Inkjet Purchase

[Larry]

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

Having read the opinions on the Canon ip4000 (and 5000), they look good to
replace my Epson C86. But, what are the downsides of the ip4000. Cost per
photo, general ink costs etc. Have not been able to find much about them
from a user perspective

many thanks
Larry

 

[Guest]

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

"Larry" <josephlbeattie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96BBBB482453Dlarrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76...
> Having read the opinions on the Canon ip4000 (and 5000), they look good to
> replace my Epson C86. But, what are the downsides of the ip4000. Cost per
> photo, general ink costs etc. Have not been able to find much about them
> from a user perspective

I can't comment on the ip4000/5000, but you might want to give the ip6000d a
look right now. The price is ~$120 (Fry's or buy.com w/free shipping) before
Canon's $20 rebate, and -- at least for me -- the automatic duplexing, LCD
screen, direct printing from a camera, memory cards, etc. makes it worth more
than both the 4000 or 5000 (even though the cost is inbetween those two!).

---Joel Kolstad

 

[Guest]

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

The Canons are the cheapest to operate by far, whether you buy OEM tanks or
compatibles or refill.


"Larry" <josephlbeattie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96BBBB482453Dlarrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76...
> Having read the opinions on the Canon ip4000 (and 5000), they look good to
> replace my Epson C86. But, what are the downsides of the ip4000. Cost per
> photo, general ink costs etc. Have not been able to find much about them
> from a user perspective
>
> many thanks
> Larry

 

[zakezuke]

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

> I had a Canon i850, and currently use an HP 6540. A friend has a Canon
> iP3000 now and an i550 before that, and we've compared ink usage of all
> four over several months. The Canon is actually slightly MORE expensive
> for colour pages, but a tad cheaper for black text, compared to my HP
> 6540. This is using OEM inks only, of course.

I suspect that this is due in part to the fact that the i550 and i850
IIRC and the ip3000 do not offer a dedicated photo black. If what I
suspect is true.. that on photo paper the pigment black isn't used but
rather the three primarys are mixed. You might want to re-evaluate
your numbers, but you do raise a valid point. A more valid point would
be to consider your options before buying a printer... a cheaper model
might have higher long term costs than a model that costs a little bit
more.

I can definatly say i've saved money on the mp760 vs hp's psc950, but
that isn't a fair contest as the yield of the #15 and #78 are lower
than the #96 and #97.

I do find I use more ink in my ip3000 than the mp760 so this might be
valid.

 

[zakezuke]

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

> the 6000d is for newbies that do not want to print using a computer.

Odd, I thought a printer was for people who wanted to print things.
And making hard copy without having to sit down... even "I" use that
feature. While most people don't actually need a screen esp since
pictBridge is available, it's pretty much the only option for canon 6
tank photo printers with the exception of units that don't take 6
tanks.

> the ip5000 produces substantically better business documents but not quite as
> good photos and is slower

Well it's twice the resolution. That's rather the flaw with the canon
design using a preciese ink jet that can only deliver one size rather
than one jet that can deliver variable size. Oddly enough I find the
color rendering better on the ip5000, more accurate less vivid.

> the printer is slower and produces marginal worse quality than an ip4000.

This may change with the new iP6600D. The nozzle count on the ip6000
was less than that of the older i960, but the iP6600D is back up to 512
nozzels per color and as a bonus has the 1pl drop size.
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/canon_pixma_ip6600d_printer_announced/
There are other models between 6000 and 6600 that don't use seperate
tanks, just a pair one for color and one for light inks. Not sure of
their size.

The new ip4200 is listed as having the same nozzle count as the ip4000,
so I suspect it's the same arangment of 320 black nozzles, 512 cyan
magenta, 256 Yellow and black.

But expect costs to be slightly higher as the new canon inks are
chipped.

 

[frank]

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

Larry wrote:

> Having read the opinions on the Canon ip4000 (and 5000), they look good to
> replace my Epson C86. But, what are the downsides of the ip4000. Cost per
> photo, general ink costs etc. Have not been able to find much about them
> from a user perspective
>
> many thanks
> Larry

Be sure you get into using non-oem inks. You'll save a bundle and never
know the difference.
Frank

 

[Guest]

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

THERE ARE NO REAL DOWNSIDES AS LONG AS YOU USE CANON INK.

