The specs online confusimadate me....

Other than max print size, what are the practical differences between the epson 3800 and 2880 with B&W print quality being my primary concern.

Thanks!

-E

In use the inks on the 3800 are about half the price per cc than inks for the 2880. I don't have the math off the top of my head but if you consider the amount of ink you get with the 3800, it makes the printer body only a few $ more than the 2880. Both should do fine b&w prints.

Tom

The 3800 uses a different dithering pattern.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t13913.html

Max width is certainly the most significant difference. I'm guessing along with that is a reduced footprint for the 2880 if space is a concern.

I don't have a 2880, but do use a couple of 3800's. I believe black and white printing would be nearly identical, both have advanced B&W mode and both use the same black inks.

2880 has the more recent vivid magenta inkset, the same inkset as in the current 7880/9800/11880 printers. However, despite not having this inkset, the 3800 output is outstanding, and to me is better than the other printers Epson produced using the K3 inkset because of improved screening (4800/7800/9800).

I believe screening and dithering technology of the 2880 is probably a generation ahead of 3800 -the link provided from LL predates the introduction of the 2880 by a year and a half, so the improved dithering referenced there would be in relation to 48/78/9800 printers.

The 2880 head is a generation newer than the 3800, with the smallest droplet size down to 3 picoliters vs. 3.5 ... the smaller droplets assist in improving the screening algorithms. The result is 2880 is capable of what they call 5760x1440 "optimized" resolution vs. the 3880 at 2880x1440. However despite all of these advances I'm not sure there will be any significant differences observable in output from the two printers.

Another key advance for users in head technology is to address nozzle clogging. I'm not sure if the 2880 has anything new on the 3800 here, but the 3800 introduced several key changes for Epson to address clogging, and has proven to be quite reliable and nearly clog free for most users since it's introduction.

Both printers feed photo and matt black ink to the head, and require the black channel in the head to be cleared when switching. I believe the total ink consumption is similar, but this amounts to about 10% of the 2880's 11mil cartridge , where it is only about 2% of the 3800's 80ml cartridge. Much more expensive to switch, since the cost/ml of ink of the 3800 is far less, due to the large cartridge sizes.

The 3800 is considered a pro level printer, so it may include a more robust design and be more durable.

As mentioned, if you consider you get 7x more ink with the 3800, the cost of the acutal printer is about the same . By the time you finish the 2nd set of ink cartridges in the 3800 you will have gone through 10 or 12 sets of ink in the 2880 (or more). By that time the 3800 has actually saved you money.

Wayne - thanks a bunch for all that - I am also getting back to thinking about a new printer and that was extremely helpful. Don't suppose you know when the inevitable 3880 will appear (seems a tad late!) ?

Andy

Yes, thank you all for the great information!

jjlphoto wrote:
The 3800 uses a different dithering pattern.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t13913.html


Actually, I believe that the dithering pattern of the 3800 is different than the 2800 (and 4800), However, my understanding is that the new crop of the Epson printers that included the 2880 and 4880, adopted the improved dithering pattern of the 3800. The 3800 was the first printer to use it.

The 3800 introduced AccuPhoto HD screening technology which then migrated into other Epson printers. Currently Epson claims the 48/78/98/11880 printers include this technology, although many believe the 11880 introduced an enhanced version of this screening based on wider gamuts and deeper achievable densities. If so this was probably the precursor to the new AccuPhoto HDR technology now coming out the in the 79/9900 printers.

These are all Epson Professional Printers. If you look at the other side of Epson, they introduced "Radiance" technology in the r1900 and it made its way into 2880. If you read the description of what this technology does, it appears new screening algorithms would play a key part.

It's a little puzzling ... the relationship between the professional printers with their AccuPhoto HD/HDR, and the other divisions printers which include Radiance. Perhaps the Inkjet printer division just thought Radiance was a better sounding name, perhaps Radiance includes AccuPhoto HD technologies plus some other stuff (that's what it sounds like).

But both the 3800 and 2880 include very advanced screening technologies designed specifically for realistic photographic printing. Both print stunning prints, and side by side I would bet very few could pick which print was printed by which printer.

