Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/11/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Worse than counting the cost of media . . . on our 3880 here at work I installed a software crack and a little internal receptacle that collects all the waste ink that gets used when the printer cleans, cycles etc. itself. Why? So I could measure it, of course. Results: terrifying. Even if you use the printer a lot, I estimate you'll only ever use a maximum of 75% of the ink on prints. if you don't do much printing it gets even worse as a %. But then, unless you're a real master, you probably end up throwing away half the silver paper you ever bought, so maybe it's not so scary, except that digital was supposed to 'fix' things liek that... Marty On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> wrote: > Fair enough Howard. I have no personal experience with the newest models at > all (nor the other brands). I am happy with the output from my 3800, but if > you are willing to spend whatever extra, why not? I suggest that you take > into account the value of the included inks when you compare pricing too. > For example with the 3800 the set of full size (80ml) ctgs included > represents around half the price of the unit (on replacement values) > ?Also in my experience individual cartridges have lasted much longer than > that 6 months suggestion. You will find that you consume them at quite > different rates, dependent on your content naturally. For example my Matt > Black (MK) was in the machine for over twelve months until I did a bunch of > prints using that one, although I needed to do some unclogging of that one > by the end since it has been almost completely idle for the year. C & M > might last twice or more as long as the light ones and blacks in my > printing > too. > > Also, with any of these pigment printers you really need to exercise them > regularly to reduce necessary cleaning cycles (wasting some ink) too. > Really > you ought to be thinking in terms of how many prints you will cover your > walls with and fill albums, not how long the ctgs will last if you don't > use > the printer a lot. But try not to add up what all of those large sheets of > fine art media cost ?;-) > > > Cheers > Geoff > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > > On 29 November 2010 12:02, Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net> wrote: > >> Thanks, Geoff. I don't need the roll capability, so the reasons for me to >> get the 4900 would be the improvement resulting from the HDR inks and the >> special heads. Problem is, I don't have any way of telling how important >> I'd >> find this difference. The Luminous Landscape 7900 review suggested that >> the >> difference is substantial. >> >> ?howard >> >> >> On Nov 28, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote: >> >> > My two cents is to stick to Epson and get the 3880 unless you really >> desire >> > the roll capability. Spend the difference on media and ink. Which ever >> you >> > get you need to learn it and use it regularly ?to get the best from it. >> > A least in my history with the 3800, I very very seldom actually print >> > larger than A3+. Still if you were a pano kind of guy......... >> > >> > Cheers >> > Geoff >> > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information