State of the art B&W inkjet printer in 2014 ?

[mfogiel]

While my venerable Epson R2400 continues to function ( and guzz up the small cartridges very fast ), I've been wondering about what would be the state of the art B&W printer today, particularly for small prints, to look at at arm's distance. I feel, that an 8x10 passpartout with a 5x7 print inside, would make a great gift nowadays, when hardly anybody bothers to make prints anymore. Particularly so, if it is a well crafted, grainless B&W print, as close as possible to a contact print from a LF negative.

The important aspects to watch, would be obviously the resolution (droplet size), number of gray cartridges for smoothest gradation and possibly a final coating to eliminate bronzing and create a finish with some depth, akin to a silver print.

I have seen recently this post on Ming Thein's site:
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/02/27/introducing-the-ultraprint/

And have also read positive comments about the latest Canon's PIXMA Pro 1 and HP z series. I have been waiting for some rumours about the replacement of the Epson R3880, but so far have not seen anything.

I'd very much appreciate some informed feedback. I typically print on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk paper.

 

[Zonan]

I've had a 3880 for a few years, and it is the best printer I've ever owned from a quality/trouble-free/maintenance-free perspective. Replacing the ink set ($450-500 US) is the only troublesome aspect, but that's par for the course.
I suspect there have been no new printers because technology has not advanced much of late- somewhat similar to the flatbed scanner update situation (V700/750 et al).
I use luster-type paper, Moab Kayenta I stashed away. Just got some Gold Fiber Silk-alike paper(Simply Elegant) to try, as I am getting low. 3880 does an excellent job with both color and B&W. I've been printing B&W with Epson ABW, and with an older version of Qimage running via Parallels, both solid results.

 

[kanzlr]

I am very happy with my new R3000.
Alle the top of the line Epsons have a special Black and White printing mode, if you let the printer handle colors. The R3000, for example, also has a few black and white inks.

so far, this is the best BW printer I had (out or R800 and 1400).

 

[Merlijn53]

I think the 3880 is still a great printer, so I suppose there is no need for replacement soon.
The point with this printer is, that due to the larger cartridges, it is cheaper than the Epson A3 printers after you changed your first set of cartridges. And I did not do the math, but I think the same applies for A3 printers of other makes.
Frank

 

[mfogiel]

I think I've found a good indication: in the "leica Practicum" Erwin Puts indicates the following path: Epson R3000 ( but I think 3880 is technically equivalent), Quadtone Rip and Canson baryta paper. I just wish somebody who has tried Canon Pixma 1 Pro could tell me if its B&W output trumps that of the Epson printers.

 

[dasuess]

I think I've found a good indication: in the "leica Practicum" Erwin Puts indicates the following path: Epson R3000 ( but I think 3880 is technically equivalent), Quadtone Rip and Canson baryta paper. I just wish somebody who has tried Canon Pixma 1 Pro could tell me if its B&W output trumps that of the Epson printers.

Keith Cooper over at Northlight Images has reviewed 3880, R3000 and Pixma Pro-1, including BW output.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I use a 3880 and I am really happy with it. I did try the Piezography inks, but honestly didn't see any difference that merited the additional cost and hassle, so I went back to the Epson inks.

 

[angelog]

Don't buy the R3000 if you use Imageprint because it's not supported! Imageprint does something special with the black inks but the regular Epson print engine works just fine for B/W printing.

I have both the 3000 and 3880 and wish I'd never bought the 3000.

 

[rodt16s]

Went with the R3000, one of the pluses in the pro column was because it is wireless.

 

[Bob Michaels]

mfogiel: I too continue to print with a Epson 2400. It is my second one having worn out the first. I continue to look at prints made with later model Epsons as well as HP and Canon printers.

I simply cannot see any improvement in print quality from any of the later printers. Granted some of the specs have changed but this appears to me to be marketing hype and not something that is reflected in visible print quality.

Now I am not one of those who can convince themselves that something must be better because the manufacturer is successful in getting me to buy something new. I make honest assessments based on the final results I see. And I just do not see any better prints than I can make with my 2400.

 

[coelacanth]

I recently got R3000, and I'm very happy with the results with Epson Ultra Premium Glossy Photo Paper for small casual prints and Exhibition Fiber Paper for a little more serious ones.

Fiber based paper and R3000 combining with M Monochrom (shooting like positive film to protect highlight), I dare say I'm seriously tempted to bid darkroom "semi" good-bye... (duck and cover)