Larry wrote:

>Having read the opinions on the Canon ip4000 (and 5000), they look good to
>replace my Epson C86. But, what are the downsides of the ip4000. Cost per
>photo, general ink costs etc. Have not been able to find much about them
>from a user perspective
>
>many thanks
>Larry
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

THE 6000D IS FOR NEWBIES THAT DO NOT WANT TO PRINT USING A COMPUTER.
THE PRINTER IS SLOWER AND PRODUCES MARGINAL WORSE QUALITY THAN AN
IP4000. THE IP5000 PRODUCES SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER BUSINESS DOCUMENTS BUT
NOT QUITE AS GOOD PHOTOS AND IS SLOWER.

Joel Kolstad wrote:

>"Larry" <josephlbeattie@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns96BBBB482453Dlarrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76...
>
>
>>Having read the opinions on the Canon ip4000 (and 5000), they look good to
>>replace my Epson C86. But, what are the downsides of the ip4000. Cost per
>>photo, general ink costs etc. Have not been able to find much about them
>>from a user perspective
>>
>>
>
>I can't comment on the ip4000/5000, but you might want to give the ip6000d a
>look right now. The price is ~$120 (Fry's or buy.com w/free shipping) before
>Canon's $20 rebate, and -- at least for me -- the automatic duplexing, LCD
>screen, direct printing from a camera, memory cards, etc. makes it worth more
>than both the 4000 or 5000 (even though the cost is inbetween those two!).
>
>---Joel Kolstad
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Frank wrote:

> Larry wrote:
>
>> Having read the opinions on the Canon ip4000 (and 5000), they look
>> good to replace my Epson C86. But, what are the downsides of the
>> ip4000. Cost per photo, general ink costs etc. Have not been able to
>> find much about them from a user perspective
>>
>> many thanks
>> Larry
>
>
> Be sure you get into using oem inks. .
> Frank

 

[Guest]

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

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>>
>>> Having read the opinions on the Canon ip4000 (and 5000), they look
>>> good to replace my Epson C86. But, what are the downsides of the
>>> ip4000. Cost per photo, general ink costs etc. Have not been able to
>>> find much about them from a user perspective
>>>
>>> many thanks
>>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>> Be sure you get into using oem inks. .
>> Frank

Why are you changing someone else post? Don't you know everyone can see
what you are doing? What is the purpose of doing such a thing? Can you
give us a logical and intelligent reason? I have seen you do this many
times before as I am sure everyone else has also seen this same
behavior. It is wrong to do this so why do you continue to do it?
Thanks.
Jon B.

 

[zakezuke]

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

> Why are you changing someone else post? Don't you know everyone can see
> what you are doing? What is the purpose of doing such a thing? Can you
> give us a logical and intelligent reason? I have seen you do this many
> times before as I am sure everyone else has also seen this same
> behavior.

Near as we've been able to establish there are three major issues that
this user lashes out about.

1. Venders posting in this forum. The whole non-comerical aspect to
usenet died a decade ago, and actually they were a great source of
technical help that kept many users printing. No one could pretend
there wasn't any self interest involved but these venders actually
offered advice that benifited all. So this user harrassed them until
they left, even though he was the only person who had a problem with
this arangement.

2. He has issues with what he describes as "The Church of the
Aftermarket". While I'll agree it would be wrong to have only one
viewpoint, this user takes it ten steps beyond and spams this forum
with "ONLY OEM" plugs for Canon inks, and changes other user's posts
for emotional manipluation. Most have kill filed him as any dialog has
been established as pointless. I don't know why I bother... probally
because I don't know how to kill file a user under google.

there are a few theories as to why

1. He's just a sick person who doesn't know any better who experences
joy annoying others
2. He's paid for by one of the many businesses that canon outsources
to for spamming
3. He's represents an aftermarket vender and all this negative ranting
does nothing but to give them business

Regardless of the reason this user is part of an old style flame war
that always starts with "my widget is better than your widget" and
degrades on from there. The fight has become more one sided since more
and more just kill file him.

 

[bill]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>> I had a Canon i850, and currently use an HP 6540. A friend has a Canon
>> iP3000 now and an i550 before that, and we've compared ink usage of all
>> four over several months. The Canon is actually slightly MORE expensive
>> for colour pages, but a tad cheaper for black text, compared to my HP
>> 6540. This is using OEM inks only, of course.
>
>I suspect that this is due in part to the fact that the i550 and i850
>IIRC and the ip3000 do not offer a dedicated photo black. If what I
>suspect is true.. that on photo paper the pigment black isn't used but
>rather the three primarys are mixed.

Actually, with all three Canon models the black ink is used if the
representative grayscale colour is "80% black" or higher. We confirmed
it with the photos under magnification.

