View Full Version : Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400
The Epson Stylus Photo 1400 features fast connectivity, six individual ink cartridges with Epson Claria Photographic Ink and advanced Epson imaging technologies. It prints high-quality, glossy photos up to A3+.
More... (http://dpnow.com/3365.html)
The Epson Stylus Photo 1400 features fast connectivity, six individual ink cartridges with Epson Claria Photographic Ink and advanced Epson imaging technologies. It prints high-quality, glossy photos up to A3+.
More... (http://dpnow.com/3365.html)
Once again it shares the same chassis as the Stylus R2400 and R1800. It uses Epson's latest generation Claria dye inks (claimed 200 year life when stored in an airtight album) and is priced £229.
Opinions anyone?
Ian
Josh Bear
08-01-07, 07:07 PM
I have a R1800 and the price saving on a r1400 looks very attractive for those wantng to move into larger prints. I would like to see a comparison of prints though.
Best regards
josh
I have a R1800 and the price saving on a r1400 looks very attractive for those wantng to move into larger prints. I would like to see a comparison of prints though.
Best regards
josh
The main attraction of dye-based inks would be no bronzing, no metamerism and a better gloss finish on microporous papers. Traditionally, dye-based printers have a wider gamut. But the R1800 is very wide for pigment ink printer.
The sample pictures I have seen from ther R1400 are very good indeed.
Ian
Josh Bear
08-01-07, 09:12 PM
I notice it only has one black rather than matte and photo like the r1800, won't this effect photo printing?
As regards bronzing, I don't really notice at all with any of my prints. I guess it may be one of those things where you need to compare prints with an alternative printer to see.
Best Regards
Josh
Epson is basically saying that they aren't aiming the R1400 at pros that require matte surface printing. This is a consumer printer.
Ian
Sorry folks, the Epson Stylus R1400 press release we originally received from Epson UK stated the price to be £229.99, but a corrected price of £299.99 was issued today.
Ian
Josh Bear
09-01-07, 06:33 PM
Isn't that only £30 cheaper than the R1800? In which case the R1800 would be the one to choose (extra ink colours) unless on a really tight budget.
Best regards
Josh
Isn't that only £30 cheaper than the R1800? In which case the R1800 would be the one to choose (extra ink colours) unless on a really tight budget.
Best regards
Josh
I noticed the same thing. Who's going to buy the 1400? For £30 extra you can get the R1800 which features pigment inks (so it's archival on more than just a couple of papers) and has roll paper support (unlike the 1400). There's lots of talk about the A4 Claria printers being ink-hogs and if the 1400 follows the same line, the R1800 would probably appeal on running-cost grounds as well.
However, if you look into it, the logic becomes clear...
On other press releases, the price is shown for the US and the UK. The US price is $399 so, at today's exchange rates, the UK price should be £205+VAT - which is round about the £230 that was originally quoted. Clearly the £230 price is what UK customers *should* be charged, but Epson need to factor in their "locational discrimination fee" and so continue their trend to "rip off Britain". Hence, the price jumps by 25% in order to support this discrimination policy.
The Epson 1290S is currently selling for £199 - so I can see people panic-buying the 1290 before the overpriced 1400 wipes it off the market.
£205 + 17.5% VAT is £241, not £230.
The guide prices for the R1400 and R1800 are £100 apart, not £30.
Although some outlets will advertise the R1400 at £299, it's more than likely to sell for significantly less - in fact I believe the discount price for an R1400 will be closer to £230 than £299. The £30 or so difference over a 1290 is well worth it - if you don't need roll paper support. Benefits include faster printing and later generation inks.
Interestingly the manufacturer guide price for the R1800 in the US is $549, compared to $399 for the R1400, a difference of 38%. In the UK the R1400 price is £255 + VAT and the R1800 is £340 + VAT, a difference of 33%.
If you need to print on matt papers, the R1800 is unquestionably the better choice, but if you only want to print on microporous glossy or semi-gloss type papers, e.g. Epson Premium Glossy, ignoring running costs (which I think it's too early to make a judgement on) the R1400 looks the better bet. I, personally, don't think the gloss optimiser on the R1800 is particularly good. Although it does give a consistent shiny finish, it doesn't cure pigment ink bronzing and it has an odd, plastic top layer, appearance, a bit like dye-sub prints. Just my personal opinion of course.
Ian
£205 + 17.5% VAT is £241, not £230.
It's still closer to £230 than £300.
