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:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 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