My HP 6540 does not use the black ink with photos, but it still produces
a very dark black - somewhat better than the Canon does when mixing CMY.

> A more valid point would
>be to consider your options before buying a printer... a cheaper model
>might have higher long term costs than a model that costs a little bit
>more.

That can certainly be true.

 

[Guest]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>>Why are you changing someone else post? Don't you know everyone can see
>>what you are doing? What is the purpose of doing such a thing? Can you
>>give us a logical and intelligent reason? I have seen you do this many
>>times before as I am sure everyone else has also seen this same
>>behavior.
>>
>>
>
>Near as we've been able to establish there are three major issues that
>this user lashes out about.
>
>1. Venders posting in this forum. The whole non-comerical aspect to
>usenet died a decade ago, and actually they were a great source of
>technical help that kept many users printing. No one could pretend
>there wasn't any self interest involved but these venders actually
>offered advice that benifited all. So this user harrassed them until
>they left, even though he was the only person who had a problem with
>this arangement.
>
>

BULLSHIT

>2. He has issues with what he describes as "The Church of the
>Aftermarket". While I'll agree it would be wrong to have only one
>viewpoint, this user takes it ten steps beyond and spams this forum
>with "ONLY OEM" plugs for Canon inks, and changes other user's posts
>for emotional manipluation. Most have kill filed him as any dialog has
>been established as pointless. I don't know why I bother... probally
>because I don't know how to kill file a user under google.
>
>

LEARN

>there are a few theories as to why
>
>1. He's just a sick person who doesn't know any better who experences
>joy annoying others
>
>
NO

>2. He's paid for by one of the many businesses that canon outsources
>to for spamming
>
>
NO

>3. He's represents an aftermarket vender and all this negative ranting
>does nothing but to give them business
>
>Regardless of the reason this user is part of an old style flame war
>that always starts with "my widget is better than your widget" and
>degrades on from there. The fight has become more one sided since more
>and more just kill file him.
>
>
>

 

[davy]

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

Put it this way, My Epson clogged on the 2nd day, the replacement
clogged on the 4th day all this with Epson inks.- so I 'tossed it'
and that was the best thing I ever did.

I was even doubtful in getting the ip5000 as I thought finer print
heads = more cloggs, how very wrong I was.

I bought a Canon ip5000 over 3 months ago, not one single head clog
nor print head test required to date, I guess the same can be said
for the ip4000 as it's basically the same printer, note the ip5000
will only print at 1pl resolution on 'Photo Pro' paper setting this
facility is not on the ip4000.

With the Epson I had to check the prints or documents every single
time for defects with the Canon 100% I don't need to, it prints
100% all the time except for 'user cockups'. You'll find the inks
last far far longer than the Epsons.

Its not just the cost with Epson it's how many wasted bad prints and
how many times you need to flush the heads,.

Epson's ink are costly which makes people find dodges like refilling
and using 3rd party inks, I found the Canon to be pretty reliable and
very economical with the inks so in the meantime I will stick with
Canon inks.

The Canon carts are not chipped and easily refillable of so wished,
one day I may venture down this Avenue, as I see it a good printer
derserves
good ink, a unreliable ink guzzler like Epson - well, why waste
money.

If this printer failed me I would buy another one tomorrow I can't say
that for Epson no way.

Davy

 

[Guest]

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

Davy wrote:
> Put it this way, My Epson clogged on the 2nd day, the replacement
> clogged on the 4th day all this with Epson inks.- so I 'tossed it'
> and that was the best thing I ever did.
>
> I was even doubtful in getting the ip5000 as I thought finer print
> heads = more cloggs, how very wrong I was.
>

You're right, size isn't everything. A far bigger factor is "time".
Under use the printer and the ink in the printhead will dry. Inks are
designed to be rather quick drying, so clogging of the printhead is one
of the side-effects we can develop. Print something a couple of times a
week and the printhead will thank you.

I've had no problems whatsoever with clogging because of the 1pl head on
my iP5000, and I've been using it since Christmas 2004. If it was going
to clog it would have done so long ago. So we know the basic design is
solid. My printer is fueled on a mix of compatibles for the BCI-6
cartridges and bulk black for the BCI-3e. As it's my "quality work"
printer it doesn't get all that much use. Once in a while a run a simple
document through just to keep things fluid. My "workhorse printer" is an
i860 and it uses the even more economical bulk inks exclusively. I keep
an eye on both with regular nozzle checks. For the iP5000, after 6
months, I took out the printhead and flushed all of the ink out of the
printhead (eye-dropper and spring water through the intake tubes until
only clear water came out). When I finish a couple of current projects
I'll do the same for the i860. Call it preventative maintenance.

