Vince Lupo
Whatever
I'm thinking of buying a 3880, but was wondering if it was still a good choice since it's now a 3 year-old model?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Hi Vince,
I wrestled with R3000 vs R3880 for quite some time. The deciding factor for me was where I had to locate the printer. Epson recommends not using longer than a 6 ft (IIRC) USB cable, and the way my office is set up, I couldn't get the printer that close to my "work" computer. So I had to go with the R3000 because of the Wi-Fi connectivity.
I think the R3880 is a better choice if you are making many prints because the ink is cheaper over the long run. Both printers do excellent prints, though I use mine almost exclusively for B&W printing.
Best,
-Tim
I wrestled with R3000 vs R3880 for quite some time. The deciding factor for me was where I had to locate the printer. Epson recommends not using longer than a 6 ft (IIRC) USB cable, and the way my office is set up, I couldn't get the printer that close to my "work" computer. So I had to go with the R3000 because of the Wi-Fi connectivity.
I think the R3880 is a better choice if you are making many prints because the ink is cheaper over the long run. Both printers do excellent prints, though I use mine almost exclusively for B&W printing.
Best,
-Tim
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter -- like you, I'll be printing almost exclusively for B&W. Until this point, I've been uploading my files to a friend of mine who has a printing business, and he has one of those really large Epson printers (not sure which model, but something like the 9900). His prints look fine, but I'm now liking the idea of printing at home. That way I can make adjustments on the spot if necessary, and I like the idea of being able to print my own at will.
Stupid question, but would one notice a print quality difference between a print done on a 3880 and the same print done on something like a 9900? Say an 11"x14" print?
Stupid question, but would one notice a print quality difference between a print done on a 3880 and the same print done on something like a 9900? Say an 11"x14" print?
ray*j*gun
Veteran
Plus one ..... my R3000 is just tops..... stunning prints, color or B&W. Ink lasts but cartridges are too small IMO.
Range-rover
Veteran
I don't want to spoil the Epson party but have you looked at Canon printers
their new pro line looks really good and if the heads go bad you can replace
them yourself instead of dumping the printer for a new one.
Range
their new pro line looks really good and if the heads go bad you can replace
them yourself instead of dumping the printer for a new one.
Range
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Are you talking about something like the Pixma Pro 1? Truthfully, I haven't looked at Canon printers at all, and the Pixma Pro 1 seems to be in more or less the same price range as the 3880. Is it a coin toss between the two, or are there really measurable differences?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Theoretically, the 3880 / 3800 has a better spec with a native resolution of 720 ppi where the larger models have a native resolution of only 360 ppi. From a practical standpoint, the human eye cannot discern the difference.
As far as the 3880 being 3 years old, realize there have been no significant advancements in printer technology for many years, only marketing buzz. The Epson 2400 / 2800 / 2880 / 3000 are basically the same and the 3800 / 3880 differ from them only by having a wider carriage.
I have been printing with 13x19 printers for about 11 -12 years now and have made exactly two 12x18 prints. When properly matted and framed, those 12x18 prints were simply too big to go anywhere without dominating the entire wall. My standard exhibition print size is either 10x12.5 or 9x13.5 both working nicely in a 16x20 frame with a proper size mat. Also, be aware just how physically large the 3800 / 3880 are.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Back when I was shopping I think the math worked out around to 70 11x17 prints (our double x for letter sized) per year making the 3880 worthwhile. It also has a more robust mechanism.
However I don't print as much and have been good with the R3000, which seems better built than the definitely consumer orientated 2200-2400-2880 models I had prior.
I never get clogs if I leave it plugged in and occasionally blow some ink printing some normal paper and office correspondence just to keep things flowing.
Still, if I had a good letter sized option that was cheaper to run, I would gladly jump ship but I really like having the K3 inks and Harrington Quadtone RIP options. Seiko Epson is not my favorite company but unfortunately their darn scanners and printers are still better than the other options. I wish they'd build some more professional versions but used less expensive consumables, I'd love to get a higher quality scanner and printer that I could maintain for years.
However I don't print as much and have been good with the R3000, which seems better built than the definitely consumer orientated 2200-2400-2880 models I had prior.
I never get clogs if I leave it plugged in and occasionally blow some ink printing some normal paper and office correspondence just to keep things flowing.
Still, if I had a good letter sized option that was cheaper to run, I would gladly jump ship but I really like having the K3 inks and Harrington Quadtone RIP options. Seiko Epson is not my favorite company but unfortunately their darn scanners and printers are still better than the other options. I wish they'd build some more professional versions but used less expensive consumables, I'd love to get a higher quality scanner and printer that I could maintain for years.
Range-rover
Veteran
there's also the Pro-10 and Pro-100, which look really good, I just like them
because there nice printers plus the benefit to be able to change the heads
yourself, and I never had a problem with clogging always work great.
because there nice printers plus the benefit to be able to change the heads
yourself, and I never had a problem with clogging always work great.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
The *big* difference is, you can replace the head of Canon pro printers if they get clogged or damaged severely.
Try this with Epson printers.
rjstep3
Established
I have a 3000 and I can't praise it highly enough. Colours and sharpness absolutely superb. Having said which, the last printer I had was the Epson 1270 - ok, but nothing like so good as the 3000.
I can't say how long the prints last in sunlight, I haven't had it long enough to test.
But for now, it is a great buy. You will keep on buying - the cartridges don't last that long, so make sure you are satisfied with a print before committing to print.
rjstep3
I can't say how long the prints last in sunlight, I haven't had it long enough to test.
But for now, it is a great buy. You will keep on buying - the cartridges don't last that long, so make sure you are satisfied with a print before committing to print.
rjstep3
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Well now I'm looking at the Pixma Pro 1 -- seems like the 3880 and the Pro 1 are pretty close in terms of quality, though I'm not sure if more ink cartridges in the Canon necessarily means a better print (I'm thinking for exclusively black and white prints). People seem to like the Pro 1 as much as the 3880, so making a choice between the two is a bit tough!
I can appreciate the ability to change printer heads in the Canon, but from most of the user reviews that I've read online about the 3880, clogged printer heads don't seem to be an issue, but of course things do happen.
What's the deal with the Canon printer not being able to print 11"x14"? You have to 'fool' the printer or something?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Vince, having dealt with 2 Epson 2880 printers with clogged heads, I am a forever Canon user now as far as digital printers is concerned.
Maybe the 3880 has a brand new head design that is less prone to clogging, but I'm not going in that pool again.
hlockwood
Well-known
To the best of my knowledge, all these Epson printers have a native resolution of 1440 dpi (Note: not ppi). One can choose the print size and resolution independently, but the image will then be resampled by the driver, a process not under your control. Unchecking resampling (resizing) will give a print size of slightly larger than 10x15 (from a FF 35mm image) for a chosen resolution of 360 dpi (Note: not ppi), and all (and only) the pixels in the original image will be present. That is, dpi and ppi will be equal. Similarly, choosing a resolution of 720 dpi will yield a print slightly larger than 5x7. And again, all (and only) the original pixels will be present, i.e., dpi = ppi. The point is that, if you wish to avoid resampling, print resolution and print size cannot be chosen independently.
In order to get high resolution, say, 720 dpi in a large print, say ~12x18, resampling (pixel stuffing) is necessary. There are companies that supply custom algorithms for this purpose if one wishes to avoid the uncertainties of the Epson RIP.
HFL