Although some outlets will advertise the R1400 at £299, it's more than likely to sell for significantly less - in fact I believe the discount price for an R1400 will be closer to £230 than £299. The £30 or so difference over a 1290 is well worth it - if you don't need roll paper support. Benefits include faster printing and later generation inks.
So why quote an RRP if it's not going to be the selling price?
Prices currently are:
£319 for R1800 (Amazon.co.uk)
£299 for R1400 (RRP Press Release)
£199 for 1290S (Amazon.co.uk)
By announcing the price at £300 for the 1400, no one's going to buy it in favour of the other two printers. So why not have the RRP at £230 as originally announced, if that's what the street price will probably be anyway?
Sounds daft to me.
Interestingly the manufacturer guide price for the R1800 in the US is $549, compared to $399 for the R1400, a difference of 38%. In the UK the R1400 price is £255 + VAT and the R1800 is £340 + VAT, a difference of 33%.
The price of the R1800 at $549 in the US works out to £281+VAT in the UK, or £330 - which is what Amazon are selling it for.
The price of the 1400 at $399 in the US is £205+VAT in the UK, or £241 - which is what it should be sold for.
So why are Epson putting such high RRP on printers that they clearly won't sell for? As I said, it's barmy if all it's going to do is put off potential customers.
If you need to print on matt papers, the R1800 is unquestionably the better choice, but if you only want to print on microporous glossy or semi-gloss type papers, e.g. Epson Premium Glossy, ignoring running costs (which I think it's too early to make a judgement on) the R1400 looks the better bet.
It's interesting that your view differs with most other people's. The general consensus is that the R1800 is not the printer for matt papers, for that there's the R2400, but that it is the printer for glossy papers.
You're saying that a printer with an ink set purposefully designed for gloss prints (hence the name "Ultrachrome Hi-Gloss") shouldn't be used for gloss prints?
I, personally, don't think the gloss optimiser on the R1800 is particularly good. Although it does give a consistent shiny finish, it doesn't cure pigment ink bronzing and it has an odd, plastic top layer, appearance, a bit like dye-sub prints. Just my personal opinion of course.
So you don't like any of Epson's pigment printers then? Any "plastic top layer" is the same whether using the R1800 or the R2400 given that the gloss optimiser is only used in areas of little-to-no-ink on the R1800.
Personally, I think it's odd that Epson pushed pigment for many years to the detriment of it's dye-based printers and now suddenly they're saying dye-based printers are better. It's like HP pushing dye-based Vivera for many years and are now suddenly saying that pigment-based Vivera is better.
These manufacturers just can't make their minds up - well, except when it comes to releasing new models for no readily apparent reason except to make more money out of the punter.
It's my view that the 1400 is being released for the sole purpose that the 1290 has been around for so long. Effectively, the 1290 doesn't need replacing because if you want a better printer, there's the R1800. The 1290 is a good economical first step into decent 13" printing, particularly for under £200. The 1400 is change for change's sake.
It's still closer to £230 than £300.
So why quote an RRP if it's not going to be the selling price?
I'm sure you actually accept it's what everyone does. Some outlets (like Jessops, for example) price up the R1800 at the full RRP (£399) but they will price match their competitors. If they aren't challenged by a buyer, they will sell it for the full price. The going rate for a mail order discount deal is £320, though there might be postage on top of that.
Prices currently are:
£319 for R1800 (Amazon.co.uk)
£299 for R1400 (RRP Press Release)
£199 for 1290S (Amazon.co.uk)
If the R1400 is in short supply, early adopters may well have to accept a premium price, but that's their choice. If supplies are plentiful, the price will surely be discounted, just as the R1800 one has, so the comparison above is not really that useful.
By announcing the price at £300 for the 1400, no one's going to buy it in favour of the other two printers. So why not have the RRP at £230 as originally announced, if that's what the street price will probably be anyway?
Sounds daft to me.
Sure you wouldn't buy it, but there are lots of people not like you who will.
The price of the R1800 at $549 in the US works out to £281+VAT in the UK, or £330 - which is what Amazon are selling it for.
The price of the 1400 at $399 in the US is £205+VAT in the UK, or £241 - which is what it should be sold for.
So why are Epson putting such high RRP on printers that they clearly won't sell for? As I said, it's barmy if all it's going to do is put off potential customers.
In a sense RRPs, as they used to be a long time, are now illegal. Companies now issue guide prices. But a supplier is legally free to charge any price. Guide prices are used in just the same way in the US as they are here and the prices are discounted too, of course.