-Taliesyn

 

[mbailey]

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:07:37 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

>Dan G wrote:
>
>>"Larry" <josephlbeattie@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns96BBBB482453Dlarrybeattieshawca@64.59.144.76...
snip...
>
>I had a Canon i850, and currently use an HP 6540. A friend has a Canon
>iP3000 now and an i550 before that, and we've compared ink usage of all
>four over several months. The Canon is actually slightly MORE expensive
>for colour pages, but a tad cheaper for black text, compared to my HP
>6540. This is using OEM inks only, of course.

Noticed that you own an HP 6540.... Just purchased this for my office
after good reviews. However, I'm VERY disappointed in the black text,
which predominantly what we use....somewhat blurry/fuzzy...certanly
not sharp & crisp as other HP's I've had.

Just curious what your opinion is on this printer. That Fast Draft is
certainly fast...but poor quality. Changing to other settings is
certainly not as convenient as I thought....what is your default
setting?

Thanks for your input.

Marilyn

 

[zakezuke]

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

> This person is totally atypical. He has an extremely high printload.
> That is he he does not have clogs. However he did have to buy another
> printhead.

> People who have a normal printload have a risk of clogging especially
> with aftermarket ink.

How do you define a heavy user?

The printer has an offical duty cycle of 7,200p black (1500cpp) over 5
years, or 1440p/year or 120p a month. Now, given they are using a
measurement of 1500 characters per page... courier 10cpi... that would
be a max of 7,200 characters per page... a factor of 4.8x. But most
people use margins... assuming a 5 line top/bottom and 10 on either
side this would be 3360..... a factor of 2.24. So assuming courier 10
cpi, a standard of measurement that only applied to the dot matrix and
daisy wheel days... we're talking 3214p over 5 years, 640p/year, or
50p/month.

Are you saying that a heavy user is one who prints more than 50pages of
text a month? If not, how do you define a heavy user?

 

[Guest]

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

This person is totally atypical. He has an extremely high printload.
That is he he does not have clogs. However he did have to buy another
printhead.

People who have a normal printload have a risk of clogging especially
with aftermarket ink.

Taliesyn wrote:

> Davy wrote:
>
>> Put it this way, My Epson clogged on the 2nd day, the replacement
>> clogged on the 4th day all this with Epson inks.- so I 'tossed it'
>> and that was the best thing I ever did.
>>
>> I was even doubtful in getting the ip5000 as I thought finer print
>> heads = more cloggs, how very wrong I was.
>>
>
> You're right, size isn't everything. A far bigger factor is "time".
> Under use the printer and the ink in the printhead will dry. Inks are
> designed to be rather quick drying, so clogging of the printhead is one
> of the side-effects we can develop. Print something a couple of times a
> week and the printhead will thank you.
>
> I've had no problems whatsoever with clogging because of the 1pl head on
> my iP5000, and I've been using it since Christmas 2004. If it was going
> to clog it would have done so long ago. So we know the basic design is
> solid. My printer is fueled on a mix of compatibles for the BCI-6
> cartridges and bulk black for the BCI-3e. As it's my "quality work"
> printer it doesn't get all that much use. Once in a while a run a simple
> document through just to keep things fluid. My "workhorse printer" is an
> i860 and it uses the even more economical bulk inks exclusively. I keep
> an eye on both with regular nozzle checks. For the iP5000, after 6
> months, I took out the printhead and flushed all of the ink out of the
> printhead (eye-dropper and spring water through the intake tubes until
> only clear water came out). When I finish a couple of current projects
> I'll do the same for the i860. Call it preventative maintenance.
>
> -Taliesyn

 

[zakezuke]

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

> >How do you define a heavy user?

> usually they are users who do printing and weigh over 250 pounds.

It's generally accepted that one shouldn't sit on their printer.
Weight of the user shouldn't be a factor. The last printer I felt I
could sit on if need be was the HP LJ II, but it was very
uncomfortable. The Panasonic 4450i was much better for sitting if you
removed the output tray, but considering that the toner went in under
the output tray this is not reccomended.

This is another case where you can not accept a the fact

1. Canon printheads have a limited life
2. Sometimes canon produces a lame head

Once you accept these two ideas.... you'll be a happier person.