As an aside, screening technologies are probably the most closely guarded secrets of inkjet companies. Here's an interesting quote that describes how incredibly complex the process is and why screening technologies play a critical role in a printers output quality ...

"There’s no single match for each RGB color when you’re printing: there are actually trillions of different ink combinations that can reproduce the same color when you’re working with a six-color photo printer, and those numbers increase exponentially as you add to the number of inks used to print.

In addition, each ink combination has repercussions that affect the colors around it during the printing process. Sometimes, a printer can’t reliably produce a color similar to the one next to it, which can result in things like muddy shadows, fuzzy details, or strange blotches in large areas of similar color (like late afternoon skies)."

http://www.printerville.net/2008/02/21/more-on-epsons-radiance-color-matching/

To all the responders to this post, THANKS VERY MUCH.

All the information is very helpful. It seemed the scales were tipped towards the 2880 till the last few posts.

To sum it up, the specs of the 2880 seemed to be superior to the 3000. But the economics of the 3000 are better than the 2880. Therefore, money aside, the 2880 is a better investment provided that the 17" size limit works for you. (Assuming footprint to be a non issue)

Am I missing something?

Thanks, again

One other thing to mention. The economics of the 2880/3800 are that after you finish the first set of ink cartridges on the 3800 you've approximately hit the financial breakeven point between the two. Problem is, this is a lot of pictures (several hundred A4).

Given the finite lifespan of the ink, you'll also need to be running though a set of ink every year or 18 months or something (someone else can probably give you a real number here), else it'll actually cost you more to own because you're throwing ink away. For a pro this is obviously a non issue on the 3800, but if you're just printing for yourself you'll need a lot of wall space for all those prints.

Its annoying, as i'm also considering getting one of these two printers, and i'd desperately like to justify the 3800, but i can't see myself printing off anywhere enough images to make it viable.

Well, I want to make sure I understand what the paper size limits or print size limits are for each machine. I am going to call Epson and will let you know the results.
David

I've made the call to Epson and the size limits are as follows: 17x37" for the 3800 and 13x19" for the 2880.
The fellow told me that the 3800 should/wants/designed for 100 prints a week. It's designed for entry level pro shop/photographer. I do about 3-5 prints/week.
The costs of the cartridges for the 3800 are $60 x nine and $13 x nine for the 2880. I guess the key is the 6 mos life once the inks are used for the first time.
So, it seems pretty straight forward for me. There is no way I can justify the 3800!!! I just have to forgo the increased print size. I shall send those off to a lab.
Thanks for the help.
David

daelm wrote:
I've made the call to Epson and the size limits are as follows: 17x37" for the 3800 and 13x19" for the 2880.
The fellow told me that the 3800 should/wants/designed for 100 prints a week. It's designed for entry level pro shop/photographer. I do about 3-5 prints/week.
The costs of the cartridges for the 3800 are $60 x nine and $13 x nine for the 2880. I guess the key is the 6 mos life once the inks are used for the first time.
So, it seems pretty straight forward for me. There is no way I can justify the 3800!!! I just have to forgo the increased print size. I shall send those off to a lab.
Thanks for the help.
David

just keep in mind that if you run the math based on ink costs, which at inkjetart.com currently is 1.15/ml for the 2880 vs. 0.62/ml for the 3800 inks, you only need to consume 53% of the ink in the 3800 cartridge to break even. So even if you had to replace each cartridge with 47% of the ink in it, you are still even on ink costs.

Also, I don't think anyone replaces their cartridges because of a 6 month estimate. I'm not sure what happens that makes a cartridge unusable, but I have a 3800 at a second location that I visit only once a month. I don't even use it every time I'm there. When I do want to print, I pop each ink cartridge out for about 15 seconds and gently agitate. This printer still has the original ink cartridges, is well over a year old, and last month I printed a bunch of prints with no problems. I can't imagine getting less than 1 year out of the cartridge once you install it ... at least most of them.