It's interesting that your view differs with most other people's. The general consensus is that the R1800 is not the printer for matt papers, for that there's the R2400, but that it is the printer for glossy papers.
You're saying that a printer with an ink set purposefully designed for gloss prints (hence the name "Ultrachrome Hi-Gloss") shouldn't be used for gloss prints?
So you don't like any of Epson's pigment printers then? Any "plastic top layer" is the same whether using the R1800 or the R2400 given that the gloss optimiser is only used in areas of little-to-no-ink on the R1800.
I think you are having some fun with my words :) I was only comparing the R1400 with the R1800. My personal opinion is that the R2400 is better for matt papers, but the R1800 is undoubtedly better than an R1400 for matt papers.
Why do you assume I don't like Epson pigment printers? I think both the R1800 and R2400 are splendid printers. I'm just not that impressed by the R1800's gloss optimiser. It doesn't mean the R1800 is a bad printer, just that I'd probbaly not use the gloss optimiser very much.
On papers like, for example, Epson Premium Glossy, Canon Photo Paper Pro or Plus, Jessops 160gsm glossy (or the similar Olmec glossy), the new Kodak Ultra Premium instant dry, Ilford Printasia, Fujifilm MultiJet glossy - or any other decent quality glossy microporous paper, when printed properly using dye-based inks you get a much cleaner and more attractive finish than with the R1800, with or without the gloss optimiser. By the way, the R2400 is no better. In my opiinion, HP's implementation of gloss-optimised pigment ink printing is better than the R1800's, though they don't offer it on the consumer B9180 printer.
Personally, I think it's odd that Epson pushed pigment for many years to the detriment of it's dye-based printers and now suddenly they're saying dye-based printers are better. It's like HP pushing dye-based Vivera for many years and are now suddenly saying that pigment-based Vivera is better.
These manufacturers just can't make their minds up - well, except when it comes to releasing new models for no readily apparent reason except to make more money out of the punter.
Your statement is actually completely wrong. Both HP and Epson understand that the market is not 100% for dyes or 100% for pigments. I also disagree that Epson (or HP for that matter) has developed pigment inks to any detriment to their dye-based inks. In fact dyes from some manufacturers, including Epson, have come along in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years. They are now water resistant and their fade resistance has been improved dramatically.
It's my view that the 1400 is being released for the sole purpose that the 1290 has been around for so long. Effectively, the 1290 doesn't need replacing because if you want a better printer, there's the R1800. The 1290 is a good economical first step into decent 13" printing, particularly for under £200. The 1400 is change for change's sake.
Nonsense, the 1290 is a very old design - fundamentally 6 years, in fact. Epson has a much better and faster print head in the new R1400, the ergonomics of the R1400 are much better, it has separate ink tanks, which is what people want and the Claria inks are much improved. That's all on paper of course. Maybe the R1400 will turn out to be a lemon - who knows? But when was the last time Epson produced a lemon?
Ian
I'm sure you actually accept it's what everyone does. Some outlets (like Jessops, for example) price up the R1800 at the full RRP (£399) but they will price match their competitors. If they aren't challenged by a buyer, they will sell it for the full price. The going rate for a mail order discount deal is £320, though there might be postage on top of that.
In that case, Epson should announce the original £230 and let Jessops sell them for £299 if they wish - then Jessops would be seen as the money-grabbers, not Epson. ;)
If the R1400 is in short supply, early adopters may well have to accept a premium price, but that's their choice. If supplies are plentiful, the price will surely be discounted, just as the R1800 one has, so the comparison above is not really that useful.
But like the 3800, the high price charged to UK customers will ensure that it won't be in short supply outside the US. US customers get the "discounted price" from day one. We don't. If that's meant to be fair, I give up. :rolleyes:
Sure you wouldn't buy it, but there are lots of people not like you who will.
Well, I have two Epson 1290S printers here - so I may surprise you! :D
Why do you assume I don't like Epson pigment printers? I think both the R1800 and R2400 are splendid printers. I'm just not that impressed by the R1800's gloss optimiser. It doesn't mean the R1800 is a bad printer, just that I'd probbaly not use the gloss optimiser very much.
I was just going by what you said, that you don't like the gloss finish. The finish from the R2400 is virtually the the same as the finish from the R1800 on gloss prints, so if you don't like one you wouldn't like them all. Or have I misunderstood entirely and it's just that you're picking on the R1800 like most people do purely on the grounds that "it's not K3 like the pros use"?
