Jump to content




The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


Photo

What is your opinion of the Epson R3000?


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 simato73

simato73

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,635 posts
  • LocationBollington, Cheshire
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:51

I want to replace my Epson 2200 and the natural replacement for me is the R3000.

I am not planning to print wider than 13" for several reasons. First my house is not that big and I don't print for exhibitions or have clients. Second the printers for the next step up in print size are much more expensive as an initial investment and even more importantly are big and heavy and I don't have a place to put one of those.

I think the R3000 is more appropriate for me than the R2000 because I do print from roll and I think the R2000 is a 13" printer but does not print rolls, if I remember correctly.
Apart from that the R3000 is more desirable to me because of the larger ink cartridges, hence less expensive in the long run.

I know several of you have an R3000.
What is your experience with it like?
Simone

#2 Mike G

Mike G

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 4,969 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 21 November 2012 - 15:32

There was an article on the BBC Watchdog Daily that Epson printers stop working for no apparent reason when certain parts become time expired according to Epson's thinking. Epson then charges an absolute fortune to get them working again! :angry: :angry: :angry:
Mike Gorman
My interview thread :- this link

#3 simato73

simato73

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,635 posts
  • LocationBollington, Cheshire
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 21 November 2012 - 16:45

There was an article on the BBC Watchdog Daily that Epson printers stop working for no apparent reason when certain parts become time expired according to Epson's thinking. Epson then charges an absolute fortune to get them working again! :angry: :angry: :angry:


That may have to do with the ink tray at the bottom getting "full".
It is a problem usually for consumer models (including my 2200, which by the way never had this problem even though it is more than 7 years old)
Higher models have a user replaceable ink tray.

I was talking more about performance, ease of use, quality of colour, versatility.
Simone

#4 afx

afx

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 5,420 posts
  • LocationMunich, Germany
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 21 November 2012 - 23:13

The R3000 does not have a user replaceable ink sponge.
It seems to be a bit wasteful for the casual printer, doing too many cleaning cycles.
Apart from that, it is hassle free and I love the results.
The front loader works very well for thick paper.
I've been printing exhibition images for PJ friends on it.

cheers
afx
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
My latest book: The AfterShot Survival Guide  
sRGB clipping sucks and Adobe RGB is just as bad  Still no clue how to take decent pictures though, see afximages.com ;-(

#5 FullShilling

FullShilling

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 303 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:22

I've had mine for a few months, and it's my first steps into serious printing.
I found it very easy to setup and install(drivers etc), I currently have it running wired rather than wireless as it is next to the router, but I don't think that wireless install would be a problem.

I have printed out a few A3+ B&W(permajet oyster) and they come out great, colour rendition to, seems pretty much on the mark.
I havent tried it with thrid party ink and don't intend to, I found a supplier on ebay where the carts are about £18.0 each.

There's quite a thorough review here http://www.northligh...pson_r3000.html

hope this helps.

Alan.
I can see what I want to say, but I can't say what I see.

#6 simato73

simato73

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,635 posts
  • LocationBollington, Cheshire
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:30

I've had mine for a few months, and it's my first steps into serious printing.
I found it very easy to setup and install(drivers etc), I currently have it running wired rather than wireless as it is next to the router, but I don't think that wireless install would be a problem.

I have printed out a few A3+ B&W(permajet oyster) and they come out great, colour rendition to, seems pretty much on the mark.
I havent tried it with thrid party ink and don't intend to, I found a supplier on ebay where the carts are about £18.0 each.

There's quite a thorough review here http://www.northligh...pson_r3000.html

hope this helps.

Alan.


Thanks Alan,

I am becoming more convinced that it is worth upgrading from my 2200 when I find a good opportunity on eBay.

I did see that review, very thorough I should say, and that had a strong influence on me.

In this post I wanted to hear from users like you, to complement a review from a professional, so your contribution is much appreciated.
Simone

#7 FullShilling

FullShilling

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 303 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:01

Thanks Alan,

In this post I wanted to hear from users like you, to complement a review from a professional, so your contribution is much appreciated.


Yes, you can rest assured, when it comes to printing, I know bugger all :D

Alan.
I can see what I want to say, but I can't say what I see.

#8 simato73

simato73

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,635 posts
  • LocationBollington, Cheshire
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:26

Yes, you can rest assured, when it comes to printing, I know bugger all :D

Alan.


Sorry it did not come out quite as I wanted... I did not mean that you are clueless.
Oh well, I think you know what I meant, but just to clarify: I just meant I appreciate the perspective of a normal user (and I rate you as one). That is what I consider myself, so your experience with this printer and your level of satisfaction with it is probably relevant for me.
Simone

#9 FullShilling

FullShilling

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 303 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 22 November 2012 - 13:12

Simone,

I didn't read it that way at all, just my Northern sense of humour.

Alan.
I can see what I want to say, but I can't say what I see.

#10 Warrenvon

Warrenvon
  • Life Member
  • 3 posts
  • LocationMaryland
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 14 November 2013 - 16:09

I'm still using the 2200 . . so this discussion is of interest to me. It is a shame that more members are not on this thread.

My problem with the 2200 is lack of use and print head clogging. As Simone points out, this can lead to the ink well/foam being filled and the printing process upset either by being shut down by the Epson timing or by dirty printing.

I've used an absorptive pad to reduce the ink in the well. This seems to solve the clean printing desire but I'm not sure that it will reset the Epson built in timing function. Any thoughts?

Can the pad be replaced?



#11 yunfat

yunfat

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,902 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 16:45

I am of the school of thought that it still takes @$10000 of material + the cost of a large format printer to actually produce something good.  This really doesn't include the 1000 hours of study, print seminars (I was lucky enough to sit down with the late Bruce Frasier for a couple of hours), massaging prints, and media experiments that go along with producing such prints.  Framing, matting, and archival storage are all thoughts you need to entertain as well, if you want to do it right.

 

There are ways to get decent prints short of this, but I will laugh at your efforts if you tell me it is a "good" print.  Odds are I will be able to tell from a few feet away the print is garbage, and forget about under a loupe, where it is likely I will explain why your print is already disintegrating.

 

Outsource or go all the way imho, the middle ground (ie R3000) is a waste of time and money, and you are spending way too much on ink if you are going to use rolls.


  • Mexecutioner likes this

#12 ilkka_nissila

ilkka_nissila

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,133 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 18:03

My experience is that excellent prints can be made with desktop Epson inkjets, though usually the lifetime of the smaller printers has been quite short on average; the Pro 3800 I had for several years before there was a problem; now with 3880.  I've been making thousands of prints per year and started doing inkjet prints some 11-12 years ago. In the first years I wouldn't say my results were good but I had still better control than labs which never produced what I wanted (also the results varied a lot). I'd say that 10% of the time did they get the large prints right and they charge a fortune for them; for small prints the best labs can be ok for proofing, but I still prefer the results I make myself. I always use the same paper and know the process better and have a chance to make a tweak immediately after getting the first print, if it can be improved I can do it right away. The good thing about conventional printing (chemically developed paper) is that it's a bit more resistant to handling and abuse that inkjet paper.  But I still in practice almost never outsource my printing because it's like giving your baby to a random scruffy stranger to take care of while I do something else - outsourcing printing rarely results in anything that a  photographer who really cares about their work can't do better him/herself, and much more quickly, too. Printing is a part of the process and it allows you to give your work additional attention which is needed to give the best possible visual and emotional response to the viewer.

 

As far as I know all the K3 with vivid magenta inkset printers give exactly the same output so I don't understand what could possibly the reason to spend any more than you need to get your prints done. Anyway, my experience is that it's extremely educative for a photographer to do their prints themselves as the learning process becomes more thorough when you control every aspect of the process, and also you get much more familiar with the print medium and what exactly is needed to give the viewer the impact that your work can have at its best. In my opinion only by making the print you can really know what the print will look like and how viewing it will make you feel in the light that the print is viewed at.  Human eye and brain adopts to the image viewed on a computer screen and the fact that something looks about right on the screen is no guarantee that the print is the best it can be, so you have to learn how to do this (matching beyond what calibration can do) if you're picky.

 

We have an R3000 at work but it hasn't been put to work yet. The main issue that I can see with it is the very small ink cartridges which need to be replaced quite often, it can be a bit annoying. The Pro 3880 that I use at home is nicer in that respect that you don't  have to replace cartridges all that often. Also the service cartridge is replaceable. It doesn't however, take roll paper; up to A2 is what I've printed with it. It and the Pro 3800 that I had before have been quite un-problematic in use, at least compared to the small printers with 1.5 pl droplets (they clogged more often than the K3 with and without  vivid magenta do). I can't recommend the K3 printers enough; excellent black and white printing as well as color, easy to deal with with respect to skin tone. However, and this is a major caveat, they don't in my experience, work well with when trying to print a color image on glossy paper. Glossy & K3 is fine when doing black and white prints - in fact the combination is great. But for color the K3 printers work better on e.g. luster/semiglossy and matte papers, as well as the "fine art" papers that you may want to work with (at much increased cost). For printing color on glossy material I think the other series of Espon printers, with the tiny droplets and capacity for bold colors, work better. But at least in the R800/R1800 generation several years ago they weren't as long lasting as the K3 inkset printers. The smaller nozzles clogged up more easily than those of the 3(.5)pl printers. Epson may however have solved this problem by now.


Edited by ilkka_nissila, 14 November 2013 - 18:10 .

  • wildoat and Markus like this

#13 simato73

simato73

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,635 posts
  • LocationBollington, Cheshire
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 14 November 2013 - 22:13

Taran I like your colourful uncompromising expression but I disagree.

I may still be a crappy printer but I am pretty sure my prints will look better than those from a standard print shop.

If I start going to professional printers that charge you a tooth and an eye it will take no time before it becomes more expensive than what I am doing now (and I print low volumes).

My prints are fine, I like them, hang them around home and I am pretty sure if I sold them the vast majority of (normal) people would find quality of the product more than adequate.

(And by the way my comment to someone who would use a loupe to judge my print instead of looking at it from the right distance is "you are loopy")

Likewise for matting, archival storage etc. Vastly unnecessary if your print doesn't cost hundreds of dollars and is virtually replaceable at will - and you can still get a perfectly good-looking mat and frame to enhance the look of the picture.

 

In the end I still have the 2200. I have not bought the R3000 because it made no economic sense. The 2200 is still going and it will have to break before I buy another one.

Your mileage may vary - you may be an uncompromising amateur with tons of money to burn, or a professional photographer and master printer with a huge turnover that justifies the latest and greatest printer with best performance, throughput and economy. I am neither of those, nowhere near.


  • yunfat likes this
Simone

#14 yunfat

yunfat

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,902 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 00:46

If I start going to professional printers that charge you a tooth and an eye it will take no time before it becomes more expensive than what I am doing now (and I print low volumes).

 

Oops, I didn't mean it quite like that.  I just meant the local photo printer or cheap drugstore as an "outsource", not a fine art printer.  I give my clients photos (who pay me thousands of dollars) from my local Costco, because they have excellent machines, and it's like 8ç a print. 

The Costcos also use epson K3 7880, and with a custom profile very few people will be able to tell the difference between their $9 20*30 vs my $150 20*30.  As you say, normal people.

If you are pleased with the results from your printing, that's what really matters.



#15 Ian

Ian

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 267 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 22:42

Despite Dallas’s best intentions, which I support, this forum is not the repository for printing knowledge.

 

If you want to know about printing stuff you need to go to Lula at

http://www.luminous-...x.php?board=6.0

 

The people who print for a living as well as advanced amateurs hang out there and have a very large amount of knowledge and are willing to share it with you.

 

Basically, the R3880 is highly favoured as one of the few Epson printers that does not clog itself to death with low volume usage. The R3000 is not really mentioned much as it is so small. Once you print 17” wide there is no going back, unless it is bigger !!

 

I have a 24” wide printer and I want a 44”.

 

To me there is absolutely no point in buying the best lens and the best camera if you are only going to print in midget dimensions. A Box Brownie would be fine for a R3000. Well perhaps a slight exaggeration but not much.

