epson 1280 or 2200

[eric_brody]

My Epson 1270 printer just crumped, for the second time; the first

problem was severely clogged heads, now the pump is gone- I now need

a new printer. I greatly enjoy digital color in 35mm and medium

format. I like to do 13x19 prints occasionally, so the logical

choices are the 1280, essentially a replacement for the 1270, or a

2200. There's quite a price diference, $400 vs $700 (that buys a lot

of ink & paper), and I have read the available reviews on the web.

I'm well aware of the print longevity advantage of the 2200. At some

point, I'd like to try some injet b&w as well.

 

I'd really appreciate hearing from anyone with a comparative view of

these two printers, particularly as regards the oft quoted issue

with glossy prints on the 2200 since much of my work is done on

glossy paper. I'd also appreciate hearing from those doing b&w

printing on either printer.

 

If anyone knows of any new A3 printers in the pipeline besides the

4000, which is more than my budget, I'd also like to know.

 

Thanks so much for any responses.

 

Eric

[aardvarko]

We have a lab full of 1280's at the Corcoran; they're a real bitch to keep clean. I can't recommend them. My personal 1280 just had a horrific mechanical failure to boot, and it's a total wash after just a few hundred prints.

 

The 2200 is cheaper in the ink department, has an integrated cutter, and a few other niceties; there's also the Canon S9x00 series.

 

Disclaimer: not speaking for CCAD/CGA

[aardvarko]

and the 2200 has a greyscale calibration utility, which the 1280 lacks - and the 1280 b&w prints with colour ink are uniformly terrible.

[rob t.]

I have a 1280 and I love it. However, I should state that I use it solely for B&W printing using the MIS UT2 inkset, with a CFS system.

 

Their are curves made specifically for the 1280 using the UT2 inks that allow you to get prints anywhere from somewhat cool prints, to neutral, "Selenium", to the warmer sepia tones.

 

The quality using the 1280 is fantastic.

 

I am sure that the 2200 would give fantastic results as well, but I can't imagine them being much better than what the 1280 does for much less money.

 

Again, the above only applies to black and white printing.

 

Good luck.

[mark_herring]

I have the 1280--set up with MIS "Perpetual Archival" ink. Excellent results. Never a serious problem in 2 years---first with OEM dye ink and now the MIS.

 

For real B&W, you want one of the dedicated inksets. I am about to set up an 1160 for this--also with MIS ink

[kevinking]

For what its worth I am just getting into digital printing with the loss of my wet darkroom last month. I decided to purchase the 2200 over the 1280 for the 2200's individual ink tanks. Epson had refurbished 2200's on their site last week for $550. This might be more in-line with your budget.

 

Kev...

[scott aitken]

I have both printers. You will see very little difference between your old 1270 and the

newer 1280. Archival issues aside, the 1280 produces far better looking color prints,

particularly on glossy paper, than the 2200. I have tried a variety of glossy papers and

films, and have yet to get a satisfactory color print out of the 2200. On Matte paper,

both printers make nice color prints (though the prints from the 2200 will last much

longer). I've heard nothing but unfounded rumors about any new printers. The 1280

has been around for a while though, and it wouldn't surprise me to see a replacement

in the near future.

 

I concur with Chris, in that my 2200 does not clog nearly as often as the 1280, and

clears more easily on the occasion that it does clog.

 

For B&W, I was never satisfied with the 1280, at least not with factory inks. If you set

it to Black ink only, then you get a fairly contrasty dithered looking print, little better

than you'd get from a standard laser printer. If you use the whole color set, then you

get smoother prints, but it is all but impossible to eliminate the color tones. Using a

dedicated MIS inkset can give you much better B&W prints, but then you can't use it

for color prints anymore. (It is highly impractical to switch back and forth from the

regular color inkset and the dedicated B&W inkset very often, because you have to

flush the inkjets for quiet a while, wasting a LOT of ink each time.) If you go this

route, it is more practical to use 2 printers, one for color and the other for B&W.

 

Though not everyone will agree, I found the 2200 produces very nice B&W prints right

out of the box. With the 2 shades of black ink (or black and grey, really), it gets rid of

the dithered look, and delivers nice smooth gradations. On matte paper, of course. It

can also do nice sepia or cool tones fairly easily. If you are more obsessive, you can

calibrate it for very accurate neutral B&W. I tend to like a slight toning, and so I'm

rarely seeking a pure neutral B&W.

 

The 2200 has some bronzing effect. It is much less noticeable than the previous

2000. I, personally can't see it at all on matte paper or Velvet Fine Art (a really nice

thick textured matte paper). Others claim it is quite noticeable. I've won awards for

B&W prints done with the 2200 on Velvet Fine Art paper, and sold plenty of them. So

I'm quite satisfied with the results.

 

If you don't care about longevity, and have a strong preference for glossy prints, I

would get a 1280 for color prints, and pick up a second lightly used 1280 or 1270,

and install the MIS B&W inkset for B&W prints. Take a valium to deal with the clogs.

[joey_tjosephy]

Atlex.com sells new 2200s for $599.

[christer_rose]

I've had an Epson 1200 - very good - a 1270 - incredibly bad - Epson ended up giving me

a new 1280 in exchange for me not suing them and the 1280 is just a much a piece of

crap as the 1270 - you're lucky of you get 2 prints from brand new cartridges before the

heads clog again - I can safely say I haven't gotten 50 prints from this printer. My next

printer for non archivel prints will be the new Canon i9900 coming out in May. For what

it's worth - a pro shop test printed two of my images today on an Epson 9600 - one OK

colorwise but too dark - the other one had color casts in the mid shadows and the 3rd

print on a 3000 with 4 color black was a disaster - all printed on very expensive

Hahnemühle 13" x 19" paper and with proper icc profiles. As far as I am concerned the

only good consistent large inkjet prints - up to 4' wide prints - I've gotten has been from

HP printers. On the other hand the 9600 didn't clog but the 3000 clogs all the time I was

told...