On papers like, for example, Epson Premium Glossy, Canon Photo Paper Pro or Plus, Jessops 160gsm glossy (or the similar Olmec glossy), the new Kodak Ultra Premium instant dry, Ilford Printasia, Fujifilm MultiJet glossy - or any other decent quality glossy microporous paper, when printed properly using dye-based inks you get a much cleaner and more attractive finish than with the R1800, with or without the gloss optimiser. By the way, the R2400 is no better.
Perhaps, but that's in the perception of the user, it's not a fact. I have glossy prints from the R1800 and the 1290S on Epson Premium paper, and I don't dislike either. I wouldn't favour one over the other. The dye ink inherits the texture of the paper, the gloss optimiser produces a smooth almost mirror-like surface. Both are appealing, IMHO. The advantage I find with the R1800 is that you get the same gloss finish almost regardless of which glossy paper you use, whereas a dye-based ink's gloss is dependent on the paper - so you'll rarely get the same gloss finish on two different gloss papers.
In my opiinion, HP's implementation of gloss-optimised pigment ink printing is better than the R1800's, though they don't offer it on the consumer B9180 printer.
I keep hearing about that, and I'm intrigued. It does seem a little silly that HP think it's so great yet they won't put it on their affordable printers. Kind of like saying that the target market for the B9180 are the less descerning amateurs who don't want to print gloss.
Your statement is actually completely wrong. Both HP and Epson understand that the market is not 100% for dyes or 100% for pigments. I also disagree that Epson (or HP for that matter) has developed pigment inks to any detriment to their dye-based inks. In fact dyes from some manufacturers, including Epson, have come along in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years.
I just go by what I see. For some years now, Epson's printers have been pigment - Ultrachrome for pros, Durabrite for consumers. They had practically abandoned dye printers altogether. They convinced everyone that the longevity and durability of pigments was king, and they added extra inks to combat colour gamut problems and introduced gloss optimisers to overcome gloss differential.
Now, they're suddenly abandoning consumer-grade pigments (Durabrite) because they have a new dye ink to sell. Clearly they're now saying "dye isn't so bad after all".
Look at HP. While Epson were banging on about pigments producing fade resistant prints, HP introduced Vivera-dye which (on one paper type) could exhibit fade resistance that'd challenge any pigment.
Then, suddenly, HP have a pigment printer. "Vivera-dye" gets side-stepped, along comes "Vivera-pigment". Clearly they're now saying "pigment isn't so bad after all".
Is it my fault that these manufacturers change with the wind?
They are now water resistant and their fade resistance has been improved dramatically.
We had water resistant dye inks before Claria came along. The 1290 will do it for you on Epson premium glossy photo paper. And before Epson abandoned ColorLife, you could have a half-decent fade resistant dye print. Claria has invented nothing new, it's just widened the goalposts.
Nonsense, the 1290 is a very old design - fundamentally 6 years, in fact.
Yes, and the reason it's so old is because nothing has come along to better it. If it was really that bad, it wouldn't have lasted 6 months - never mind still being a popular printer 6 years later. The 1290 has a surprising legacy that very few other printers can claim. The 1400 just doesn't seem to be anything all that radical to replace it.
Epson has a much better and faster print head in the new R1400, the ergonomics of the R1400 are much better, it has separate ink tanks, which is what people want and the Claria inks are much improved. That's all on paper of course. Maybe the R1400 will turn out to be a lemon - who knows? But when was the last time Epson produced a lemon?
People want separate ink tanks because this is what they've been brainwashed into thinking this way. Actually people want cheaper running costs. Separate ink tanks, particularly in an Epson, is not the way to achieve it. Change one "separate ink tank" and all of them get purged, wasting a bucketload of ink and ensuring the waste pad fills up quicker.
Ask if the customer wants separate inks "because when the cyan runs out you only have to replace the cyan" and they'll say "yes"; ask if the customer wants separate inks "and when you replace one, all the others will waste a couple of ml through charging" and they'll say "no".
Epson want separate inks, the customer just thinks they want separate inks. The CMYKRB single-ink cartridge Picturemate produces cheaper prints than my CMYKRB separate-ink cartridge R1800.
According to my colleagues in the trade, there is a very healthy demand for 3800s. That's not to say I endorse the US/Europe price difference, but it does point to your cynicism over Epson's marketing being foolhardy as incorrect.
You are accusing HP, Epson and probably others of changing their ink technologies at a whim, abandoning dye in favour of pigment and vice versa. This notion is perfectly ridiculous and I think you know it. The truth is that there is no perfect solution for all sectors of the market. Epson has been the best positioned to serve all the different demands, though through different platforms. Canon is stuck at dye-based only, while HP has decided that Epson's strategy of dyes and pigments is one to be copied. Lexmark has, rather cunningly, mixed pigemnts and dyes!
Of course Epson hasn't (ever) abandoned dye-based printers. There have been just as many dye-based printer models as pigment ink ones. Epson is simply satisfying the market demand for the different technologies. It's called customer 'choice'.
Epson ColorLife is a swellable polymer surface paper and so you can't get a very good glossy finish and though the ink is protected from fading, the surface isn't resistant to physical damage.
Epson has a policy of continuing to manufacture models that have sustained demand. The 1200-series is far from unique. However, Epson does review most if its printer models each year, mainly at the sharp end of the consumer sector, just like any other printer manufacturer. For example, all of the 2005/2006 PictureMate models are now obsolete.
Canon pioneered single colour ink tanks in consumer printers. Epson simply responded to Canon's lead. If Epson 'wants' us all to use single ink tanks, why is the Picturemate, in your example, not a multi-tank printer? And why has HP moved to introduced single colour ink tanks?
Ian
Of course Epson hasn't (ever) abandoned dye-based printers. There have been just as many dye-based printer models as pigment ink ones. Epson is simply satisfying the market demand for the different technologies. It's called customer 'choice'.
I just say it as I see it. Maybe you're too close to have noticed. There was a period when you couldn't find an Epson dye printer because they'd gone Durabrite for consumers, Ultrachrome for pros, and the only real dye printer was the 1290 that was weathering the storm. Now that Epson are putting the spin on Claria, Durabrite is being dumped. It seems fairly obvious from where I'm sitting.
I've already explained the HP scenario. Not being able to compete with Epson pigment, they pushed ahead with Vivera-dye saying that you didn't need pigment for long-life because dye would do it just as well. That was until they had their own pigment, at which time the message changed.
You call it cynicism, I call it realism.
Check out this document: http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/tech_news/tnl0611single.pdf. One paragraph says "Claria has raised the bar for what a dye
ink can achieve." and another says "Claria ink is much more resistant to light and ozone thanks to its tightly clustered pigment molecules." They swing between pigment and dye so much that they can't even agree on what Claria is.
Epson has a policy of continuing to manufacture models that have sustained demand. The 1200-series is far from unique. However, Epson does review most if its printer models each year, mainly at the sharp end of the consumer sector, just like any other printer manufacturer.
What other consumer printer, particularly from Epson, has lasted for 6 or 7 years without being replaced? I'm not talking about a "series" of printers, I'm talking about a specific single printer.
Epson, like other manufacturers, have a habit (I'll refrain from using the word "policy") of obsoleting older printers purely to capitalise on new style ink cartridges and so make more money out of the punters. This is the reason for the revolving-door model of A4 printers - what you buy today won't be around tomorrow. The fact that the 1290 wasn't replaced so readily was because it didn't need to be. Likewise, if Epson were truly always supportive of dye inks, they would have remained with the 1290's dye ink in their A4 range until Claria. If it was good enough for the 1290 for 6 years, it would have been good enough for A4 equivalents.
For example, all of the 2005/2006 PictureMate models are now obsolete.
The Picturemate models have clearly been replaced because Epson's original plan of going pigment-only has changed now that they have Claria. The Picturemate is a clear example of being replaced for the sake of being replaced, not necessarily being replaced by something better.
Canon pioneered single colour ink tanks in consumer printers. Epson simply responded to Canon's lead. If Epson 'wants' us all to use single ink tanks, why is the Picturemate, in your example, not a multi-tank printer? And why has HP moved to introduced single colour ink tanks?
The Picturemate is the example of Epson being blindsided. They didn't expect the Picturemate to be such an economical runner. I'll just bet they've corrected that oversight with the new range, though.
Look at the Epson PM100 that came along to rapidly replace the original Picturemate. This was before Claria came along and no one knows anything about its fade resistance or durability of print. The only reason it came along can only be because the previous PMs were cheap to run and the 100 corrected that error. What other reason can there be?
You are accusing HP, Epson and probably others
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just saying what I'm seeing. If the message is wrong, look in the horse's mouth, don't blame the reader of the book. Benefit of the doubt vanished when greed became policy.
John Houghton
10-01-07, 05:59 PM
And before Epson abandoned ColorLife, you could have a half-decent fade resistant dye print.
Well, you still can. Ilford Gallerie Classic Pearl is virtually the same and a lot cheaper.
John
Well, you still can. Ilford Gallerie Classic Pearl is virtually the same and a lot cheaper.
John
Good point, John. Swellable polymer papers are excellent for non-glossy applications where fade resistant with dyes are important and the prints won't be handled excessively.
Interestingly, Kodak has dumped its swellable polymer 'Ultima' papers altogether now in favour of quick-dry microporous papers (branded 'Ultra').
One source of surprisingly good quality swellable surface paper is Lexmark's own brand - well worth a try if you can find it and it is quite inexpensive too.
Ian
I can't spend all evening picking on the inconsistencies in your arguments as it's the missus' birthday and we're off for a meal out in a minute, but, (gasps for breath...!):
I just say it as I see it. Maybe you're too close to have noticed. There was a period when you couldn't find an Epson dye printer because they'd gone Durabrite for consumers, Ultrachrome for pros, and the only real dye printer was the 1290 that was weathering the storm. Now that Epson are putting the spin on Claria, Durabrite is being dumped. It seems fairly obvious from where I'm sitting.
Codswallop, Epson's printer range has consistently had a balanced range of business pigment (Durabrite), dye and photo pigment printers in the last 2-3 years.
I've already explained the HP scenario. Not being able to compete with Epson pigment, they pushed ahead with Vivera-dye saying that you didn't need pigment for long-life because dye would do it just as well. That was until they had their own pigment, at which time the message changed.
You call it cynicism, I call it realism.
Only if it's based on fact. The fact is that dye-based inks were wanting a few years back. You simply can't criticise the manufacturers for wanting to improve their dye ink technology.
Check out this document: http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/tech_news/tnl0611single.pdf. One paragraph says "Claria has raised the bar for what a dye
ink can achieve." and another says "Claria ink is much more resistant to light and ozone thanks to its tightly clustered pigment molecules." They swing between pigment and dye so much that they can't even agree on what Claria is.
The dividing line behind 'dyes' in the traditional sense and 'pigments' is not like night and day. In molecular terms, the difference between a dye molecule and a pigment particle is can be considered primarily be one of size and both vary to the point that some dye molecules behave like pigment particles in certain ways.
What other consumer printer, particularly from Epson, has lasted for 6 or 7 years without being replaced? I'm not talking about a "series" of printers, I'm talking about a specific single printer.
I didn't say 'consumer' - in fact I specifically said Epson changes their consumer models as frequently as anyone else, but some of the smaller business/graphic models have lasted a long time.
Epson, like other manufacturers, have a habit (I'll refrain from using the word "policy") of obsoleting older printers purely to capitalise on new style ink cartridges and so make more money out of the punters. This is the reason for the revolving-door model of A4 printers - what you buy today won't be around tomorrow. The fact that the 1290 wasn't replaced so readily was because it didn't need to be. Likewise, if Epson were truly always supportive of dye inks, they would have remained with the 1290's dye ink in their A4 range until Claria. If it was good enough for the 1290 for 6 years, it would have been good enough for A4 equivalents.
The 1290 is a niche model, it sells in small but steady numbers. The R1400 is a revision of the R1800 and R2400 chassis, so not too expensive to reengineer into the R1400.
The 1290's ink formulation is inferior to Claria, so why would they want to stick with it???
The Picturemate models have clearly been replaced because Epson's original plan of going pigment-only has changed now that they have Claria. The Picturemate is a clear example of being replaced for the sake of being replaced, not necessarily being replaced by something better.
Instant drying, high gloss, prints, which the pigment PictureMate prints are not, are much more suitable for the target market of the PictureMate.
The Picturemate is the example of Epson being blindsided. They didn't expect the Picturemate to be such an economical runner. I'll just bet they've corrected that oversight with the new range, though.
Hmmmm... you used only to get 100 sheets in a PictureMate Picture Pack, it's now 150.
Look at the Epson PM100 that came along to rapidly replace the original Picturemate. This was before Claria came along and no one knows anything about its fade resistance or durability of print. The only reason it came along can only be because the previous PMs were cheap to run and the 100 corrected that error. What other reason can there be?
Eh? You've lost me there...
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just saying what I'm seeing. If the message is wrong, look in the horse's mouth, don't blame the reader of the book. Benefit of the doubt vanished when greed became policy.
