My new 2400 compared to my 2200

Started Jun 20, 2005 | Discussions
Ira Blumberg Contributing Member • Posts: 975
My new 2400 compared to my 2200

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 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D7200 Fujifilm X-T2 +10 more
EdVT Senior Member • Posts: 1,481
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

Thanks for posting your observations, mine is on the way but I'm still reading every line I can find on the new "series and K3 inks" guess now its time to start getting technical !! Ed

 EdVT's gear list:EdVT's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +6 more
gordonlee Forum Member • Posts: 66
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

how is the speed of printing an 8x10 print compare to the 2200?

videosport Regular Member • Posts: 148
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

If you want to see an active review and follow a very in depth forum for the R2400 you should look at this.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R2400/page-1.htm

If you already are, well maybe it is useful to someone who is not.

All the best, Ron

OP Ira Blumberg Contributing Member • Posts: 975
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

I have not timed the print speed of the 2400 versus the 2200, but it seem to me that the 2400 is quite a bit faster. This is likely in part due to the larger print head. The nozzle check pattern is about twice the size as the same pattern for the 2200. Thus, I suspect the 2400 can cover more paper with fewer passes of the print head.

Ira

 Ira Blumberg's gear list:Ira Blumberg's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D7200 Fujifilm X-T2 +10 more
Robert Snow Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

Ira, you pretty well nailed it...that is, comparing the 2200 to the 2400. I have used the 2400 now for several days, and your comments on glossy prints parallel my experience.

Yesterday, I changed out to matte black and printed several images on Enh Matte and Velvet Fine Art. They do show a larger gamut to my eye.

I measured pure black on glossy and luster, as well as the matte papers. The blacks are a little deeper on the glossy surfaces and about the same on the matte surfaces (compared to 2200).

And, yes, the 2400 is quite a bit faster...at least at Best Photo setting.

bob snow

Dhiren Babaria Regular Member • Posts: 213
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

What is the difference between Best photo setting and Highest dpi setting ? Does printer use more ink in highest dpi ?

and any estimate of how many A3+ prints from one set of cartridges ?

Thanks for your input
--
Dhiren_ http://www.photo.net/photos/dhiren

John Sack Regular Member • Posts: 358
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

This report on the "gloss differential":

"...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...."

seems different from this one on photo-i:

"...Point 3.... yes the prints look good under most tested lighting conditions, as long as you don't look at the gloss surface when looking at the prints from an angle. This is still an area that needs looking at. Epson have made a gesture with the Highlight Point Shift for b/w - but what about the photographer who needs to print in colour. Both the R1800 and R800 use Gloss Optimizer - why not the larger format printers?"

So what's the score? The gloss differential problem was the primary reason I sold my 2200 and bought an R1800. (I'm reasonably happy with the R1800, just want to know if I could have something even better!)

I print almost exclusively glossy, on epson premium glossy.

Robert Snow Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

John Sack wrote:

I print almost exclusively glossy, on epson premium glossy.

You answered your own question. Undoubtedly, I would opt for the R1800 if I printed mostly glossy type surfaces.

Just my opinion, of course.

bob snow

mikevs Forum Member • Posts: 77
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

the gd is still a real problem - some might not notice or say it's only when viewing at odd angles but this is not really the case - the gd is still totally their and the viewing angle is not really controlable - if you give someone a print or sell it - if they hang the photo at the wrong angle from their livingroom light it will look real bad - even if their viewing from straight on - that's the real problem imo - it totally depends on where someone hangs it - not neccessairly the angle they view it from - but the angle their light is coming from - if you have one lamp on in your house and hang photos on every wall - some will look real bad - and will look just as bad every night forever - this is why gloss was unusable for me on the u;ltrachrome printers and still can't be used- unless you spray your prints -

WoodieW New Member • Posts: 8
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

Is it not correct that this glossing problem can be corrected, or at least corrected as well as the 1800 does, by manually applying--by spray or otherwise--the same glop that the 1800 imparts during the original printing process? If not correct, what is the difference and why?

mikevs Forum Member • Posts: 77
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

yes you can spray - i use premierart ecoshield (water based) - i just don't want to spray everything - i'd rather use the dull matte;)

mark power Forum Member • Posts: 58
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

Can I add one observation to ira Blumberg's comments on the R2400 compared to the 2200 which I generally agree with and that is K3 color prints seem to increase in contrast after 'ageing' - that is, after drying for about 24-48 hours.

I made a print of a portrait with the R2400 ( using the printer-supplied profiles and Epson enhanced matte) and decided it was a bit flat so I put it aside, intending to reprint it. Two or three days later I had another look at it and it was perfect - to my subjective eye it had defintely gained contrast. So now I wait a day or two before reprinting if the print is fairly close to what I want to begin with.

Mark

 mark power's gear list:mark power's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Sony Alpha a7 II
OP Ira Blumberg Contributing Member • Posts: 975
New observation

I have now noticed that prints on Premium Luster seem a bit warmer than the on screen display of the image. For skin tones, the effect is not bad, but I still prefer to have colors look as close as possible to the screen version when I print.

