Epson 2200 vs 7600 comparison?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Big D, Nov 6, 2003.

  1. Big D

    Big D Guest

    Hello. I'm starting a small home photography business and I'm trying
    to finalize my choice of printing. I don't intend to print anything larger
    than 13"x19" currently, so I think the Epson 2200 would be perfect for me,
    but if there's any quality difference in the output from the 7600 vs the
    2200 or the 2200 is known for crapping out, I'll go with the 7600 instead.

    So, is the Epson 2200 a reliable printer with output every bit as high
    quality as the 7600?

    Thanks!
     
    Big D, Nov 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Big D

    Rafe B. Guest


    I don't believe there's a significant difference in the quality of
    the output between a 2200 and 7600 or 9600.

    Nor for that matter will there be a significant difference in
    reliability, overall.

    The 7600/9600 will have a somewhat lower cost per print
    simply because it uses much larger cartridges.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Nov 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Big D

    Steve Young Guest

    You might want to investigate the forthcoming Stylus Pro 4000 that Bill Hilton
    alerted us to in this post:

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Bill Hilton" <>
    Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 9:30 AM EDT
    Subject: New Epson 17" wide pigment ink printer
     
    Steve Young, Nov 6, 2003
    #3
  4. Big D

    Big D Guest

    less variance over time. The 2200 is a Consumer Group model, a very
    That was what I was concerned about...
    Do you have accurate numbers on the cost per page with the 2200 and the
    7600? I'm finding hard data on these printers difficult to dig up.
    Wow, well the 4000 sounds PERFECT... It's unfortunate that it won't be out
    for another 2 months, though.

    Well, good food for thought. Thanks!
     
    Big D, Nov 6, 2003
    #4
  5. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    Cost per page will vary depending on media used and amount/density of
    coverage. The 7600 has a built in function that will report on the last 9
    jobs and will report exact ml of ink used and paper used in mm.

    Once you know what the ink is costing per cartridge it's really easy to
    determine the cost per print. Ink carts cost about $100 for the 220 ml ones
    and they can be used in the 7600. I used $102 per cartridge to calculate my
    costs so ink cost runs .46 cents per ml. A report I ran a couple of days ago
    show:

    A 16x20 image printed on 24" wide paper with 100% very dense ink coverage
    used 3.366 ml of ink. Ink cost = $1.548.

    6 pages of images 24" wide by 10" high, of mixed sizes (printed using
    Qimage) all with 100% coverage used 12.179 ml ink. Ink cost = $5.60.

    Because I know the cost of my paper per sq inch I have calculated the cost
    of an 8x10 on Premium Luster paper at 80 cents each and have tested that
    cost over and over and it runs *very close*.

    Please note the I print all images using 1440 dpi as the default for the
    printer.

    HTH
     
    Bob Hatch, Nov 6, 2003
    #5
  6. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    Bill, here are some numbers.

    Premium Luster paper at Pro Photo Supply in PDX is $134.59 for a 24" wide
    roll. This makes the paper .67 cents per sq inch. Ink in the 220 ml
    cartridges is $102.00 each. Ink cost is .46 cents per ml. A 16 x 20 print
    will use 2.22 sq feet of paper for a paper cost of $1.55. The ink usage for
    a 100% covered 16x20 is about 3.366 ml for an ink cost of $1.54 for the
    16x20. Total cost for a 16x20 would be $3.09. It's important to point out
    the ink cost for the 16x20 was for an image that was 100% covered with
    *very* dense ink coverage.

    So my estimate of $.80 for an 8x10 is high, kind of. The cost would be .7725
    cents per 8x10 if you batch them and can use all paper with zero waste and
    this won't happen, but the cost is *close* at .80 cents per 8x10 over time,
    because an image on a high key background won't use as much ink as one on a
    low key/black background or a scenic with a lot of dark, dense detail.

    I print at 1440. I did some images at 2800 and when compared to the ones
    printed at 1440 there was not enough difference to make up for the extra ink
    and time used.

    HTH.
     
    Bob Hatch, Nov 6, 2003
    #6
  7. Big D

    Big D Guest


    This is some excellent information, thanks! I've come to the conclusion
    that I'll buy the 4000 when it's released and just pay the premium at the
    photo lab to use their 9600 until then so that I can gain some experience
    with the process.
     
    Big D, Nov 6, 2003
    #7
  8. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    First mistake. Using the built in functions of the printer you can print a
    borderless 24 x 10. Using Qimage you can layout any number of images and
    image sizes, and not have to worry about borders. So I can drop 3 8x10 or
    equivalents onto the page, then cut off using a fairly large roto cutter.
    (It's big enough to trim the 16" side of a 16x20.

    if you assume .5 inch borders on all sides the 8x10 image
    It does if you print true 8x10's and we do, when we print them because
    that's the only size that fits in our mounts. So the cost of paper is 8" x
    10" = 80 sq in. or 0.5556 sq feet. Cost per 8x10 for paper is 0.5556 x $.67
    or $.37 per 8x10 for paper.

    Now comes the kicker. The price I used to calculate the cost of the paper
    was $134.59 per roll. You can buy it at www.atlex.com for $96.70 per roll
    for the 24" x 100' roll, so your cost per sq foot will drop to $.48 or $.27
    per 8x10.
    unlikely).

    So we're back to $.37 for paper + $.39 for ink = $.76 per 8x10. Now, there
    will be paper loss, there will be reprints for a number of reasons but the
    cost per print is still very cheap. Using Qimage I can, if necessary, open
    Qimage, select all the images in a directory of images from my D60, select
    all, click on the 4x5 button and Qimage will fill the correct number of
    24x10 pages with images and I can print them. Cost is around $.20 each, and
    I have them in 30 minutes.
    The printer has paid for its self already. Even if we used your figures of
    92 cents per 8x10 it still beats lab prices. Our lab charges $28.80 for a
    16x20, so every time I print one of those I can put about $25.00 back in my
    own pocket.

    You can probably guess that I kinda like the 7600.
     
    Bob Hatch, Nov 6, 2003
    #8
  9. Big D

    Rafe B. Guest


    Well, who said it was aimed at the "2200 users" market?

    For those using a standard US-letter sized printer, it is
    a step up in print size, albeit a modest one.

    The "step up" for 2200 users would be the Epson 4000.

    Or even the 3000, as long as we're talking only about
    print size.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Nov 8, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.