Considering one set of inks (there are only 8 required to print at a time) can produce about 640 8x10's (lots of estimates here, but 1ml/8x10 seems to be the current estimate by most), 53% of that is about 340. So if you produce 340 8x10's or equivalents in a year, the economics are at about break even. At 5 8x10's a week for a year = 260 prints - you are only 80 prints short of that. Print 12 17x22's and 12 13x19's in the year, and you are at break-even.

Just some food for thought ... trying to pin down ink costs and estimating this stuff is really black magic. This is some pretty rough math, but it isn't too far off. Add to the fact that the 2880 may not deliver a full 11ml of usable ink per cartridge and the economics change as well.

I'm not trying to talk you into the 3800 ... I know it sounds like I am. I've operated a large color lab for over 25 years so I get kind of carried away when I talk about cost of ownership. The 2880 is a great printer, I don't think you will regret buying it.

Using roll paper, a 2880 can do long panos. The 3800 max print length is 37 inches, and it can't use roll paper.

Wayne Fox wrote:
.... you only need to consume 53% of the ink in the 3800 cartridge to break even. So even if you had to replace each cartridge with 47% of the ink in it, you are still even on ink costs........

.....about 640 8x10's (lots of estimates here, but 1ml/8x10 seems to be the current estimate by most), 53% of that is about 340.


Wayne, good to see i'm not the only one thinking about this.

Printerville.net tested the 2880 as using about 0.75ml per 8x10 print. Using that number for the 3800 (possibly a slightly optimistic estimate?) you get around 960 8x10 images or 315 13x19 prints from a set of 9 cartridges. For the 2880 the respective numbers are 133 and 43. Even at a 50% usage that seems like a lot of pictures for a home user on a 3800.


So if you produce 340 8x10's or equivalents in a year, the economics are at about break even. At 5 8x10's a week for a year = 260 prints - you are only 80 prints short of that. Print 12 17x22's and 12 13x19's in the year, and you are at break-even.


This is a good argument.


Just some food for thought ... trying to pin down ink costs and estimating this stuff is really black magic.


No kidding. Printerville seem to be developing a consistent testing routine which should throw a bit of science into the calculation, but currently they haven't tested a lot of printers.

Some very good discussion here (am also debating the 2880 vs 3800). However, the math assumes an even distribution of inks used - and by using 9 carts (1/2 gloss paper and 1/2 matte). If you do primarily all one or the other, it's spread over 8 carts.

If you print primarily or even heavily B&W, the numbers will change dramatically as that 0.75ml/8x10 is now spread over (primarily) 3 black/grey ink carts vs 8 in total (active at any one time).

2880: 3 carts @ 11ml ea = 33ml/0.75ml = 44 @ 8x10 prints. For 13x19s = 14 prints
3800: 3 carts @ 80ml = 240ml/0.75ml = 320 @ 8x10s. For 13x19s = 103.

Conner999 wrote:
Some very good discussion here (am also debating the 2880 vs 3800). However, the math assumes an even distribution of inks used - and by using 9 carts (1/2 gloss paper and 1/2 matte). If you do primarily all one or the other, it's spread over 8 carts.


True, but as all the cartridges cost about the same most of the discussion so far applies to both equal use and non-equal use scenarios (9 carts are 9 carts, doesn't matter what colour). You're right about the paper choice though, but otherwise the only real difference is with respect to the ink lifetime - the lifetime limit we've discussed so far in general terms should actually be modified to talk about the lifetime of the slowest used colour cartridges. This moves the economics further in favour of the 2880 over the 3800, though probably not by much unless you're doing lots of b&w prints or green landscapes etc.

15Bit wrote:
Conner999 wrote:
Some very good discussion here (am also debating the 2880 vs 3800). However, the math assumes an even distribution of inks used - and by using 9 carts (1/2 gloss paper and 1/2 matte). If you do primarily all one or the other, it's spread over 8 carts.


