Epson 1280?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ArtKramr, Oct 10, 2003.

  1. ArtKramr

    ArtKramr Guest

    ArtKramr, Oct 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. ArtKramr

    o\(*¿*\)o Guest

    Have had it over a year now, one word.....excellent!!!!!!!!!
     
    o\(*¿*\)o, Oct 10, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. ArtKramr

    Rafe B. Guest


    Excellent printer, by all accounts. A bit long in the tooth --
    I mean, it's been on the market for a while.

    An excellent alternative would be either the Canon S9000
    or i9100. The Canon will be much faster.

    I haven't seen an A:B comparison of the Canon(s) vs. the
    1280, but I'd expect them to be very close in output quality.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 10, 2003
    #3
  4. ArtKramr

    ArtKramr Guest

    Subject: Re: Epson 1280?

    Good. Think I'll buy it.
    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Oct 10, 2003
    #4
  5. ArtKramr

    ArtKramr Guest

    Subject: Re: Epson 1280?

    Thanks. Think I'll get it.

    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Oct 10, 2003
    #5
  6. I have the predecessor the 1270. Works fine. When I bring pictures
    in, people want to know where I had them processed. They can't
    believe they came off an inkjet. The only downside is that the
    printer is fussy with respect to paper. The Epson papers are fine,
    but purchase off brand papers in small quantities to try first.
     
    James Cassatt, Oct 10, 2003
    #6
  7. ArtKramr

    Mark Roberts Guest

    I know several people who've owned them and loved the results...but
    hated the reliability. They say it's more cheaply built than the
    predecessor, the 1270. I only heard from about three people about that
    and that's not a very large sample. Just something to consider.
     
    Mark Roberts, Oct 10, 2003
    #7
  8. ArtKramr

    Chris Brown Guest

    I have the 1290, which is basically the same printer, for the European
    market. It produces nice results, but I'd mention a few caveats:

    - It does have a nasty tendency to clog its inkjets, and getting them
    unclogged can require several cleaning cycles.

    - The supplied drivers don't tend to do very well with shadows. The
    GIMP-Print drivers (available for OS X and Linux, don't know about
    Windows, but someone has probably got them working) seem to do better in
    this regard, but dark areas can still be a bit muddy. I guess the newer 7
    colour printers are a lot better in this regard.

    - The ink is not cheap.

    Having said that, for a 6 colour photo printer, it can deliver astounding
    results with a little care and the right (expensive!) paper. I'd definitely
    recommend it.
     
    Chris Brown, Oct 10, 2003
    #8
  9. ArtKramr

    Birk Binnard Guest

    I've made many prints with my 1280 and love it. It's especially good at
    doing 12" x 36" panoramas on roll paper.

    If you get the 1280 use only Epson paper.

    Regardless of which printer you get, I strongly suggest a Continuous Flow
    ink system (CFS). The money and time saved over a year or so will more than
    pay for the cost of the CFS and the printer.
     
    Birk Binnard, Oct 10, 2003
    #9
  10. ArtKramr

    Pat Guest

    If you can find a genuinely better printer at anything like the price,
    please let me know.

    I have printed many A3 prints on both the 1280 and the Canon. I don't know
    where the story of Canon being fast comes from. I couldn't tell the
    difference - I didn't use a stopwatch.

    You do get different results until you set up the printer correctly for the
    paper being used. Even different printers of the same make / model need to
    be set up correctly.

    Don't use 'compatible' inks with either Epson or Canon. This is where most
    stories of 'fragile' come from. False economy! I have two dead printers to
    prove it.

    Pat
     
    Pat, Oct 11, 2003
    #10
  11. It's one of the best in print quality. The cost is very high for
    Epsons, though. You need special paper and the printers go through ink
    cartridges rapidly. The infamous clogged nozzles, which can actually be
    paper dust, will drain a few $ of ink and ruin a $ in paper periodically.

    I just bought a 2200 and regret it. The combination of expensive
    materials and unreliable drivers makes it a total money pit. I wasted
    several feet of expensive paper trying to work around a driver bug that
    shrinks images. Once that was resolved, my first large prints wasted
    three more feet of paper because half of the black nozzles plugged up.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Oct 13, 2003
    #11
  12. ArtKramr

    Witheld Guest

    Of course he does not tell you which OS on the computer he is using
    or that you should turn the printer on once a day so it goes though its cleaning
    cycle. Or that you can get reasonably priced compatiable cartridges or
    a continous inking system to cut down on cost.

    All he has given is baised info based on unresearched experience.
     
    Witheld, Oct 13, 2003
    #12
  13. ArtKramr

    Pete Guest

    That's interesting! I'm having a problem with shrunken images when
    printing from CompuPic. What solution did you find?

    TIA
     
    Pete, Oct 13, 2003
    #13

  14. OS 9 and OS X. The OS X driver is buggy. The OS 9 driver hardly works
    at all.

    What do you mean I should turn the printer on once a day? That's
    bullshit. The manual says once a month. It took six days, with
    occasional use, for 1/2 of the grey and 1/8 of the black nozzles to plug
    up.

    A continuous inking system voids at least parts of the warranty. That's
    not a good idea on a new printer that isn't working very well.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Oct 14, 2003
    #14
  15. I was using a custom paper size 13.00 inches wide in OS X. With that
    setting, everything shrinks down to a width of 8.5 inches. The fix was
    to set the paper width to 12.93 inches.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Oct 14, 2003
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.