Any opinions on Epson 1280?

I'm looking for one step lower than the EPSON 2200, in the $300 - $500
range. Actually read John C. Dvorak's narrative in PC magazine's Fall
2003 Special Issue that "I knew the 2200 would make a more permanent
image, since pigments are less subject to fading than dye. But the
color range of the dye-based printer was greater, and I was looking
for an edge in image quality so I got the 1280." Any validity to his
comments?

Please offer some recommendations on any photo printers in the
$300-$500 range as well.

Thanks in advance.
Steve

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:28:35 GMT, Steefun <slong7@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

All I can say is that I've owned a 1280 for about a year and a half.
I absolutely love it. I'm amazed at the quality every time I print a
high quality photo with it.






*´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> Ratz O. Fratzo

"Steefun" <slong7@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:22rtpvopamsbn13t1l4t9dvijk6airimfd@4ax.com...
Great printer.
His comments are valid, though perhaps a bit overstated. The color gamut is
a little larger with the 1280, but it is only noticeable if the prints are
side-by-side, and even then only in the extreme colors. IMO, it really
boils down to print longevity (2200) vs. lower cost and the ability to use
more glossy papers (1280).

You should also consider the Canon 9000 series.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

This is a great printer: it has had a long production/sales run presumably
because Epson has no real improvements. It is exceedingly accurate in color
so it will brutally reveal any problems with your monitor calibration.