Here is a slightly different view, neither arguing against your points, nor failing to appreciate the frustration and expense that is often associated with these machines. I have had 2 1290 and 3 1270s, bought on Ebay for a total cost roughly equal to a new 2400 today. These were all well used. The 1290s were for colour with CIS (MIS perpetual archival), and BO with ebony. The first was close to perfect until the (old) CIS cart became too foamy. Shortly after replacing that the printhead failed. The second 1290 ran for a year on the same CIS before catastrophic mechanical failure (probably due to the CIS torquing the printhead). In that year I estimate 500 finished prints of various sizes from letter to >6 feet long (and a similar number of test prints, profile targets, etc.) Perhaps the cheapest printing I'll ever do. In total there were ~10 days of extreme frustration before I realised what the problem was. Overall probably just worth the trouble. I used one 1270 with a CIS with ultratones, and one with glossy pigment refillable carts. The 3rd was a spare. (These cost <$100). The printhead of the GP one failed after nearly a year of low-volume printing. (CIS was home made with mainly MIS parts so the cost was not much, but there was wasted ink - which I never really liked anyway.) The other 2 still work, but I recently stopped using them. Together the 1270s made ~350 final prints. Perhaps worth the trouble as there was no other "cheap" and easy way for B&W on glossy at the time. Now I have a 4000, but am not sure that the total cost of ownership will be much different overall (purchase cost and ink for cleaning). My first printer was a canon s9000, and I had as much trouble with it (quite frequent loss of a colour in the middle of large prints, as well as no acceptable BW method, lack of proper banner support, and very rapid fading on most papers). A year or two ago cheap good used/refurb 1290s were arguably a good learning tool for the serious amateur. I suspect using CIS with 1290s needed a degree of luck, and would not recommend this combination, in retrospect. Refillable carts would not have cost more, I guess, and are easier to fix/replace with less "stress" on the printer. These are not the right machines for high volume work now that better ones are available. Conclusion: Perhaps if someone cannot face the initial purchase cost of a 2400, *and* will print at low volume with refil carts, *and* can find a genuinely good used/refurb 1280/90 at low cost it is still a reasonable starting point. The 2400 is, however, attractive, and very likely more reliable. Certainly takes up less space than 3 12xx, and prints about as fast. Ken --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mark_roth_505" <mark@m...> wrote: > let's just say, around $1000 ballpark spent within only the last 2 > years, would you want this 1280 printer with these nice bands, > clogs, garbage? > > http://members.acmenet.net/~roth/images/epson-1280.jpg
Message
Re: anyone thinking of buying an Epson 1280 photo printer...look here
2005-12-22 by kenstrain2000
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.