 

I do understand the limitations of Brit houses, but do yourself a favour and buy something bigger.



#16 simato73

simato73

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,635 posts
  • LocationBollington, Cheshire
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 16 November 2013 - 23:06

Despite Dallas’s best intentions, which I support, this forum is not the repository for printing knowledge.

 

If you want to know about printing stuff you need to go to Lula at

http://www.luminous-...x.php?board=6.0

 

The people who print for a living as well as advanced amateurs hang out there and have a very large amount of knowledge and are willing to share it with you.

 

Basically, the R3880 is highly favoured as one of the few Epson printers that does not clog itself to death with low volume usage. The R3000 is not really mentioned much as it is so small. Once you print 17” wide there is no going back, unless it is bigger !!

 

I have a 24” wide printer and I want a 44”.

 

To me there is absolutely no point in buying the best lens and the best camera if you are only going to print in midget dimensions. A Box Brownie would be fine for a R3000. Well perhaps a slight exaggeration but not much.

 

I do understand the limitations of Brit houses, but do yourself a favour and buy something bigger.

 

Maybe you can do me a favour and buy me something bigger - including a house that will fit the printer and the large prints.

While you are at it, please not the 3xxx series, just splash for the 4xxx series, since the former does not print long and I like my panos.

 

Whatever they say on the web, I have nearly no problems with printer clogs on my 2200. That may have to do with where I live - hooray for gloomy and rainy places.

 

As for your remark on there being no point is having best camera and lenses, that is definitely not my case.

Apart from not wanting (or being able to) to spend that much money, I have never considered anything above 16MP exactly because I am not printing big.


Edited by simato73, 16 November 2013 - 23:07 .

Simone

#17 Ian

Ian

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 267 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 23:32

A bit narky today are we?



#18 afx

afx

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 5,420 posts
  • LocationMunich, Germany
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 17 November 2013 - 06:13

The R3000 is not really mentioned much as it is so small.

I think you misinterpret the cause there.
In contrast to Europe, a 38xx can be had on special offer relatively cheap in the US especially when you factor in the ink prices. That is what makes the 38xx so much more popular in US dominated forums like LuLa.
Check non-English forums like finartprinter.de, the picture is quite different there.
I would have bought one as well instead of the 3000 if it would have been available at US prices.
But in Europe you don't get those super rebates so a 38xx is typically twice the price of a 3000.

And funnily enough, my friend who has a 4900 (his 3880 produced too much pizza roll marks on Hahnemühle, a well known issue, so he upgraded) does not print everything big....

To me there is absolutely no point in buying the best lens and the best camera if you are only going to print in midget dimensions.

So you have endless wall space?
Or like stacking A2 sheets or bigger?

cheers
afx
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
My latest book: The AfterShot Survival Guide  
sRGB clipping sucks and Adobe RGB is just as bad  Still no clue how to take decent pictures though, see afximages.com ;-(

#19 Tersn

Tersn

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,129 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:18

Interesting thread. I'm looking for a useful printer myself. What about other brands, or is Epson the very best?


tersn
(Terje)

On flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsnd09/


#20 afx

afx

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 5,420 posts
  • LocationMunich, Germany
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:23

Interesting thread. I'm looking for a useful printer myself. What about other brands, or is Epson the very best?

Probably a religious topic ;-)

HP and Canon also make good printers.
But when I was looking, the rumor mills was indicating that HP was loosing focus in this area. And I am not really a fan of Canon.
Epsons seem to be those that clog most (so far no issues on my rarely used R3000) and all but the large models waste more or less ink switching between matte and regular black.
I suggest having a close look at the other two brands before deciding.

cheers
afx
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
My latest book: The AfterShot Survival Guide  
sRGB clipping sucks and Adobe RGB is just as bad  Still no clue how to take decent pictures though, see afximages.com ;-(




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users





The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal

Starting your shopping here doesn't cost you anything more, but by using the links above (or any others found on the site) you are advising the affiliate that you support this website. This results in a small commission that helps with the running costs. If your preferred outlet isn't among those listed above you can also support the site by making a donation of any amount via PayPal (no PayPal account required). Any donation will be most appreciated.