I have calibrated both screen and printer with GretagMacbeth's Eye One Photo package. In addition, prints using the Epson supplied Premium Luster profile look almost identical to the prints using my Eye One generated profile, i.e., these prints are equally warm as well.

Others have mentioned that the prints take a day or so to dry fully and that they can change subtly during that process. Similarly, the 2200 prints definitely changed a bit during drying. So, before I make any conclusions, I will wait a day or two and then re-examine the photos that initially looked warm.

I did wait about 20 hours after printing my profiling targets before measuring them, which I hope was sufficient.

Ira

 Ira Blumberg's gear list:Ira Blumberg's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D7200 Fujifilm X-T2 +10 more
elad Regular Member • Posts: 389
R2400 compared to R1800 - my experience

I had the R1800 for a few days and then was able to exchange it for the R2400.

The glossy is better on the R1800. While there is a TINY difference in the gamut for the R2400, the Gloss Differential problem is a real one on the R2400, and even when it's not present, the glossiness "shines" just a bit nicer on the R1800 and from wider angles (I was comparing same photo printed on both).

As for the GD - I printed a photo of my kid holding a balloon, and there was a hotspot on the balloon reflecting the flash light. When I showed the photo to my wife she asked me why is there a hole in the photo... that was on both Epson Premium Glossy and Ilford Smooth Pearl. The problem is more than the lack of glossiness on the white spot - the problem has to do with the fact that the light color surrounding this area reflects the light differently and creating a "ring" around the area, when viewed from many angles.
I am still waiting for a spray I ordered to see if it will help.

On enhanced matte however, I had a photo with deep green background, that the R1800 printed brown, and the R2400 was MUCH better.

Overall the differences are very small and without seeing the same photo side by side it would be very difficult to tell the difference unless in extereme cases (either GD case or out-of-gamut). I expected the R2400 to be more of an improvement compared to the R1800, rather than a mixed bag, but I will probably keep it none the less.
Elad

Jim Senior Member • Posts: 1,504
Re: New observation

Has anyone done any studies yet comparing the ink cost for the 2400 compared with the 2200. Epson is very tight lipped on this subject leading me to believe it is not favorable.

Michael Friedman Veteran Member • Posts: 3,383
Re: New observation

It's not favorable. Ink costs for the 2400 are considerably higher. For one thing, the cartridges are more expensive, second, there is an additional cartridge; third (and this is still not confirmed) there may be a bit less ink in the 2400 carts than in the 2200.

On the other hand, the 4800 carts are exactly the same price as the 4000 carts. There's still that additional black being used, but ink costs for the 4800 should be pretty close to those for the 4000.

-Michael

Jim wrote:

Has anyone done any studies yet comparing the ink cost for the 2400
compared with the 2200. Epson is very tight lipped on this subject
leading me to believe it is not favorable.

Vernon D Rainwater Forum Pro • Posts: 13,656
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

Ira Blumberg wrote:

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.

Ira, your comment above are interesting especially regarding the newer printer as well as "regarding Epson Suggestion for the 2200"...

I have used my 2200 for over 2 years and I have never read any thing regarding the "feeding single sheets" -- except for VERY thick media..

Perhaps you may be referring to this being recommended when using "GLOSSY PAPERS". Most of my printed photos are on 8 1/2 x 11 and 13 x 19 inch Photo paper, therefore; I don't like Glossy and as a result I have not used Glossy since the "wet Darkroom days" and I now use ONLY the epson Matte Photo Papers and the Matte Black ink. I assume Glossy would be OK for the smaller photos such as 4 x 6 inch "snap shot" type photos.

I get very good results when printing Black & White photos on the 2200. Many of my B/W images are from scanned B/W Medium Format Negatives and 35mm Negatives and some slides.

Have fun with the new printer.
My Regards, Vernon....

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

-- hide signature --
Bohdan Senior Member • Posts: 1,122
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

I use glossy for 4 x 6's only. Feeding 10+ at a time, I've never had a jam or a paper feed problem.

8.5 x 11 paper, (not glossy) also never a problem.

Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,130
One other factor....

Michael Friedman wrote:

It's not favorable. Ink costs for the 2400 are considerably higher.
For one thing, the cartridges are more expensive, second, there is
an additional cartridge; third (and this is still not confirmed)
there may be a bit less ink in the 2400 carts than in the 2200.

On the other hand, the 4800 carts are exactly the same price as the
4000 carts. There's still that additional black being used, but ink
costs for the 4800 should be pretty close to those for the 4000.

I would expect running costs to drop a bit.

The K3 printers are supposed to lean more heavily on the three blacks for the common (dark) portion of any color than the origional UltraChrome machines do. This should mean a little bit of LK or LLK is doing what Epson used to use a lot of C, LC, M, LM, and Y to do.

-- hide signature --

Salvage troll posts! When you see a thread started by a troll, post something useful to it. It will drive the trolls up the wall.

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads