Thiking of Epson 3880

I am thinking of switching from Canon i9900 which I am still very happy with to the above mentioned Epson. There are two reasons why I want to switch. One... I think epson will have better ink consumption and Two.... I want to be able to print larger prints.

I am confused about one thing here... Epson can print 17 wide prints... but is it limited to length or would I be able to get a 17x25 print out of that? Also can it actually print 17" wide or it doesn't do borderless? 

So for those who have a lot of experience with the printer:
#1. What is the largest actual print size I can get out of it?
#2. How is your ink consumption?

Thank you.

You can print a full 17"x 25"(borderless)on the 3880. I don't own a 3880, but I do have the 7900 and the 4880 (same inks as 3880) and my personal opinion is that the ink consumption on all the Epson pro printers is excellent.

The maximum length on an Epson 3800/3880 is 35 inches so 17x35 is the largest (you have to manually set that up but it's easy)

Ohhh ok my main thing was printing at full 17" wide. The 35" long also helps a lot. Thank you guys.

The Epson 3880 is a fantastic printer and would be a measurable step forward for you, Tom. However I wouldn't say ink consumption (as such) would be a reason to switch; there are a lot of variables in how the different printing engines lay down inks based on the same image, but in the end I'd expect it to be roughly a wash between them. Maybe over the course of many thousands of prints, the amount of ink consumed per page would add up in favor of one or the other, but it would be difficult to judge; I've seen very little comparative ink usage info, and never any on models like the i9900.

Taking a slightly different slant, however, ink economics could be in your favor after the switch. The 3880 uses much larger ink cartridges than your current Canon i9900 -- 80ml (about $51 @ B&H) vs. 14ml (about $12 @ B&H). So even if ink usage is a wash between the two models, ink is cheaper when purchased & used in a larger volume per cartridge. This is why, back when I was deciding to get off my Canon i9900 and Epson 2400 13" models, I decided to go with the Epson 4880 instead of the 3880. Though I've lately also picked up a 3880 to use for a specialized purpose with an after-market ink kit, the 4880's ink cartridges are even larger @ 220ml and therefore even more cost effective than the 3880 cartridges. Compared to the tiny cartridges in my old 13" printer models, the bigger printers are far cheaper to run in terms of ink cost.

So depending on how much you print, you may in fact want to consider the Epson 4880 or 4900 -- the ink economics could pay for the slightly larger cost of the base printer model itself.

Mostly though, making the switch would be about the prints you can make. Faster print speed, larger sizes & range of media supported, better-looking prints (in my opinion) from a superior ink set, more off-the-shelf support for ICC profiles with a variety of papers you may want to try, better longevity of prints (Epson pigment ink vs. Canon dye), etc.

The other guys have responded on the size issue already. Using the standard Epson printer driver with normal printing apps, the maximum paper size supported would be in fact 17 x 37.5. 17 x 25 sheets aren't that common, unless you cut your own from roll stock. 17 x 22 is much more common but is an odd size; I personally wish more manufacturers would put out a 17 x 25 cut sheet because I like that size a lot.

It's possible to get past the Epson driver's 35 inch length limitation if you print with a more specialized app like Qimage (Windows only) or a high-end RIP like ImagePrint. The Epson 3880 doesn't have roll media support (another advantage of the 4880 / 4900 models), but some folks do cut much longer panoramic sheets and feed them carefully through the 3880, printing with one of the apps that isn't limited to the native driver length.

You ask about borderless, though, so it's worth noting that if you print through the standard Epson driver, there are limitations on the paper sizes you can select if you're also using borderless at the same time. The driver will not let you arbitrarily pick different combinations of width & length in borderless mode. Again, Qimage can get around some of these limitations; even though it prints through the Epson driver it gives a lot more control over laying out the print than do virtually all other standard printing apps that rely on the driver. Qimage can hijack the print process in a way that compensates for some lay-out shortcomings of other apps like Photoshop or Lightroom.

You don't say what operating system you're running or what app you're printing from. But if you're printing from Windows and don't use Qimage already, I'd highly suggest looking at it as part of the upgrade package... it's not expensive at all compared to so much of what we spend our cash on, and it unlocks a much more powerful range of printing control which is useful with the larger format pro printers.

Actually, Red River makes a number of 17x25 sheet papers and Moab has at least a couple of 17x25 papers

Royce, thank you for that. I am on W7 and use CS6 for printing.

Tom, in that case I'd definitely recommend checking out Qimage for printing. I think you'll see an improvement in the quality of prints, as well as getting more control over size, layout, etc. The app is best described as "quirky" in terms of its user interface but I'm totally convinced it's worth the modest effort to learn how to use it. Search past discussions in this forum for "qimage" to see my thoughts on why...

Thank you all. Once I am out of ink in my current printer (and I do have one more 8 pack left) I will be picking up the Epson. Royce I will look into Qimage and the benefits and most likely bug you about this again.

I have been using the Canon 9xxx's since ~2000 (latest is the i9900), I use the OEM carts with OCP inks, my refill cost is $0.25 per cart. I purchased a 3880 2 yrs ago and use Jon Cone carts and inks. My refill costs are ~$10 per cart.
My print quality for both printers is excellent, B&W or Color. My printing is not for pro sales, but for Camera club competitions and display. The 3880 B&W's have received many awards, I am a fervent supporter of high quality 3rd party inks not so much for their considerably lesser cost but because I cannot support or condone the egregiously outrageous price charged by Epson, Canon, HP and the other vendors. There is NO reason that the ink we use should sell for more 2X the cost of human blood!!!

