Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/11/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My two cents is to stick to Epson and get the 3880 unless you really desire the roll capability. Spend the difference on media and ink. Which ever you get you need to learn it and use it regularly to get the best from it. A least in my history with the 3800, I very very seldom actually print larger than A3+. Still if you were a pano kind of guy......... Cheers Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman On 29 November 2010 04:09, Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >