|
|
chukker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2010
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,500.00
| Rating: 1
|
|
I'm with "stanbrown" on this one; my Epson 4000 is a piece o' junk. What an expensive disappointment!
I purchased my printer after extensive research online. All the reviews raved about this printer, much like this review. I paid $2500 at the time and got nothing but a briefcase full of blues in return. The lines are constantly clogged and the ink is extremely expensive. One must Power Clean to unclog the lines. This uses vast amounts of ink and rarely works. (Question: If one color line is blocked, why must I use up all the other colors when cleaning it?)
Several online competitors came out with ink cartridges for the 4000 and the competition made the prices very reasonable, but then Epson sued. Now one must buy solely Epson replacement ink cartridges and pay a premium for them.
I've used my Epson 4000 a couple dozen times, then emotionally walked away from it because of endless frustration and expense.
To those who love this stinking, unworthy beast, I have one that you can buy from me - CHEAP. It's like new. I bought the custom cabinet, too. You'll have to pay for shipping.
|
|
 Feb 23, 2010
|
|
stanbrown
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 19
|
|
Review Date: Jul 9, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Makes a great paper weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Piece of junk! Worst head clogging of any printer we have ever used. Printer will not print black and white photos without a color cast.
|
|
Piece of junk!
Leave the printer on or turn the printer off. You should just plan on spending 30 minutes trying to clean the print heads while you waste your ink.
Black and white photos really should be black and white without a noticeable color cast. Not so with this printer.
Did I mention that the Epson Stylus Pro 4000 is a piece of junk!
We are so annoyed by this printer that we decided to pass up purchasing any of Epson's newer printers.
Did I mention that the printer is a piece of junk!
|
|
|
Jul 9, 2007
|
|
DJoy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 73
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent print quality, hugely decreased consumable costs, almost no clogging
|
|
Cons:
|
Still get gloss differential and bronzing, can crimp paper overnight if the holding lever isn't raised
|
|
Before the 4000 I had a 2100/2200, which uses the same inks. There is no comparison between the two printers, the 4000 is simply in a different league. I found with my 2100/2200 I would frequently get head clogging, not so with the 4000, which hardly ever clogs, even when left for weeks and weeks without use.
The 4000 is big, and built like a tank, it's a real workhorse of a printer. I've churned out full wedding sets on it, and it eats it up, and spits them out one after the other. The roll paper mechanism is excellent, nothing like the fiddly removeable ones on the smaller printers. The paper cutter is built into the print head, so it just works and you don't have to fit any weird boxes, like with the 2100/2200. The paper tray is an excellent piece of design work, very clever, folds up really small when not in use, and just pulls out when you need it.
The ability to print with both Photo and Matte black inks without changing cartridges was appealing to me, and a big selling point, though I find now I have it, I tend to use just one type.
The reduced costs of paper and ink from buying rolls and the large cartridges this machine takes, will in my opinion pay for the printer in quite a short space of time when compared with say the 2100/2200.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2006
|
|
bradleyphillip
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 124
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,800.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Capable of archival, top-notch output; upports photo & matte papers w/o swapping inks; accepts large capacity (220ml) cartridges; handles up to 17x22" sheet paper; good front panel interface
|
|
Cons:
|
Head tends to clog when not used more than 3 or 4 days; printer does not flush ink lines independently; ink is expensive-- can be 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the printer to buy a complete set of 220ml cartridges; suffers from 'flashing' on glossy and semi glossy papers; almost 100lb shipping weight
|
|
I am very demanding when it comes to print quality. I have been pleased with the relatively low level of metamerism from the inks used in this printer. While I do use ImagePrint 6.0 as my RIP (instead of the Epson print driver), the output is top notch.
I do not want people to see the process I use to create my art, but rather, I want them to experience the art. The output from this printer does exactly that. Great paper handling and front-panel control.
The only output drawback is the whitest areas of an image, where the printer lays down no ink, reflect differently than areas where ink has been laied down when using glossy and semi-gloss paper. You need to look at the paper at an oblique angle with a fairly concentrated light source to see this, but it is there. The new 4800 is supposed to solve this, but forces the user to swap inks between matte and photo black. (The new 4800 only flushes the black line, but am I supposed to be happy about 'only' wasting one colour of ink? Sorry, Epson. I'll stick with the 4000 for now.)
If you're looking for no-excuses, top-quality output, be sure to give this printer a long, hard look.
-brad
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2005
|
|
hermosawave
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,795.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great large prints! Big ink carts. Variety of paper feed options.
|
|
Cons:
|
Manual feed is a bit squirrelly, can't print smaller than 8x10. Vacuum suction feed is noisy.
|
|
After using the 2200 for the past two years, this printer is the Big Time! It's huge!
I'm glad I can use the semi-matte paper, but why only 16"???
The only 17" papers are the Photo Quality Ink Jet (not useful for anything serious) and the Lustre (good for weddings, but otherwise too much texture)... HELLOOO???
The 4000 is a halfway point between the 2200 and 7600... large photo prints, but it still has a paper tray for the normal stuff you print. Fairly viable as your only all-around printer, whereas the 7600 really isn't.
Don't need the RIP, Photoshop driver is all you need.
Manual feed from the top is pretty much useless, feed from the front works great.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2005
|
|
nugeny
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7727
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,785.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent prints
|
|
Cons:
|
confusing soft ware, confusing interface with computer, difficult manual feed. All can be learned.
The worse: no paper supply! why? the printer has been around for a long time. I can't even buy matte papers for many weeks ever since I got the printer before Xmas!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2005
|
|
John Maitland
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,795.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
You can’t go wrong with the 4000!
I have an Epson 7600 with which I am extremely happy but may get the 4000 because it more convenient– and as wonderful as the 7600 is the 4000 has even better print quality. Epson did their homework and, in my opinion the larger machines are far better and cheaper to run than the small printers. Having paid a visit to see it operate and made comparisons with the 7600 I think the 4000 rates at the very least an 11 out of ten using standard papers and profiles.
By the way, there are some other excellent inks such as Pantone, which are priced reasonably, and perhaps a wee bit better. If you are on a “budget”, you might want to look into Colorvision’s products which have worked very well for me. They seem to work 99 and 44/100% as well as the high priced products – besides it is physical impossibility to reproduce exactly what you see on the screen because they are different.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit of a bear if you move around a lot! 7600 cleans itself a bit too often.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2005
|
|
nzrubber
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 30, 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 88
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Well constructed, very economical to use compared to small printers, wide variety of paper choices, use of roll paper, large cartridges. Excellent print quality, long life prints.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some bronzing issues using pigment ink, non availabilty of some 17 inch wide papers from Epson. Not so good at printing high gloss photos.
|
|
Prior to owning the 4000 I was using an Epson 2100. So when the 4000 was released I didn't hesitate ordering one. Easy to set up and great prints straight away, with quality as good as if not better than the 2100. Using roll paper and the 220 ml cartridges as reduced paper costs by 75% and ink by half. Using primarily Epson prem luster paper it's disappointing to not have a 17inch wide roll to make full use of the printer's width. Cutting up 44 inch rolls is a temporary solution. There are some bronzing issues with prints when held at certain angles in light. However, this was a common trait with the 2100 and no customer has complained. Saying that professional photographers see it and so won't use my services.
Having the matt black ink cartridge included along with photo black makes swapping to matt paper easy. Using Qimage and QTR I can print bulk photos with ease and get great B&W prints.
For anyone wanting a quality machine for large print runs you can't go wrong with the 4000. My next ideal printer would be a 44 inch format capable of printing with no bronzing issues.
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2005
|
|
RRRoger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1355
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,800.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Professional Built biggest desktop printer I`ve ever seen.
Prints are very detailed and high quality.
220ml ink cartridges seldom need changing. Very reliable.
|
|
Cons:
|
Uses to much desk space
Heads need deep cleaning if you do not print every few days or less.
Archival inks not as glossy as standard Epson inks.
Cannot print less than 8x10 sheet of paper.
High gloss full 17" wide paper rolls not yet available
|
|
I`ve been using the 4000 since last summer and do not recomend it unless you have a high volume of printing to do. It is an industrial strenght product and very heavy. I can only print on 8 inch or wider sheet paper, although the 4 inch roll paper might work.
The 2200 is much more versitile in that you can print on 4x5 sheet with nearly the same quality. However the small cartridge size drives me crazy.
The smaller drop size of the 4000 causes the heads to clog more easily. If you do not use the printer all the time, it is possible to waste all your ink savings during the cleanings.
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2005
|
|
jheadjr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 9, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 54
|
|
Review Date: Feb 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,795.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Outstanding print quality. Nothing that I know of compares. Almost eliminates my need for traditional lab services.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
I used the Epson 2200 printer for one year before buying the 4000. The 2200 was a good purchase. The print quality was good, etc. But, this 4000 is a better unit. The print quality is a bit better than the 2200. It is faster and the cost per print seems to be a bit lower than the 2200. This maching is a beast. I can not recommend it high enough. GREAT machine. SInce purchasing the 2200, my lab bills have decreased a lot. Now that I have the 4000, I expect my lab bill to be almost $0. Except for the larger than 16X20 prints and the canvas with brush texture prints that I usually sell, the 4000 will satisfy all my printing needs.
|
|
|
Feb 4, 2005
|
|
sirhibernac
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1095
|
|
Review Date: Jan 31, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely high quality prints; Can take the large 220ml ink tanks to save money in the long run; Very versatile in media range; Did I mention extremely high qaulity prints? Doesn't need to switch blacks (Big +++)
|
|
Cons:
|
Almost wish it would take 20 inch wide media. Price of cartridges can be too expensive if not a price savvy shopper.
|
|
I purchased my printer almost one year ago and received it back when the waiting list was longer than Santa's Christmas list. I have been MORE than extremely happy with the quality and speed that this printer outputs. I've also been very happy that money has been saved all around with the non switching black issue. Epson tech support has been great for the 4000 and I'm happy that they have brought a tremendous amount of support to the table by introducing and pushing this product for a lot of digital photographers. As said in the weakness part I do wish it would go up to 20 inch wide media. However, I understand that in doing so the printer would be even bigger than it already is and it would detract from the 7600's print range more so than it already has (this thing is huge for a desktop. Expect lot's of room to be taken up). Overall I can't recommend this printer enough to everyone that fits in the field of need for something like it. Honestly I just don't feel there is anything else on the market that can truly compete with it in versitility, quality and price.
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2005
|
|
msavin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 3, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 591
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
it is fast, produces highly detailed prints at 1440, large and larger ink cartridges that it shares with the larger printers. excellent paper tray function. the stand is roomy and looks good too.
|
|
Cons:
|
big but not anywhere near as big as my 7600.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2005
|
|
|