I highly recommend Qimage and hiQ 3rd party inks--the $$$ savings from the ink will more than payback for Qimage AND a ColorMunki to profile your image processing from monitor to finished print!!

irv weiner

irvweiner wrote: I am a fervent supporter of high quality 3rd party inks not so much for their considerably lesser cost but because I cannot support or condone the egregiously outrageous price charged by Epson, Canon, HP and the other vendors. There is NO reason that the ink we use should sell for more 2X the cost of human blood!!!

irv weiner

Sure there is   It's because they actually sell the printers at a loss and use inks as the profit maker.  Any printer manufacturer marketeer will tell you that behind closed doors after a couple of drinks.  If you want Epson, Canon, HP to charge half or less for their inks, they would have to double the price of the printers or go out of business.

I used Canon printers for a long time, then switched to the HP B9180 simply because I could not stand the problems with getting the right printer profiles, even with custom ordered ones. The only paper that would work was Canon's own stuff. I used third party inks, even had a continuous infusion system installed with inks in bottles etc. None of that really worked to my satisfaction. The HP was so much better, esp with BW prints, could use almost any paper. The only problem was terrible hardware quality. Under an extended warranty I had the printer replaced four times in five years, finally giving up altogether.

Ended up with Epson, a 3880 and a 9900. Superb quality, can use cheap paper from Costco for proofing, easy to profile (except lately) and minimal clogging. Yes, the inks are expensive, but so is everything that is good in life. Learned that to get really good quality you need to pay good money, applies to everything I've seen so far. After my experience with Canon 3rd party inks, I am very reluctant to try it again with Epson.

I am also a big fan of QImage, have used it for over 10 yrs, now run in via Fusion on my Mac. The ultimate edition does add extra capabilities. Best quality prints you can get, the colors simply pop, the sharpness is better than from Aperture or CS6, there is some strange alchemy going on there Worth every penny.

Pradeep

As you said about everything good in life being expensive, same for third party inks. I recently switched to Jon Cone inks for my Epson printer and I am VERY pleased. I tried 3rd party inks years ago for a different Epson printer and was not happy, but then I just went with the cheapest out there. Jon has spent a lot of time doing his due diligence to make a high quality product, and it shows.
The inks are so much like Epson's that you can switch out specific carts and not others and you'd never know it by the prints. The same ICC profiles made for Epson inks work interchangeably with Cone Color inks.

No affiliation with Cone Color Inks, just a very satisfied customer.

Randy Mehoves wrote:As you said about everything good in life being expensive, same for third party inks. I recently switched to Jon Cone inks for my Epson printer and I am VERY pleased. I tried 3rd party inks years ago for a different Epson printer and was not happy, but then I just went with the cheapest out there. Jon has spent a lot of time doing his due diligence to make a high quality product, and it shows.
The inks are so much like Epson's that you can switch out specific carts and not others and you'd never know it by the prints. The same ICC profiles made for Epson inks work interchangeably with Cone Color inks.

No affiliation with Cone Color Inks, just a very satisfied customer.

Randy thank you for your experience with third party inks. After reading your post I did look at the Cone Color and Inkjetfly inks, read all the reviews and comparisons. It is possible that the IJF inks may be actually better. However I am a bit reluctant to go back to the world of syringes, refill bottles, spills, leaky cartridges and all that. I don't print that much on the 3880 either. I do the large ones on the 9900. I have also had some images printed by a company in CA in  sandwich mounts - Fuji crystal archive prints in perspex - which are in a completely different league.

Thanks though, at least there is another option out there to consider. I suppose if I were to do a large volume it would make a lot more sense.

Pradeep

So with my i9900 quitting and me not wanting to play repair games, I am now an owner of 3880. I did one 11x17 and one 13x19 prints last night on Ilford papers (pear and GFS) and WOW. Jaw dropping. Love it. Going to try printing from Qimage next and try 17x25 paper. That should make for nice prints.

I thought you might like it, Tom. We seem to have to spend a lot of time these days fighting with hardware or software, but I'm glad you're back to printing again...

Tom Cudzilo wrote:So with my i9900 quitting and me not wanting to play repair games, I am now an owner of 3880. I did one 11x17 and one 13x19 prints last night on Ilford papers (pear and GFS) and WOW. Jaw dropping. Love it. Going to try printing from Qimage next and try 17x25 paper. That should make for nice prints.

Tom your jaw will drop some more when you use QImage.  I have tried every possible tweak with CS6 and Aperture and yet when compared side by side QImage still blows it away. The prints are sharper, more contrasty, colors more vivid and accurate and to flog a cliche`, the picture simply pops off the page.

Anybody who has used QImage will find it very hard to print without it. The ease of batch printing in particular, adjusting the image if the paper is odd -sized (like getting the subject dead center when the original image is a 4x6 ratio while the paper is 8.5X11) is unparalleled. 

The only problem is that if you are a Mac user you need to run windows in a shell with Fusion or Parallels. Mike Chaney simply will not do a Mac version, believes there are not enough users out there to make it worth his while. I wish he would though, because people are really missing out on a great product.

Pradeep

I just got free trial of Qimage and since so many rave about it I want to see what its all about. Stay tuned for more questions haha