Eric Stevens
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:44:23 -0500, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:

PeterN
On 12/2/2013 7:57 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:23:24 -0500, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:

PeterN
On 12/2/2013 3:25 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 20:37:46 -0500, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:

PeterN
On 12/1/2013 5:22 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 14:17:19 -0500, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:

PeterN
On 12/1/2013 3:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson
PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:

PeterN
An Epson salesman told me that since I print about ten prints a month, and do not do large format printing, it would be silly for me to get anything larger than the 3880.

Floyd L. Davidson
I think you talked to a really good salesman... who was able to determine that you didn't like the idea of the bigger printers and were suseptable to exactly what he said. Sharp guy, and probably does very well in sales.

The 4880 and 4900 don't make larger prints than the 3880, so the "large format printing" hasn't a lot to do with it. The ten prints a month does though, as that is not really enough ink usage to be an economic advantage.

The 3880 is less hassle with clogging than any other wide format Epson.

But, it doesn't do roll paper, doesn't use vacuum assisted paper transport, and just isn't the rock solid piece of machinery the other 17" printers are.

So frankly it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. For overall less hassle, the 3880 probably is a better choice for you! But it is also true that ten prints a month is enough to keep a 4880 from ever clogging up, and it is just so much nicer to use. But it also costs an arm and a leg to switch MK to PK inks, and the paper cutter isn't sturdy enough for canvas. So the even more expensive 4900 is really the only other option.

PeterN
Unless something has changed, because the 4900 comes with about 1k worth of ink and the others come with starter cartridges, the cost of the 4900 is less than the 3880.

Eric Stevens
If you leave the ink out of it?

PeterN
Can yo print on those printers without ink.

Eric Stevens
No, but I can calculate costs.

PeterN
If you do not include the cost of ink, the calculation cannot be correct.

Eric Stevens
Then how do you arrive at the conclusion that the 4900 costs less than the 3800/3880?

PeterN
As I said, the purchase price includes 1k worth of ink. The others come with a minimal ink supply. To compare on an equal basis subtract 1k from the purchase price.

Eric Stevens
Oh, I thought you were leaving ink out entirely.

They all come with one set of ink cartridges which have been partly depleted by the need to fill the system for the first time. Th $/ml for the 4900 is less than for the other two so the first charge costs less than it does for the others.