 

[zakezuke]

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

> Actually, Canon defines it at 18,000 pages or 5 years of use. The 7,200
> page value is for black text pages, along with photos, graphics, etc.

You are correct, I didn't feel the need to quote the full set of
numbers again but hey.

Black 1,500 character pattern 7,200 pages
Color A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern 5,400 pages
A4, photo, borderless printing 300 pages
4 x 6, photo, borderless printing 3,600 pages
Postcard, photo, borderless printing 1,500 pages

Assuming realisitc yeilds... like 3500 character/page and 50% yields it
brings the numbers down to the low thousands range. I worked it out in
another post but i'm too lazy to track it down and repost it.

 

[zakezuke]

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

> I find the Canon black ink bleeds too much into the paper, while the HP
> black ink is much better.

Current generation canons are somewhat of an inkhog from my
understanding. 25ml per 500p @ 5% yield does sugest high ml/page....
about as bad as the old HP 45a cart... where I would agree I did have
the same complaint on the thinner papers.

I have noticed what you are talking about on some papers, but not
others.

http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/printer-09.html

The 6540 isn't listed but the 7450 and 8150 are.
Assuming one sided printing I prefer the canon personaly. I find the
small fonts are more ledgeable. Two sided printing... really depends
on the paper but I can see how one might choose an HP over a canon in
this regard.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <ba0Qe.2911$rS4.182@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
inkystinky@oem.com says...
> This person is totally atypical. He has an extremely high printload.
> That is he he does not have clogs. However he did have to buy another
> printhead.
>
> People who have a normal printload have a risk of clogging especially
> with aftermarket ink.
>
Any evidence of this?

 

[bill]

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

mbailey wrote:

>>I had a Canon i850, and currently use an HP 6540. A friend has a Canon
>>iP3000 now and an i550 before that, and we've compared ink usage of all
>>four over several months. The Canon is actually slightly MORE expensive
>>for colour pages, but a tad cheaper for black text, compared to my HP
>>6540. This is using OEM inks only, of course.
>
>Noticed that you own an HP 6540.... Just purchased this for my office
>after good reviews. However, I'm VERY disappointed in the black text,
>which predominantly what we use....somewhat blurry/fuzzy...certanly
>not sharp & crisp as other HP's I've had.

Something is wrong then, perhaps an alignment issue, because the text I
print is sharper than the Canon printers I've seen, and much darker
black too. It's better than my old HP 6xx series too.

Comparing the HP 6540 to a laser is a lot closer than the Canons. I
thought I had somehow grabbed the wrong page the first time I put two
pages side-by-side and compared the output - the HP is that much darker
and sharper.

I find the Canon black ink bleeds too much into the paper, while the HP
black ink is much better.

>Just curious what your opinion is on this printer. That Fast Draft is
>certainly fast...but poor quality. Changing to other settings is
>certainly not as convenient as I thought....what is your default
>setting?

I use "draft" for larger amounts of text printing, and it's very sharp
and crisp. It's almost as dark as the default setting, easily a match
for the three Canon's I've seen.

Try doing another automatic alignment. Or perhaps try a manual alignment
from the Toolbox or printer driver.

 

[bill]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>How do you define a heavy user?
>
>The printer has an offical duty cycle of 7,200p black (1500cpp) over 5
>years,

Actually, Canon defines it at 18,000 pages or 5 years of use. The 7,200
page value is for black text pages, along with photos, graphics, etc.

To me, I would define a heavy user as one who pumps out 25 4x6" photos a
week, or an equivalent amount of text pages.

 

[zakezuke]

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

> I can't agree with your equivalency figures. 25 pages of text is hardly
> equivalent to 25 photos. I can print 25 pages of text in 3 or 4 minutes.
> Can't do that with photos. I think I need 4 minutes just to print ONE
> photo at 9600 dpi. So, from my printer's point of view, 25 photos would
> be the equivalent of something like 625 pages of text.

Perhaps from the motors point of view. I'd submit that 5% yield is a
good aproximation of average text coverage. and 50% to 75% yield a
good estimate of photo coverage.

A 4x6 area = 24 square inches
an 8.5 x 11 area = 93.5

Difference of x3.9 in terms of area

24sqin * 75% yield = 18 sqin yield
93.5 sqqin * 5% yield = 4.675 sq in yield

Area used on a 4x6 borderless photo is 3.85 times that of letter text
at 5% yield.

So in terms of area printed 25 4x6 photos = 96.25 pages of text
assuming text printing at 5% yield and photo printing at 75% yield.