There is always a trade-off between progress and perceived value. But above all, companies like Epson need to react to the market in order to survive. It's a big struggle all the time to remain profitable, despite what you might think, in the ink jet printer business.
Analysts have been predicting for some time that one of the big name ink-jet printer names will disappear eventually.
Anyway - I'm off to enjoy the evening with my ageing wife *LOL
Have a good one yourself!
Ian
Josh Bear
10-01-07, 07:30 PM
Not to go off at a tangent but where does the word "Codswallop" come from?:D
Best Regards
Josh
Codswallop, Epson's printer range has consistently had a balanced range of business pigment (Durabrite), dye and photo pigment printers in the last 2-3 years.
News to me. Epson's consumer range had Durabrite, professional range had Ultrachrome. Both pigment. Dye all but vanished.
Only if it's based on fact. The fact is that dye-based inks were wanting a few years back. You simply can't criticise the manufacturers for wanting to improve their dye ink technology.
Ah, but Epson didn't have any improvement to their dye which is why they began switching to pigment (Durabrite) in their consumer printers. This didn't reach the A3 models which is why everyone and their dog wanted to believe that the R1800 was the 1290's replacement - which it wasn't. Only now have Epson got an improvement to their dye ink, with Claria. The only improvement before Claria was to use pigment and this is what they did. Except for the 1290.
The dividing line behind 'dyes' in the traditional sense and 'pigments' is not like night and day. In molecular terms, the difference between a dye molecule and a pigment particle is can be considered primarily be one of size and both vary to the point that some dye molecules behave like pigment particles in certain ways.
Sounds like muddying the waters to me. "Ok yes, dye and pigment are different, except they're not..." Clear as mud.
The 1290 is a niche model, it sells in small but steady numbers. The R1400 is a revision of the R1800 and R2400 chassis, so not too expensive to reengineer into the R1400.
I'd agree with that. It's pretty much what I said before - change for change's sake. It's cheaper for Epson to shoehorn a dye-printer into an existing chassis than to continue with the 1290 which uses a different chassis.
Actually, if the 1290 sells in small but steady numbers to a niche market, it makes it even more of a surprise that Epson want to replace it with a new model. In my experience, particularly these days, the 1290 is used largely by people using third-party quad-black inksets and as dye-sublimation printers - it's a very popular printer in that market. Changing to a new model - the 1400 - might kill its sales completely. The dye-sublimation users have been slowly converting to the R1800, because it was believed that the R1800 would make the 1290 obsolete; and the quad-black users can pick and choose from other Epson and HP printers that already feature multiple blacks without setting up a whole new system afresh.
All arguing aside, I wonder if the 1400 is going to find the same "niche" as the 1290. I suspect that the 1400's niche will be a lot smaller because the R1800 is already here. I honestly can't see who's going to buy the 1400 - leastwise not until third party users have converted to it, if they ever will.
The 1290's ink formulation is inferior to Claria, so why would they want to stick with it???
That's not the point I was making. While consumer models have changed more frequently than Epson change their collective socks, the 1290 has not changed. Therefore it didn't need changing, and if it didn't why did all the others?
Instant drying, high gloss, prints, which the pigment PictureMate prints are not, are much more suitable for the target market of the PictureMate.
Funny, prints from my Picturemate (original pigment) are instant drying, high gloss.
Hmmmm... you used only to get 100 sheets in a PictureMate Picture Pack, it's now 150.
That indicates that you've bought into the sales talk. The original PictureMate Picture Packs come with 135 sheets and you actually need more sheets than that to use all the ink. The new picturepack is nothing to write home about. Unless, of course, it actually enables you to print 200 prints instead of the quoted 150 in the way that the original PM can print 150 prints instead of the initially quoted 100?
Eh? You've lost me there...
I don't see why. Do you have any explanation for the Picturemate 100? A dye-based picturemate before Claria came along? What was the point, except to make prints more expensive.
Anyway - I'm off to enjoy the evening with my ageing wife *LOL
Hope you have a good time. *chr
Not to go off at a tangent but where does the word "Codswallop" come from?:D
Best Regards
Josh
I don't think anyone really knows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codswallop
:confused:
:D
I may be resurrecting an old thread, but I bought myself an Epson 1400 recently. Although I have an R1800 for photos, I use a 1290S for sublimation inks and with the disappearance of the 1290S, I figured it'd be wise to invest in its replacement.
I bought it for £239 from Amazon (ironically, that's just about the price that the original released-in-error price was stated at on the original press release).
