Digital BW, The Print

Mark,

>Will the image quality of a 1280 be noticably better than the C82 ...

Most viewers of prints would see no difference.  Very critical viewers might
notice that the C82 highlights are not quite as smooth as the 1280's.  (But
the C82 highlights are about like the 2200 with ImagePrint, which many
high-end printers on this list have and find very acceptable.)  

I think a slightly more important difference is that the C82 does not
deliver the dmax that the 1280 does; that is, the blacks are not quite as
black.  The C82 is going to peak out with Epson Enhanced Matte at about 1.59
and PhotoRag at perhaps 1.60.  With the 1280 EEM has been hitting 1.64 -
1.68 and PhotoRag 1.64.  (Of course, the old 3000 and PhotoRag beat this
handily with a 1.71.)  With EEM and PhotoRag, I think the C82 depth of black
is fine for many people and shots.  With some of the other cotton papers,
the C82 is weaker.

So, if one is really into photography as a serious hobby, wanting to try
lots of different papers, etc., then the 1280 is a significantly more
versatile printer.  (Once the "Easy UT-2" -- or whatever it's going to be
called -- is available for the 1280, it'll be the best of both worlds in
terms of ease and versatility, but at a bit higher price than the C82.)

On the other hand, for budget-minded photographers who ultimately want
impressive 16x20 display prints, I can see them testing the waters of
digital B&W printing with a C82 and then jumping to a 3000 (or 4000), and
keeping the little C82 for daily printing and snapshots.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com