On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Adam Maas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm, I'm seeing somewhat different numbers, about 15-25% actually > based on those prices (3800 at 80ml for $59.99 is about $0.75/ml, > R2400 at 11.5ml is right around $1/ml, 13ml is at 0.90/ml, I've seen > both capacities quoted for the R2400 carts, some claim 15ml but I'm > pretty sure that's too high if the refillers can only get 13ml into a > cartridge)
I've seen numbers for the R2400 carts all over the map, from 11 to 18 ml. It's hard to figure based on the variability of the numbers ... what the third party ink refillers manage to stuff in isn't relevant as I don't know their refill process and how that affects the amount they can put into an ink cart that was not designed for refilling. Another metric is that I know I get about 75 A3 prints out of a full round of ink carts, on average, with Epson Enhanced Matte paper, and about 65 with Velvet Fine Art. Local colleagues and friends using the R3800 get and average of about 5x those numbers on the same papers. That says ~15ml for the R2400 if the 80ml number is viable for the R3800. Who knows? If that's a valid baseline, it's about $0.75/ml for the R3880 and about $0.78/ml for the R2400. That's about a 4.5% difference there, and another point percentage gain from the greater efficiency through fewer cart changes/cleaning cycles seems right. > Note I'm just doing the numbers here for anybody else who's interested (like > Paul) Same here. There's no question the R3880 is a more economical printer than the R2400 to operate IF you're doing enough printing. The question is how much is enough. The advantage for a low-volume printer is that you can do 17x22 inch cut sheet, and gang-print if you're making smaller sized prints for a larger net savings on paper costs. All kinds of ways to cut this up. Again, I haven't really done the cost analysis for the 4000 series vs the R3800. I do wish the R3800 had been released a couple of months earlier as I'd have gone with that rather than the R2400. I wanted the 4000 when I bought the R2400 but the price differential and the space required to operate it efficiently was overwhelming > As to space, the 4880's designed for use on a stand and connectivity > via ethernet so it's a lot easier to find a place for than the > deskridden smaller printers. LOL ... No way I can fit a 24x32x10 inch R2400 printer (that's the printer with the paper tray and sheet feeder supports deployed) on my desk! You must have a bigger desk than I ... :-) I have a cabinet dedicated for the R2400 which is 28wx25dx30h inches. The printer is connected to the computer with a 7' FW400 cable, or I can network it via the Airport Extreme base station and USB 2.0. That *almost* nets enough space to operate the thick-stock pass through feed without pulling it away from the wall a few inches, with the paper tray deployed and hanging over the front of the cabinet, and does fit the sheet feeder and rear single sheet feeder. The R4880 cabinet is a similar width and height, but 10-12 inches deeper ... and you need to have another 15-20" space behind it to operate the pass through feed. That's a lot of floor space in my 8x11 foot office: I'm jammed to the gills already in here. (When I measured out how Brooks Jensen has his R4880s set up at LensWork in Anacortes, I see that he's dedicated about a 5x6 foot section of floor space for each of the R4880s. That's effectively half my office for one of them ...) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
