Ink usage and cost

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Is _any_ of the printers not a ripoff?

I have an Epson C61, and my Old Man had an HP. The HP was giving him a
lot of trouble with paper feeds, and finally started to behave badly
enough to get rid of. I had had similar troubles with HP, and having
just bought my Epson, suggetsed he try one of those. But the ink is
costing me about a dollar a page! It uses about 1/8th of a cartridge
to do a "clean". I believbe the HPs are now not that much better.

Canon? Lexmark? I don't mind refilling, but Epson at least seem to
have that sewn up.
******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

A Canon Pixma ip3000 or ip4000 would be an excellent choice. There are
no smart chips, the printer actually detects the the physical presence
of ink using optical sensors and their are a wide variety of 3rd party
solutions for the printers.

The ip3000 offers standard 4 cartridge system of tanks with a user
replaceable print head.
The ip4000 offers much the same as the ip3000 but is equipped with two
black inks, one for text printing (using pigment inks) and a high
contrast dye based black for photo prints.

Information about ip3000 (These sell for about $80.00 at most Office
Supply Stores)
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=117&modelid=10238

Information about ip4000 (These sell for between $100-$129 at most
office supply stores)
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=117&modelid=10239

Information about 3rd party solutions
http://www.weink.com/ecom/products/canon.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The Canon IP4000 does NOT behave like the Epsons. The cost of the ink
is about 25% less and the result are somewhat better for a photo and
substantially better than the comparable Epson R3000. The Canon also
has twin paper feeds and prints full duplex.

Old Nick wrote:

>Is _any_ of the printers not a ripoff?
>
>I have an Epson C61, and my Old Man had an HP. The HP was giving him a
>lot of trouble with paper feeds, and finally started to behave badly
>enough to get rid of. I had had similar troubles with HP, and having
>just bought my Epson, suggetsed he try one of those. But the ink is
>costing me about a dollar a page! It uses about 1/8th of a cartridge
>to do a "clean". I believbe the HPs are now not that much better.
>
>Canon? Lexmark? I don't mind refilling, but Epson at least seem to
>have that sewn up.
>******************************************************************************************
>Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
>not something, you probably are.
>
>Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
>
>remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> !!
> <")
> _/ )
> ( )
> _//- \__/
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 2 Apr 2005 19:37:30 -0800, "WeInk_TechSupport"
<inksupport@weink.com> wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

Thanks for the input. I remember from a little while back people aying
that Canon were better from the ink point of view.

My problem is that I have a use now and then for a printer, but not
every day, and clogs simply chew ink. I have been told that making
sure I turn off every time I am nit using it helps, but I have still
used about 5 times as much ink head cleaning as I have printing!

>A Canon Pixma ip3000 or ip4000 would be an excellent choice. There are
>no smart chips, the printer actually detects the the physical presence
>of ink using optical sensors and their are a wide variety of 3rd party
>solutions for the printers.
>
>The ip3000 offers standard 4 cartridge system of tanks with a user

******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 2 Apr 2005 19:37:30 -0800, "WeInk_TechSupport"
<inksupport@weink.com> wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

Sorry, but I live in Oz. The prionters you mention run at about
AuD$300+ !!

What about the pixma 1000 and 1500? Are they of the the same inking
family. I don't need top quality by any means, but don't want to end
up coughing out for ink all the time, when I am hardly printing.

>A Canon Pixma ip3000 or ip4000 would be an excellent choice. There are
>no smart chips, the printer actually detects the the physical presence
>of ink using optical sensors and their are a wide variety of 3rd party
>solutions for the printers.
>

******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> The Canon IP4000 does NOT behave like the Epsons. The cost of the ink
> is about 25% less and the result are somewhat better for a photo and
> substantially better than the comparable Epson R3000. The Canon also
> has twin paper feeds and prints full duplex.

Have you seen any photos from R300?

--
#£ukasz Ledóchowski
#GG:503647 lukled@tlen.pl

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Yes, my friend has an R300. As a matter of fact his third in the past 9
months. They were replaced by Epson under warranty. The model has some
problems with the CD tray feeding mechanism. He had the same problem on
2 of the 3.

As far as results, we printed the same picture using Epson OEM ink on
the Epson and Canon OEM ink on the Canon. The results were as I send.
The photo was better on the Canon and business documents were
substantially better.

£ukasz Ledóchowski wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>The Canon IP4000 does NOT behave like the Epsons. The cost of the ink
>>is about 25% less and the result are somewhat better for a photo and
>>substantially better than the comparable Epson R3000. The Canon also
>>has twin paper feeds and prints full duplex.
>>
>>
>
>Have you seen any photos from R300?
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> As far as results, we printed the
> same picture using Epson OEM ink on the Epson and Canon OEM ink on
> the Canon. The results were as I send. The photo was better on the
> Canon and business documents were substantially better.

