Final decision -- which Epson?

To you:

Please help. Need advice. Want to purchase great personal photography printer. Have had eyes on Epson 1280 for quite some time. Now see that the 2000P has arrived. Confused. Would prefer to pay less money. Like durability of prints, but is the 1280 enough for a budding photographer?

Gracious for all assistance.
Christopher.

Are you stuck on Epson? Ever thought of the new Canons?

Just curious to hear another side of the story.

Thanks,

-Dave

Click. said:

To you:

Please help. Need advice. Want to purchase great personal
photography printer. Have had eyes on Epson 1280 for quite some
time. Now see that the 2000P has arrived. Confused. Would prefer to
pay less money. Like durability of prints, but is the 1280 enough
for a budding photographer?

Gracious for all assistance.
Christopher.

Click to expand...

I understand the desire for the wide format printer, but do you need it?

If not, check out the Epson C80. If you're new to this stuff, it might be a lower cost way to get into it.

--Bob D.

If you want to save money, you can get the 890 instead of the 1280. It's the same printer in a narrower format. I think the software bundle is different, but the printer is the same style with the same heavy build and print quality. I think one of the ink cartridges might also be different in size too, but that makes sense.

If you want to be able to print bigger, be prepared to spend quite a lot on paper and ink, and resample the image before printing to get it big enough (or use an app that does this for you). In that case, the 1280 is just fine. Remember also that you're not done when the ink dries. You need to store prints properly to make them last. An archival album is expensive, and framing prints is even more expensive. Wall space also quickly gets used up ;-)

The 2000P is more archival, but even the 890 and 1280 are fairly long lasting if you use the right papers and stick to the Epson ink. Instead of using the premium glossy paper, either use the heavyweight matte, the Colorlife paper, or the premium luster. There are also many similar papers from other companies, such as Ilford. The matte paper doesn't look that good right out of the printer, but put it behind glass and it looks very nice. Still, I'm partial to the pearl finish papers myself.--Peter Epstein

Peter Epstein said:

If you want to save money, you can get the 890 instead of the 1280.
It's the same printer in a narrower format. I think the software
bundle is different, but the printer is the same style with the
same heavy build and print quality. I think one of the ink
cartridges might also be different in size too, but that makes
sense.

Click to expand...

I'm partial to the 1280 because of the option to make larger prints. I like knowing that I can print an 11-by-14-inch photograph. I'm a bit concerned about the quality of such an image, being that I use an Olympus C3040-Z at the SHQ level. But a recent post about a Canon user's 9-panel image gets my hopes up. (I'm sure it's applicable to the Epson.)

How much more expensive would the papers and inks be for the 1280 than for the 890? Ballpark?

Also, any tips on the best (cheapest and most reliable) place to order a 1280?

Thanks,
Chris.

Peter Epstein said:

If you want to be able to print bigger, be prepared to spend quite
a lot on paper and ink, and resample the image before printing to
get it big enough (or use an app that does this for you). In that
case, the 1280 is just fine. Remember also that you're not done
when the ink dries. You need to store prints properly to make them
last. An archival album is expensive, and framing prints is even
more expensive. Wall space also quickly gets used up ;-)

The 2000P is more archival, but even the 890 and 1280 are fairly
long lasting if you use the right papers and stick to the Epson
ink. Instead of using the premium glossy paper, either use the
heavyweight matte, the Colorlife paper, or the premium luster.
There are also many similar papers from other companies, such as
Ilford. The matte paper doesn't look that good right out of the
printer, but put it behind glass and it looks very nice. Still, I'm
partial to the pearl finish papers myself.
--
Peter Epstein

Click to expand...

I'm using a 1270 now, and I bought it for printing images from a 3 megapixel Coolpix 990 digicam. I don't think I'd want to print such an image any bigger than 8 by 10. If I were starting from a 3 megapixel SLR, the image would be cleaner (less noise), and I'd think about printing larger. I've now got a Sony 707, which has a 5 megapixel CCD. Noise is once again a concern, but the extra pixels mean I can print larger or crop more. So far I haven't printed anything over letter size, but based on crops I'm confident I could make a nice print on 11 by 17 inch paper, especially if I resampled the image before printing. I'm not saying that a 3 megapixel consumer digicam can't print bigger than 8 by 10 inches. I'm just questioning whether you're really likely to do it.

