I use the 1200 as well and remain quite pleased. I've also found that quite a few big ticket pros continue to use a 1200 for their portfolio prints. While the 1200 prints don't have the endurance of 1270 or 1280 prints, they display uniquely brilliant color. Paul
Len Paris wrote: > > I guess the Epson Photo 1200 could be an exceptionably reliable printer. > I've owned mine since the first year it became available and have had no > clogging, or other printing problems with it at all. I worry about how > much longer ink cartridges will be available for it, though. I suppose > that, at the first sign of availability problems, I will have to spring > for a new printer. I guess we can't expect Epson to support all of > their printers forever. > > Len > --- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 12:04 PM > > To: David Brooks > > Subject: Re[3]: Hp scanner, printers whatever, they're all bad! > > > > > > David, > > > > I have to say, that in the US, that is not the case and in my > > own experience - yes I have owned, Espsons, Canons and HP's - > > that HP's are reliable. The worst reliability that I have > > experienced is the cheap Epsons. They print beautifully when > > they work. But head clogs and paper feeding really are poor > > (785 and 820). I had an 870 model (cost much more) that > > always worked great. I have had 4 or 5 Canons - all printed > > pretty good - no real problems. The HP's I have owned have > > performed reliably. They are not the best photo printers. > > If your intention is home printing of photos, I would get an > > expensive Epson. But for everyday printing (non-photo) I > > would not hesitate to get an HP. > > > > > > Bruce