What settings did you use?


--
# £ukasz Ledóchowski
# GG: 503647 lukled@tlen.pl
# http://www.allegro.pl/show_user_auctions.php?uid=10223

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

£ukasz Ledóchowski wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>As far as results, we printed the
>>same picture using Epson OEM ink on the Epson and Canon OEM ink on
>>the Canon. The results were as I send. The photo was better on the
>>Canon and business documents were substantially better.
>>
>>
>
>What settings did you use?
>
>

Not sure what my friend used on the Epson. I used Canon Photo Paper Pro
andthe High setting.

>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> Not sure what my friend used on the Epson. I used Canon Photo Paper
> Pro andthe High setting.

You should check it if you say that Canon produces better photos. How
did you compare photos? Did you scan them and compare to original or
just looked and liked Canon prints more?


--
# £ukasz Ledóchowski
# GG: 503647 lukled@tlen.pl
# http://www.allegro.pl/show_user_auctions.php?uid=10223

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

£ukasz Ledóchowski wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>Not sure what my friend used on the Epson. I used Canon Photo Paper
>>Pro andthe High setting.
>>
>>
>
>You should check it if you say that Canon produces better photos. How
>did you compare photos? Did you scan them and compare to original or
>just looked and liked Canon prints more?
>
>
>

No I just did what 99% of the world population does; I look at them. If
I cannot see it then it is not there.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> > You should check it if you say that Canon produces better photos.
> > How did you compare photos? Did you scan them and compare to
> > original or just looked and liked Canon prints more?

> No I just did what 99% of the world population does; I look at them.
> If I cannot see it then it is not there.

What was the difference between prints?

--
# £ukasz Ledóchowski
# GG: 503647 lukled@tlen.pl
# http://www.allegro.pl/show_user_auctions.php?uid=10223

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Canon prints were sharper and more vivid colors. They seemed more lifelike.

£ukasz Ledóchowski wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>>You should check it if you say that Canon produces better photos.
>>>How did you compare photos? Did you scan them and compare to
>>>original or just looked and liked Canon prints more?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>No I just did what 99% of the world population does; I look at them.
>>If I cannot see it then it is not there.
>>
>>
>
>What was the difference between prints?
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 02:57:58 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

>The Canon IP4000 does NOT behave like the Epsons. The cost of the ink
>is about 25% less and the result are somewhat better for a photo and
>substantially better than the comparable Epson R3000. The Canon also
>has twin paper feeds and prints full duplex.
Thanks for the reply

That printer is way above my level. I want to print the odd page or
two, not photos. Even the page or two would be mostly for reference
purposes, and quality is not important.

So, are the cheaper Canons better for ink usage and easier to refill
etc? Sick of HP, and pissed off with Epsons and their use of ink for
"cleaninig".
******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Old Nick wrote:

> What about the pixma 1000 and 1500? Are they of the the same inking
> family. I don't need top quality by any means, but don't want to end
> up coughing out for ink all the time, when I am hardly printing.

These Canon will also be OK. Cartridges for these printers are
extremely cheap and as long as printhead is alive, you will be happy.

--
# £ukasz Ledóchowski
# GG: 503647 lukled@tlen.pl
# http://www.allegro.pl/show_user_auctions.php?uid=10223

 

[BURT]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

If you don't print often and only need text printing you should consider one
of the low price reasonably good rated laser printers. I've seen Brothers
on sale for around $100 on sale. All inkjet printers will clog if you don't
print somewhat regularly on them. With OEM inks the inkjet printer will
cost more per page than the laser printer as well. I have both an HP laser
printer for business documents and a canon i960 for photos and I refill the
canon cartridges with MIS inks. There are also prefilled ink cartridges
available with decent inks that are so cheap that someone doing very little
printing would probably do as well with these cartridges. Check out
Alotofthings.com for prefilled carts at a little over $2. They have been
selling only on ebay, but they are in the process of setting up their web
site to do direct sales. If you decide to use them, order the Arrow brand
carts.