The letter size paper is more common and therefore more heavily discounted. True cost is of course pretty much proportional to area. Same goes for ink usage.

As for where to buy the printer, it's been a long time since I bought, and I don't even remember where I got mine. I use

http://www.pricegrabber.com

to find good prices and to judge how reputable a merchant is. I won't buy from anyone who gets a bad rating, or even a mediocre rating.

The printer comes with a sample pack, but you really need to try out more papers, including Ilford papers and other non-Epson papers. I recommend buying small quantities until you've selected a paper that you really like. I've been using heavyweight matte for most of my prints, and also some premium glossy for snapshots to mail to the non-digital people out there. However, after seeing pearl finish papers from Ilford and Epson, I wish I didn't have so much stock on hand ;-)--Peter Epstein

It looks the price has been coming down on the 1280...I got mine a few weeks ago at Amazon ($475 w/free shipping)...I think both Amazon and bhphotovideo.com have lowered their prices recently I assume because of the much anticipated new Epson 7 color printer...by the way I only have a 2.1 megapixel camera (although a film scanner is on my wish list)...it is a 10x zoom so in some ways not exactly like a 2.1 mp because you can zoom in close to your subject and I don't have to blow up and crop...BUT so far I have some fabulous 8x10 borderless prints withe the 1280...just waiting for the right shot to start printing larger GOOD LUCK

Peter Epstein said:

I'm using a 1270 now, and I bought it for printing images from a 3
megapixel Coolpix 990 digicam. I don't think I'd want to print such
an image any bigger than 8 by 10. If I were starting from a 3
megapixel SLR, the image would be cleaner (less noise), and I'd
think about printing larger. I've now got a Sony 707, which has a 5
megapixel CCD. Noise is once again a concern, but the extra pixels
mean I can print larger or crop more. So far I haven't printed
anything over letter size, but based on crops I'm confident I could
make a nice print on 11 by 17 inch paper, especially if I resampled
the image before printing. I'm not saying that a 3 megapixel
consumer digicam can't print bigger than 8 by 10 inches. I'm just
questioning whether you're really likely to do it.

The letter size paper is more common and therefore more heavily
discounted. True cost is of course pretty much proportional to
area. Same goes for ink usage.

As for where to buy the printer, it's been a long time since I
bought, and I don't even remember where I got mine. I use

http://www.pricegrabber.com

to find good prices and to judge how reputable a merchant is. I
won't buy from anyone who gets a bad rating, or even a mediocre
rating.

The printer comes with a sample pack, but you really need to try
out more papers, including Ilford papers and other non-Epson
papers. I recommend buying small quantities until you've selected a
paper that you really like. I've been using heavyweight matte for
most of my prints, and also some premium glossy for snapshots to
mail to the non-digital people out there. However, after seeing
pearl finish papers from Ilford and Epson, I wish I didn't have so
much stock on hand ;-)
--
Peter Epstein

Click to expand...

From the reviews and everyone's comments, ... the Canon 9000 is definately TOP DOG right now ... so, if you have the dough, go buy one. Buying the Epson 1280 for about the same money will get you a slower printer, and the quality will Almost be that of the Canon 9000...

If you need to save a few bucks, checkout eBay ... search for 1270 or 1280

.... and you should find a decent deal ... if your budget is really low, then go buy an Epson 780 ... then wait for the Canon 9000 to drop in price a bit ...

The best place to purchase a 780 right now is http://www.hsn.com They have a Epson 780 (listed only as Epson Photo Printer) for $68 .... WAIT ...then you can get a $15 first time buyer rebate .... (you'll find the rebate code number over at http://www.techbargains.com ) so your price will be $53 plus $7 ship, for a grand total of under $60 for one extremely nice printer....
Allen S

Su M. said:

Peter Epstein said:

I'm using a 1270 now, and I bought it for printing images from a 3
megapixel Coolpix 990 digicam. I don't think I'd want to print such
an image any bigger than 8 by 10. If I were starting from a 3
megapixel SLR, the image would be cleaner (less noise), and I'd
think about printing larger. I've now got a Sony 707, which has a 5
megapixel CCD. Noise is once again a concern, but the extra pixels
mean I can print larger or crop more. So far I haven't printed
anything over letter size, but based on crops I'm confident I could
make a nice print on 11 by 17 inch paper, especially if I resampled
the image before printing. I'm not saying that a 3 megapixel
consumer digicam can't print bigger than 8 by 10 inches. I'm just
questioning whether you're really likely to do it.

