All epson cartridges have chips, thats why you can't refill
it. There is a company called Inktech that makes 
epson refilled cartridges though, they buy blank ones
and fill it with ink they buy in bulk from epson, lexmark,
Hp etc and sell it under their brand name. I don't seem to get as
much prints out of them but they are 2/3's the OEM price
so its all good

Feroze
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: Which Photo quality printer?


> I think the 1280 and 1290 use an ink cartridge with a chip in it.  This
> stops you using third party inks.  Not a great problem unless you want
> to use the true black and white inks that specialist companies make.  If
> you do a lot of black and white, the 1270 is best I think.
> 
> A word on pigment based inks - the colour is nowhere near as vivid as
> normal inkjets.  They may have better archival qualities but the prints
> come 'pre-faded' as the ink doesn't work so well in the first place!!
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Scott [mailto:daniel559@;directvinternet.com] 
> > 
> > I have the 1270, too, and it is a very nice printer though it 
> > is out of 
> > production. Its successors, the 1280 and 1290, are both 
> > available new, I 
> > believe. One of their nicest features (aside from image  
> > quality) is the 
> > ability to handle good sized pieces of paper--13"x44". The 
> > 1280 and 1290 
> > both print full bleed, but I think printing an 8"x10" on a piece of 
> > 13"x19" trimmed down a little looks great (that lovely 
> > expanse of white 
> > makes even the most humble photo stand tall).
> > 
> >   Another Epson you might want to look at is the 2200, it uses an 
> > advanced set of inks (pigments, not dyes) with exceptional 
> > colorfastness. Properly mounted, current estimates are 75+ years of 
> > daily display with no perceptible color shift.
> > 
> > I think the 1270-80-90s are rated at about 25 years depending on the 
> > papers used.
> > 
> > Dan Scott
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Reply via email to