"Old Nick" <nsnsafemail@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:424f83a1.92350824@localhost...
> On 2 Apr 2005 19:37:30 -0800, "WeInk_TechSupport"
> <inksupport@weink.com> wrote something
> ......and in reply I say!:
>
> Thanks for the input. I remember from a little while back people aying
> that Canon were better from the ink point of view.
>
> My problem is that I have a use now and then for a printer, but not
> every day, and clogs simply chew ink. I have been told that making
> sure I turn off every time I am nit using it helps, but I have still
> used about 5 times as much ink head cleaning as I have printing!
>
>>A Canon Pixma ip3000 or ip4000 would be an excellent choice. There are
>>no smart chips, the printer actually detects the the physical presence
>>of ink using optical sensors and their are a wide variety of 3rd party
>>solutions for the printers.
>>
>>The ip3000 offers standard 4 cartridge system of tanks with a user
>
> ******************************************************************************************
> Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
> not something, you probably are.
>
> Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
>
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> !!
> <")
> _/ )
> ( )
> _//- \__/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:25:41 GMT, "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net>
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

Thanks for the reply.

Trouble is I am in Oz. There is NO WAY I would get a laser printer for
$100, that I know of. To give to any idea, guys here have said the
Canon ip4000 is about $80. Here it's up around $300!

I am even reading about _Lasers_ that are reporting a full page
printed when one line is run off, and stopping you printing after 5000
"pages"!

I had an HP that was refillable. But it gave me heaps of trouble with
paper feeding. This Epson is an evil joke IMO.

>If you don't print often and only need text printing you should consider one
>of the low price reasonably good rated laser printers. I've seen Brothers
>on sale for around $100 on sale. All inkjet printers will clog if you don't
>print somewhat regularly on them. With OEM inks the inkjet printer will
>cost more per page than the laser printer as well. I have both an HP laser
>printer for business documents and a canon i960 for photos and I refill the
>canon cartridges with MIS inks. There are also prefilled ink cartridges
>available with decent inks that are so cheap that someone doing very little
>printing would probably do as well with these cartridges. Check out
>Alotofthings.com for prefilled carts at a little over $2. They have been
>selling only on ebay, but they are in the process of setting up their web
>site to do direct sales. If you decide to use them, order the Arrow brand
>carts.

******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:27:26 +0000 (UTC),
=?iso-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Led=F3chowski?= <lukled@tlen.pl> wrote
something
.......and in reply I say!:

>Old Nick wrote:
>
>> What about the pixma 1000 and 1500? Are they of the the same inking
>> family. I don't need top quality by any means, but don't want to end
>> up coughing out for ink all the time, when I am hardly printing.
>
>These Canon will also be OK. Cartridges for these printers are
>extremely cheap and as long as printhead is alive, you will be happy.

OK. Thanks. Now all I have to do is find a shop that _sells_ them over
here! grrr!

>
>--
># £ukasz Ledóchowski
># GG: 503647 lukled@tlen.pl
># http://www.allegro.pl/show_user_auctions.php?uid=10223

******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

 

[joel]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes, my friend has an R300. As a matter of fact his third in the past 9
> months. They were replaced by Epson under warranty. The model has some
> problems with the CD tray feeding mechanism. He had the same problem on
> 2 of the 3.

Probably because he has you as a friend? <g>

> As far as results, we printed the same picture using Epson OEM ink on
> the Epson and Canon OEM ink on the Canon. The results were as I send.
> The photo was better on the Canon and business documents were
> substantially better.

I read Canon does have some good printer, same with HP. But for some
reason I only own Epson and they don't die for me to switch to Canon. I may
go with Canon over HP for OEM ink, even I only pay around $2-2.50 for my
Epson ink (with 25% I will probably pat $1.50-$2 a pop which isn't bad).

> £ukasz Ledóchowski wrote:
>
> >measekite wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>The Canon IP4000 does NOT behave like the Epsons. The cost of the ink
> >>is about 25% less and the result are somewhat better for a photo and
> >>substantially better than the comparable Epson R3000. The Canon also
> >>has twin paper feeds and prints full duplex.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Have you seen any photos from R300?

 

[joel]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Canon prints were sharper and more vivid colors. They seemed more lifelike.

Honey, when we compare the print quality we often compare the grainy,
smothness etc.. not the color which can be changed from Black to White, Red
to Blue with a quick selection.

Here, the color of my <$100 inkjet looks much better than tens of
thousands (or even hundred of thousand of dollar) professional printers use
in photolab. But it doesn't make my inkjet printer a better printer, but it
works well with the color setting of my photoshop.

> £ukasz Ledóchowski wrote:
>
> >measekite wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>You should check it if you say that Canon produces better photos.
> >>>How did you compare photos? Did you scan them and compare to
> >>>original or just looked and liked Canon prints more?
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >>No I just did what 99% of the world population does; I look at them.
> >>If I cannot see it then it is not there.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What was the difference between prints?