True, but as all the cartridges cost about the same most of the discussion so far applies to both equal use and non-equal use scenarios (9 carts are 9 carts, doesn't matter what colour). You're right about the paper choice though, but otherwise the only real difference is with respect to the ink lifetime - the lifetime limit we've discussed so far in general terms should actually be modified to talk about the lifetime of the slowest used colour cartridges. This moves the economics further in favour of the 2880 over the 3800, though probably not by much unless you're doing lots of b&w prints or green landscapes etc.



I'm actually very interested in that: this printer would be primarily B&W for me as I'm perfectly happy with Lambda prints for my color work.

(From my original post)
"B&W print quality being my primary concern."

Wayne, you know a lot of stuff about this topic. And owning 185 studios I can see why! Ain't capitalism great...

(30Ds I see. It would be a bit more expensive to outfit them all with 1DSMK3s)

True, but like some others, I'm not convinced given anecdotal evidence and my own use with other printers, that the ink shelf life is as low as 6mos (opened).

Now if you were to chuck all opened carts, used or not after 6 mos, the economics clearly favor the 2880 (actually any printer with very small carts) unless you were into high-volume output.

There will also be a high initial volume usage with either printer when first purchased testing papers, profiles, proofing, etc - that will then settle down.

Factor out the costs of the ink load shipped with each printer from the price of the printers and the price difference between the two units (hardware only) is under $200. So for $200 more in hardware (the 3800) you get 17x22 printing vs 13x19 max and per ml ink costs that are 1/2 that of the 2880.

Beyond the simple cost per print or ml, etc in ink is the further black magic of future upgrade cost. Selling a used printer to fund an upgrade to a larger size/higher volume unit is an exercise in frustration that, if lucky, nets pennies on the dollar - the smaller the printer the fewer the pennies/$1. For some smaller units, the shipping alone makes selling it virtually uneconomical.

For larger units there is the buyer paranoia about clogs, the shipping costs and (if even able to ship) the concerns about the seller packing it properly. Most large units have to be sold locally w/pickup (or a meet me 1/2 way scenario) which narrows the market considerably. My natural inclination would be towards a unit that is MORE than you need today in terms of paper size and/or economical volume if you even THINK you will need/want to move up the printer food chain, because upgrading later has very significant costs attached to it.

Evan I did some back of a napkin math. Both simplistically assume 3 carts only used for B&W prints - no color toning, etc. Assumes same 0.75ml/8x10 usage.

Using 1/2 matte and 1/2 gloss would cost the same per print - but would also need to factor in the lost ink from the switching process.

2880 (3 carts = 33ml of black/LB/LLB)
--------
8 x 10s: 44 prints
13 x 19s: 14 prints
17 x 21s: na

3800 (3 carts = 240ml ink total)
--------
8x10s: 320
13x 19s: 103
17x 21s: 54

It's all 'new math' as it were, but it does help in looking beyond the initial $$$ for the printer.

Actually, my math above is too simplistic. Doing some more research (source: http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/faq.html#inkstable), apparently the 3800 (adn I assume the 2880 where applicable) when printing B&W using the Epson AWB uses the following 6 inks:

Photo Black / Matte Black
Light Black
Light Light Black
Light Cyan
Light Magenta
Yellow

I highly recommend the referenced site (at least for the 3800), takes that black magic of cost of printer ownership to a whole new level.

John Power wrote:
Wayne, you know a lot of stuff about this topic. And owning 185 studios I can see why! Ain't capitalism great...

(30Ds I see. It would be a bit more expensive to outfit them all with 1DSMK3s)

NK. Fortunately the the 30D is more than enough camera for our needs. We currently have well over 300 30d's. Many of them capture over 200 images every day. We had a lot of shutter issues with the 20d, but the 30d has performed very well (some have over 200,000 actuations.)

We opened our first digital studios in 1999, and paid $14,000 each for 4 Kodak 520's and $26,000 for 2 kodak 560's. Amazing how things have changed in less than 10 years.

Good job Wayne. And yes, they certainly have. May your success continue

And I am sure there is some charity work in there also.

I just bought the 3800 refurbished from Epson. I wanted the wider print width and most importantly network instead of USB. I have an Ethernet hub and connect as many peripherals as possible using the hub. It's really easier to manage.