Is a large printer worth it?

[D-50]

I am toying with the idea of getting a print such s the Epson Stylus 4000. Although I wonder is it worth it. Are the prints that come off this printer better quality than the ones I would get at Staples copy center? In your opinion shoudl I just keep going to staples or get a better printer I currently have a Epson Photo printer which I think makes great photos but I can only do 8.5x11 at the largest. Would it be worth it to go to a better printing shop than staples and pay more for someone else to print my photos

 

[D-50]

I currently have an Epson Photo Stylus R300. and feel the prints are good quality, however when i had my Olympus Cameida C5000 I thought those pictures were solid as well, Once I got my DSLR I could see a drastic difference in the photo quality. Will I see a similar difference in quality between an Epson R300 and an Epson 4000 when I print?

 

[Mr_Jones]

I have a Canon i9900 and it's absolutely amazing. Easily the best printer I've ever had and it prints up to 13x19 to boot.

 

[usayit]

Hell yah... Epson 2200 here. Prints are really impressive...

 

[markc]

I have a 1280 but don't use Epson inks. I love being able to print on 13x19 though. I'd love to have larger, but this will at least do. I couldn't have just 8.5x11. As far as printing elsewhere, I've tried that and it's why I own my own printer. Others have had better luck outsourcing.

 

[JonK]

somebody selling a epson 4000 here:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43600

 

[Alpha]

2200 is the way to go if you're doing color shots. It produces acceptable black and white, but with a fair bit of metamerism using stock inks in combination with any paper. If you're doing b&w only, I'd say go dedicated b&w epson with black-only inks.

 

[usayit]

Previous pigment epson inks did show a lot of metamerism... but... I don't agree with MaxBloom...

2200 will produce great color and B&W prints on matt papers. I must be blind but I see little to no metamerism. This is assuming matt papers with the matt black ink cartridge. This is primarily the printing I do and prefer for mounting behind glass. The B&W prints produced from the 2200 is more than just "acceptable". Its pretty darn good with its dedicated matt black and light black ink cartridges... thus a "dedicated" B&W ink set.

On glossy or luster type papers, the 2200 does exhibit a little metamerism. Color on these papers would probably be best produced on the newer printers.. ex. R1800 which handle metamerism a bit better. Not saying that they are bad... in fact .. still more than acceptable in my opinion.

On the other hand, I liked the B&W matt prints from the 2200 than the R1800. I attribute this mostly due to the fact that the R1800 does not have a dedicate B&W inkset.. just a matt black catridge.

So for color shots ( on glossy especially ), go with something using the newer ink set. For B&W ( on matt especially ), the 2200 does really well.

a bit opposite to MaxBlooms opinion...

there are better epson printers out there.. but higher end printers require a much much higher cost of admission. The epson 4000 for example was listed in the range of 1800-2000 USD when sold new. Not sure... but iirc, the 4000 printer used the same/similar inkset to the 2200. If you can afford it ( 2000 USD )... go with the 4800... newer ink set.. B&W ink set has 3.