak
 
EJS said:
The printer refered to as 2200 or 2100 has a third name,the
PM4000PX.The PM4000PX was the first to be sold and that was in
Japan only.Tomorrow is it's second birthday.For a 2200 replacement
keep an eye on Japan.As was with the R300,R800,2200 and Pro
4000,Japan will see new models first.

Canons dye ink doesn't fade any differently than Epsons dye
ink.Most fading issues come from the paper chosen and your
enviorment.If you were happy with your dye inked 870 for so long
the coming i9900 with 8 color cartridges might be perfect.

Another option is an Epson 1280/1290 using pigment ink.Very easy to
swap between a B&W inks and a color ink set.A cheaper option for
A3+ archival prints than the 2200.

http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/arcgpcarts.html
http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/bwpage.html

The 2200 will yield better b&w than the R800 due to the presence of
the Lt Black ink.The R800 limit is letter size,cannot do letter
size borderless,no black only or roll paper cutter option and the
ink is more expensive.

After owning A3+ size printers and larger it's impossible to go
back to the restrictions of letter size(A4).
Click to expand...
The 1280 has overall nicer color I.M.H.O. than the 2100 and prints are considerably cheaper. Light skin colors have a magenta/green cast though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Waldemar
http://www.pbase.com/haak
 
Waldemar said:
The prints of the 2100 are absurdly expensive. You´ll be putting in
new ink tanks every other day, even with very moderate output.
Click to expand...
That's a grossly misleading statement, in my experience. The prints aren't cheap and the cartridges don't contain a lot of ink but his output would have to be much more than moderate for new cartridges to be required 'every other day'.
Member said:
...HP Designjet 20PS...it´s a real proof printer with very exact color
output.
Click to expand...
Once set up correctly, the 2100 has very good colour matching abilities.

Then there's the small matter of the HP being nearly twice the price of the Epson...

--
Jon O'Brien.
 
Jon O'Brien said:
Waldemar said:
The prints of the 2100 are absurdly expensive. You´ll be putting in
new ink tanks every other day, even with very moderate output.
Click to expand...
That's a grossly misleading statement, in my experience. The prints
aren't cheap and the cartridges don't contain a lot of ink but his
output would have to be much more than moderate for new cartridges
to be required 'every other day'.
Click to expand...
Well, well. I´ve used a 2100 after the 1290 (1280) and the ink cost was considerably higher, i´d estimate by something like 30-50%. I went back to a 1290. There are other issues with the 2100: You can´t use Premium Glossy because of bronzing and the B&W prints aren´t worth sh..t. But mainly the ink cost turned me off.
Jon O'Brien said:
Jon O'Brien said:
...HP Designjet 20PS...it´s a real proof printer with very exact color
output.
Click to expand...
Once set up correctly, the 2100 has very good colour matching
abilities.

Then there's the small matter of the HP being nearly twice the
price of the Epson...
Click to expand...
I got a new (refurbished) HP 20PS with inks on Ebay for 650 EUR, that´s actually less than a new 2100 over here. Careful: The box it comes in is appr. 2-3 times the size of the 2100´s box, it doesn´t fit in a normal car (not even a U.S. sized one and certainly not in my 528i). Because of the huge inks tanks the printer is also considerably larger (which is o.k., big is beautiful, when it comes to ink tanks). I got it shipped to my office and had to get it home in various parts (box is still in the office, nobody likes it much, but i´m boss).

A refurbished HP Designjet 120 is appr. 1200 EUR over here on Ebay (same seller as the 20PS), very tempting, it prints up to A1! No room for that baby at home, wife already eyed the 20PS rather sceptical. Maybe will install a 120 in the office instead of 20PS´s box.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Waldemar
http://www.pbase.com/haak
 
John thanks for great info -

JUst got into digital photography (sony 828) and looking for a printer - considering R800 vs 960 - Other than fading for non-framed prints, what advantages does the R800 have to justify the cost delta. Other printers to consider?
John Sack said:
For me, since I have a 2200, I'll wait and expect Epson to replace
it when it is two years old (in about 6 months). I still haven't
seen rumors though. And if you need a printer now, and don't need
13x19 size, I'd say go with the R800 over, say, a 960 (which I
have) and a 2200. This is especially true for photos that won't
be framed I think (photos that will be framed don't need a gloss
optimizer; the glass does that!).
Sage said:
John Sack said:
The R800 output is very good. Not quite as good as the 2200 in a
few special areas, and better than the 2200 in two respects:

R800 better than 2200:
  • the gloss optimizer eliminates the problem of seeing layers of
color on unframed prints viewed at an angle.
  • the 'Best Photo RPM' mode (which is something like 5880dpi) does
in fact show more detail than the 2200 2880 mode. Of course, I had
to get out my 10x loupe to see it...

2200 better than R800:
  • the shadow details are slightly better on the 2200. My 2200
prints shadows down to 8,8,8; the R800 looks like about 12,12,12.
  • the highlights are sacrificed by a miniscule amount for the gloss
optimizer. I.e., with the optimizer on, you can't tell the
difference between 254 and 255 on the r800, but on the 2200 you can.

These are pretty small differences.

I would love to get large-format version of the R800. I'd like to
believe that Epson will introduce the follow-on for the 2200 this
summer (when the 2200 is two years old), but I haven't seen any
hints on that (beyond wishes like mine). Has anybody else?

John
F. Las van Bennekom said:
Juan Trujillo said:
Hi,

The Epson 870 died after a lot of prints and I won't send it for
repair. It's the opportunity to get A3 size and I was headed
towards the Epson 2200/2100. But I see the new R800 that looks to
me that it has better features than the 2200.

Do you think it's good idea to wait for an equivalent to the R800
in A3 format? If so, in the meantime a R300 would be enough?
(though they are difficult to get here -Spain-)... or how about
Canon? Is their new A3 model (i9100 ?) worth?

Any thought appreciated.

Juan
http://jtrujillo.net
Click to expand...
It's not just a matter of specs; it's the endresult that counts.
I'm very satisfied with my 2100
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Owned about a dozen HPs and prints were universally water-soluble. Don't know about the printer mentioned...

Doc H.
 
Epson's 4000 model is now coming out. it is a very big desktop and prints up to 17" wide. has 110 ml and 220 ml tanks and 7 (8?) colors. it uses ultra chrome pigment ink s by epson.
you can read about it http://www.inkjetart.com

The main benefit of epson over hp is the pigment/aarchival quality of the ink for longer life.

I believe canon is now going to come out with pigmented inks, instead of dye based inks.
I think hp is all dye based.

Marshall Songs
Riverside CA
 
Member said:
Well, well. I´ve used a 2100 after the 1290 (1280) and the ink cost
was considerably higher, i´d estimate by something like 30-50%. I
went back to a 1290. There are other issues with the 2100: You
can´t use Premium Glossy because of bronzing and the B&W prints
aren´t worth sh..t. But mainly the ink cost turned me off.
Click to expand...
I disagree on the quality of BW prints, mine are great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top