[Leica] LUG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 20

[bs.pearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce)]

Well, well! I went for the 3880 a few months ago when I learned about the
$300 rebate, which I think is on through xmas. I'm very very pleased with
the results. Using the custom size function, I have set it up for printing
17x25, which I use to print full image from the M9. Looks fabulous! Get the
metallic paper from Red River Paper.

I may feel differently when it comes time to feed it.

Bill Pearce


> In keeping with the spirit of accommodation and generosity that the
> Yuletide season has been commercialized into in the U.S. of A., SWMBO is
> kindly, unaccountably, once again acting as enabler to my addiction by
> consenting to my being surprised by the appearance Christmas morn of a
> wide-carriage printer under the tree.
>
> Since I have always been an Epson user (up to my current R2400), the
> presumed default choice would be the 3880 or the 4880. I have read here
that
> for private users like me, the 488o offers no real advantage over the
> smaller, lighter, less-expensive 3880, so up to now my choice would
probably
> have been the 3880. However, the newly announced 4900 (around which the
> budget might be stretched, provided the counter space can be as well)
might
> offer a reason to go long and deep on this one. My understanding of the
> recent history of the Epson printer line is as follows:
>
>        1.      The x880 printers were an advancement in some fairly minor
> details over the x800s, including the addition of Vivid Magenta to the
> Ultrachrome K3 inkset
>
>        2.      The latest x900s have the new Ultrachrome HDR ink palette
as
> well as new and improved heads
>
>        3.      The x890s added this better head technology to the x880s
> without moving up to the HDR inks
>
>        4.      The 4-series and larger printers are the only ones that can
> accommodate the newer head technology, so there will never be a 3890 or
3900
>
> The Luminous Landscape review of the 7900 certainly gives me reason to
> think that its smaller sibling the 4900 might be worth the extra cost and
> space requirements, but it's too soon for any reviews of it to have
> appeared.
>
> All that said, I must concede that I'm not wedded to Epson, and would
> consider Canon or HP if there is good reason to.
>
> I throw the floor open to comments and recommendations, both theoretical
> and experience-based.
>
> Thanks to all in advance,
>
> ?howard
>