The first one I got had to go back because it wouldn't recognise the supplied cyan cartridge. Epson's advice was to "make sure you use genuine Epson inks" (presumably implying that they ship new printers with non-genuine dodgy inks, yes?). Their second piece of advice was to buy a new ink and try that out. They were not prepared to send a replacement ink to try out, and I wasn't prepared to spend additional money on a printer that might be inherently faulty, so I spoke to Amazon.
Amazon sent a replacement and took the old one back (it's not their policy to replace part of an order so they couldn't just send a new ink cartridge). This second one works fine straight out of the box.
Before I convert it for sublimation use, I'm using the supplied inks to run a few tests and to catch up on a lot of printable DVDs I need to print.
Although the 1400 is built around the same chassis as the R1800, I'm surprised at how flimsy it feels. The R1800 is far more solidly built with its spring-loaded paper tray and better paper input guides. By comparison, the 1400 has a distinct plasticky-feel about it - not like the cheap breadbins Epson used to produce, but certainly a bit more of the "this was produced on the quick with cheaper materials" about it.
It produces pleasing prints, prints that anyone who's after large snapshots would be happy with. Personally, I prefer the more accurate prints that come from the R1800 but I'm sure that's just personal taste. It does nice printed CD/DVDs, though, which seem to dry a little quicker than the R1800.
It's meant to be a quick printer, and I guess it is marginally faster than the 1290S - but it's still a bit of a slowpoke compared to the R1800.
I want to try printing a panorama on the 1400 before the inks get low but, as it has no roll paper support, I need to waste time chopping up paper from the roll I've used with both my R1800 and 1290S. It'll be very annoying if I feed in a 30" sheet cut from the roll only for it to have a hiccup 5" down the paper - the whole sheet would need chucking, instead of just trimming off the dodgy bit as I would in the older printers. A bigger issue is that Olmec (the brand of roll paper I use) do not list the 1400 on their website or provide ICC profiles, even though the printer is now a year old. It may well be that I won't be able to print using Olmec paper on the 1400, even though I could with the 1290/S and R1800. That's not Epson's fault, obviously, but it restricts the printer from being a real replacement for the 1290S in these terms.
I had trouble printing when I first installed the printer. In order to find out what the error was on the first 1400 I'd installed the printer driver and status monitor. The printer printed fine on paper. Then I installed "Epson Print CD" - but it refused to print CDs claiming a file was missing. The only way to sort out the problem was to install the whole bundle using defaults.
Did anyone else buy this printer?
Follow up -
I had a go at panorama printing on the 1400 but have had to give up. I cut a sheet approximately 30" long from my roll paper - using a guillotine to get a straight edge and rolling the edge back to help it feed through the printer.
Every single time the printer just ejected the paper. I ended up manhandling it several times but still it wouldn't take it. Eventually it took it wrong and screwed it up, so I ended up throwing away 30" of 13" wide worth of decent paper. Even if it had taken it, there would be so many finger marks and scuff marks on the paper from the number of times the printer ejected it that it just wouldn't have been worth it.
Added to this, the lack of proper support for roll paper means that you can't print 13" wide (full-bleed) on custom-length paper. You can print full-bleed on 13" paper on both the 1290/S and the R1800 but not the 1400, so even if you can get the printer to take the paper you can't print 13" wide.
So I've come to the conclusion that Epson's removal of roll paper support is a massive backwards step. I've never had an issue putting roll paper into either the R1800 or the 1290 (or 1290S). For panoramic printing, I cannot recommend the 1400 at all as a replacement for the 1290S. It's, by far and away, a crippled replacement for its predecessor.
Back to my R1800 for panos, then.
John Houghton
05-12-07, 03:31 PM
When feeding a sheet cut from a roll, I have found it helps a lot to de-curl it by rolling it up the wrong way round on a cardboard tube and leave it for an hour or two. If the end is cut correctly, as you are doing, and it is flat, then there is no reason for the printer to treat it any differently to any other sheet of paper. I have a 1290 and 2100 and have used both of them without the supplied roll paper supports for years. The paper needs de-curling at some stage, so it might as well be before printing as after.
For testing the feasibity of long prints, particularly over 44 inches, I have used sheets of plain paper joined together with masking tape. Cutting A4 sheets in half lengthwise enables long sheets to be made economically. Make the image to be printed mostly white, and practically no ink will be wasted either. CS2 prints over 44 inches without any problems.
John