The letter size paper is more common and therefore more heavily
discounted. True cost is of course pretty much proportional to
area. Same goes for ink usage.

As for where to buy the printer, it's been a long time since I
bought, and I don't even remember where I got mine. I use

http://www.pricegrabber.com

to find good prices and to judge how reputable a merchant is. I
won't buy from anyone who gets a bad rating, or even a mediocre
rating.

The printer comes with a sample pack, but you really need to try
out more papers, including Ilford papers and other non-Epson
papers. I recommend buying small quantities until you've selected a
paper that you really like. I've been using heavyweight matte for
most of my prints, and also some premium glossy for snapshots to
mail to the non-digital people out there. However, after seeing
pearl finish papers from Ilford and Epson, I wish I didn't have so
much stock on hand ;-)
--
Peter Epstein

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

you can get an epson 1280 at http://www.usavegelt.com which i did about 3 weeks ago, the printer is extremely high quality, i have not seen better photographic quality than epsons 2880dpi line of printers. also at usavegelt.com the price was at 399, which is pretty descent for a large format photographic printer...

enjoy!

I can understand for more professional use, that the extra speed of the 9000 might be valuable, but for home use, speed is less of a concern. likewise, built in support for a wide variety of papers is not a big concerns for pros, since they're likely to create their own profiles, but for home users, the limited paper choices available is an issue.

Then there is the issue of paper thickness limitations on the 9000. Of course, there are issues with the Epson too, such as concern over color reproduction with the new made in China ink cartridges. The printing cost is hard to judge. Separate cartridges for each color sounds good, especially if the price per liter of ink is lower, but it isn't clear from what I've read whether the Canon really is any cheaper to run.

I'm not saying the Canon is a bad printer, just that it isn't obvious whether it is any better than the 1280. What is clear is that both printers are actually very good. The differences are subtle when you step back and think about it.--Peter Epstein

I will put my 2 cents in. I have an Epson 1280 printer and print 8 by 10 and the super A3 (13 by 19). I can't tell any difference in the quality, they are very good. I have an Olympus E-10 that I us for all of the photos that I take. My wife has an Olympus C-2000 Z which is an 2.1 megapixel camera and the quality of the photos from it, is almost as good as my E-10. I have to look very close to see the difference. As far as the ink cost I would go with the continuous ink flow system, it will save you allot of money in time.
I can get Epson Matte paper for 21.5 cents per sheet, this is 8 by 10.

The only other printer I can make a comment about is the HP 930, which will put out almost the same quality as the 1280. I have only printed two photos from it so if I would print a large quanity this may change.
Hope that this will help.
Gaylon Janes

Peter Epstein said:

I can understand for more professional use, that the extra speed of
the 9000 might be valuable, but for home use, speed is less of a
concern. likewise, built in support for a wide variety of papers is
not a big concerns for pros, since they're likely to create their
own profiles, but for home users, the limited paper choices
available is an issue.

Then there is the issue of paper thickness limitations on the 9000.
Of course, there are issues with the Epson too, such as concern
over color reproduction with the new made in China ink cartridges.
The printing cost is hard to judge. Separate cartridges for each
color sounds good, especially if the price per liter of ink is
lower, but it isn't clear from what I've read whether the Canon
really is any cheaper to run.

I'm not saying the Canon is a bad printer, just that it isn't
obvious whether it is any better than the 1280. What is clear is
that both printers are actually very good. The differences are
subtle when you step back and think about it.
--
Peter Epstein

Click to expand...

Peter Epstein said:

If you want to save money, you can get the 890 instead of the 1280.
It's the same printer in a narrower format.

Click to expand...

