Best 17" wide printer value for the M8?

[eleskin]

J&R Music world has an Epson 17" 3800 wide pro printer for $899 after rebate. Is this the best for the money? What would all of you M8 users in this forum buy if it was up to you? I really do not want to spend any more than $1,500 for this right now.

 

[venchka]

A friend has a Canon 5000. He got it used. His 16"x24" prints from digital files knock me down. Then they blow me away.

 

[RWP]

Epson 3800

Epson 3800

I've used one for the past couple of years, they are great printers. I used to send my prints out locally, and to WHCC, not any more. Exhibition quality up to 17 x 22 (minus margins). These printers also come with a full set of inks worth over $400. Sounds like a good bargain to me. Roger

 

[bullshark]

I agree with Rogwp, you can't go wrong with 3800.

 

[venchka]

For the record, while nice, the Epson 3880 is not the only answer.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Eleskin: before you drop coin for a 17" printer, ask yourself if you really want to make 16x24 prints. That is a very large print, huge after you put it in a proper size mat, expensive to frame and will take up pretty much one wall for just one print. And, there is no real good way to carry them around or even hold them in your hand to look at them.

I have used 13" wide printers for 8 years and have made exactly 1 (one) 12x18 print. See the above reasons. And I shoot as much 6x7 as 35mm. It is not an image quality issue. It is that big prints don't work unless you have deep pockets and live in a empty warehouse.

 

[venchka]

Eleskin: before you drop coin for a 17" printer, ask yourself if you really want to make 16x24 prints. That is a very large print, huge after you put it in a proper size mat, expensive to frame and will take up pretty much one wall for just one print. And, there is no real good way to carry them around or even hold them in your hand to look at them.

I have used 13" wide printers for 8 years and have made exactly 1 (one) 12x18 print. See the above reasons. And I shoot as much 6x7 as 35mm. It is not an image quality issue. It is that big prints don't work unless you have deep pockets and live in a empty warehouse.

Very good points. However, the best 17" printers are also the best 8x10 printers. Large ink cartridges and roll paper bring costs down. Alas, none of the makers put all the bells & whistles in any printer smaller than 17".

 

[eleskin]

Well,
I have always used 16"x20" as a standard size for display so I really do not regard this as small. In fact sometimes not big enough (sometimes 20"x24" is good, but only once in a while). For some time, I have been researching various kinds of printers, and it boils down to either a Canon, Epson, or an HP. Epson is the industry standard for fine art photography, Canon seems to have a better build quality, and HP seems to have the greatest selection of black and grey inks for black and white printing. I guess the Epson 3800 is the best buy for the price, but there may be some other issues that can sway me to pay a little more for another model or brand. I have until the end of July for the sale at J&R. So what would all of you do here?

 

[RWP]

Epson 3800

Epson 3800

Like you, eleskin, I also researched my printer choice carefully. I had used an Epson 1280 before and had nothing but trouble with ink clogs and spoilt paper, miss-feeds, etc. I was tempted by the big Canon and the HP, but the Canon was too large for my studio, and the HP was only a 13" (not big enough for my exhibition prints).

IMHO the Epson 3800 was the first Epson printer not to have the problems I suffered with previously. Even without the special pricing the 3800 would still be my choice of printer.

Everyone will have their own opinion, and most will recommend the printer they own (human nature 🙂). Epson used to send out prints made on the 3800, but even if they still do, they will not arrive before the end of July.

From what I have seen recently, the top line printer from each company is capable of producing top quality prints which are equally acceptable - so quality is not an issue. This leaves reliability, cost of usage, and compatibility with the rest of your set up, and none of these has caused me any problems. I use a mac, and print from both Photoshop and Aperture; everything is calibrated. Roger

 

[Bob Michaels]

I have always been partial to Epson inkjet printers over the years, owing 7 of them. That goes back to when Epson was really the only game in town for photo work.

I thought long and hard when my 3 year old Epson 2400 developed an intermittent electronic problem a few months ago. I ended up buying another 2400 paying $50 more than I would have for the later model.

It seems the 2400 and 3800 share the same print heads, print mechanism and basis of the print driver. So I would not hesitate to recommend the 3800 to anyone needing the bigger carriage size. The 3800 would have been a problem for me due to the footprint. My extra worktable is already full having a correspondence printer (an 8 year old Epson inkjet), a MF film scanner and the 2400.

I have enough prints from various printers that I got in print exchanges to know that you can make excellent prints from just about anything. So I am not saying Epson is the only way, it is just what has always worked well for me.

Oh, I have always had a complete extra ink cartridge set on hand, "just in case". You might have to re-evaluate that based on the 3800 cartridge cost.

 

[Tom Niblick]

For $1,500, you could buy one of my 9800s. I've been thinking of replacing one with a 9900. Of course the freight from Hawaii would run as much as a new 3800.

FWIW: I've been photographing and printing art professionally since 1968. When it comes to inkjet printers, I'd never buy anything but an Epson. I've owned or used Iris, Encads, Kodaks, Canons and Rollands. Nothing is as reliable as an Epson. I run mine 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. I replace them every 2 years. Many of my older printers are still in service. My old 9600 is still running several rolls of canvas per week for the artist who bought it from me when I went with 9800s. In fact, the school that got my old 9000 is still using it.
The only time you might want to consider another brand is when you let the printer sit unused for several months. then a Canon with user interchangeable heads might be a better choice.
Construction quality wise, I'd never consider risking my livelihood by using a HP.

Tom

 

[dcsang]

The Epson 3800, so far, for me, kicks butt when it comes to B&W printing - I am truly happy with printing out B&W on this printer - I've gone as large as 17x22 (largest the printer can handle) and I'm pretty impressed - I figure, based on my wall space, that I likely won't print many at this size BUT I will print a lot at 12x18 and 11x14 so this printer suits my needs and was a decent price for the quality.

I know the 4880 would have been just as good for not too much more money but it really depends on how much you're printing - that said, it's not the only game in town when it comes to large format printing. 🙂

Cheers,
Dave

 

[eleskin]

I took the plunge on the Epson 3800 today!!!!

I took the plunge on the Epson 3800 today!!!!

Well, the deal at J&R in New York was too good to pass up. With instant and mail in rebates, it comes to $899!!! I am happy and do not have that empty feeling of cashlessness!!! I am sure I will be very happy, and I am glad I waited for something that is said does not have the head clogging issues of the past. What really blew me away is the Epson Exhibition Fiber paper. I always used Fiber Double weight glossy in the darkroom, and this stuff look AMAZING!!! I print black and white, but also like color, and remember the look of beautiful dye transfer prints on fiber paper. I am really excited!!! Thanks everyone for your input here. It took me some time to decide ( 8 months to be exact. I was torn between Epson, Canon, and HP)