What are the differences between the 890 and 895?

--Pablettowww.pbase.com/pabletto(samples taken with the MINOLTA DiMAGE 7)Last update 26 February 2002 (MORE food photos)

Peter Epstein said:

Separate cartridges for each
color sounds good, especially if the price per liter of ink is
lower, but it isn't clear from what I've read whether the Canon
really is any cheaper to run.

Click to expand...

Peter, you think the people at Canon are stupid enough to provide us with cheaper solutions, so that they get a lower profit?

Their printer is MUCH more expensive. Their paper is MUCH more epensive. So, where is the good deal, even IF their inks are slightly cheaper. This does not really look like a good deal to me.
Just my thoughts.

--Pablettowww.pbase.com/pabletto(samples taken with the MINOLTA DiMAGE 7)Last update 26 February 2002 (MORE food photos)

I hadn't heard of the 895 before. It appears not to be available in the US. I found this link:

http://www.epson.co.uk/product/printers/photo/styphoto895/index.htm

This makes me think it's an 890 with a card reader and controls for printing images directly off the card, sans computer. Not something I care to pay for.--Peter Epstein

Peter Epstein said:

I hadn't heard of the 895 before. It appears not to be available in
the US. I found this link:

http://www.epson.co.uk/product/printers/photo/styphoto895/index.htm

This makes me think it's an 890 with a card reader and controls for
printing images directly off the card, sans computer. Not something
I care to pay for.
--
Peter Epstein

Click to expand...

Thanks Peter.

--Pablettowww.pbase.com/pabletto(samples taken with the MINOLTA DiMAGE 7)Last update 26 February 2002 (MORE food photos)

Pabletto,

A good deal for me starts with a product that works. I wasted a lot of time and money (3 sets of retail ink cartridges, 40-50 sheets of photo paper) trying to get value out of 2 different Epsons that finally ended up going back to the store. A $100 doorstop is far less of a value than a $300 printer. I would take the more expensive Canon, hands down. I own an S800 now. Also, I am using Weink refills ($1 per cartridge, after the initial investment) and I buy a number of other papers on sale as they come up. I produce phenominal prints (at least to me and the people who see them).

Epson HWM = .29/sheet retail
Weink Cost Per Page = .02

.31 for a matte 8x10. Not bad. I am sure you could have the same economy on the Epson using third part inks or an CIS. I will find it hard to give them a try again though, given this is my third bad experience with them in terms of reliability. I also paid $200 more so I could have a removeable, user replaceable print head that I can buy from the manufacturer without much hassle (there are some other vendors who offer the same head for about the same price online as well). Overall, this seems MUCH more economical to me. At least more so than you make it out to be. Also, the Canon inks and ink consumption versus the Epson inks and consumption is DRASTIC. Not minimal or marginal, but DRASTIC. I got about 15 8x10 prints from an Epson color cartridge. I replaced 3 carts over the course of printing about 70 8x10's, these carts will go for another 60 - 70 prints. The other three colors will last 3-4 of these cycles before they will need to be replaced (probably 200+ prints). I went through 3 cartridges on an Epson 820 printing about 40 8x10's due to the numerous cleaning cycles. So many cleaning cycles in fact, that I watched it eat up about 1/3 of a cartridge without a single print at one point. IF we compare apples to apples, meaning... OEM carts purchased at retail, the Canon is much more frugal and economical in it's ink usage. Obviously, third party inks, web purchases, bulk purchases and CI systems would change the playing field.

Pabletto said:

Peter Epstein said:

Separate cartridges for each
color sounds good, especially if the price per liter of ink is
lower, but it isn't clear from what I've read whether the Canon
really is any cheaper to run.

Click to expand...

Peter, you think the people at Canon are stupid enough to provide
us with cheaper solutions, so that they get a lower profit?
Their printer is MUCH more expensive. Their paper is MUCH more
epensive. So, where is the good deal, even IF their inks are
slightly cheaper. This does not really look like a good deal to me.
Just my thoughts.

--
Pabletto

http://www.pbase.com/pabletto
(samples taken with the MINOLTA DiMAGE 7)
Last update 26 February 2002 (MORE food photos)

Click to expand...