Inkjet Purchase

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
57 answers Last reply
More about inkjet purchase
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
    >
    >
  7. 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
    >
    >
    >
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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?
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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?
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Bill wrote:
    > 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.

    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.

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

    zakezuke wrote:

    >>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?
    >
    >

    USUALLY THEY ARE USERS WHO DO PRINTING AND WEIGH OVER 250 POUNDS.

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

    Not to dismiss anything Davy indicated, but I tend to believe he
    unfortunately received two out of spec printers, and that Epson was not
    very helpful in resolving this expediently. Also, although it is no
    excuse, the printers were C62, low end models. Lastly, they come with a
    one year warranty, and so this situation should have been resolved
    during it. It seems Epson UK may have bungled things.

    The Canon ip5000 is a mid priced model. It is also a discontinued
    model, BTW, as Canon printers now will come with chipped cartridges as well.

    When Davy mentions the printer "clogged" after 2 days or 4 days, he
    doesn't mean they were clogs that couldn't be cleared through normal
    cleaning cycles, BTW.

    Art

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

    zakezuke wrote:

    >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.

    I'm sorry, but unfortunately the test samples on the page you mention do
    not reflect blackness level at all - they all appear to have the exact
    same darkness. But when you compare real pages side by side, the
    difference is quite striking - the HP ink is very much "blacker",
    especially when printing anything with lines or blocks in it.

    They also don't mention the type of paper they used, but from the
    results shown I'd say they used some kind of coated inkjet paper, not
    plain paper where the Canon ink bleeds into the paper really bad
    compared to the HP ink.

    As for legibility with tiny fonts, I agree the HP isn't as good as the
    Canon since HP 94/96 printheads use 15pl droplets. But then no one in
    their right mind would use such a small font, so I don't see the point.
    At realistic font sizes the HP is easily a match, if not better.

    And I don't know where Tom's Hardware gets their figures from for cost
    per page (no one does since they don't elaborate), but it's _WAY_ off
    the mark.

    For starters, they don't say anything about getting a black ink
    cartridge for the HP models, because when you buy a PhotoSmart printer,
    it doesn't include a black cartridge since they're intended for six
    colour photo printing. But if they used the small 94 black cart, I can
    see where the black text price would be so high. Using the much more
    economical 96 cart easily cuts the cost in half, so roughly 4 cents per
    page.

    And again, their colour costs are _WAY_ too high. I can only conclude
    they're using an unfair comparison model since the Canon printers are
    4-colour models but the HP are 6-colour printers. The HP costs are much
    higher and it must be because they're using the costs of the TWO ink
    cartridges with six colours (95 & 99) compared to only four colours in
    the Canon. Likely they just used what came in the box and didn't widen
    the comparison to include the more cost effective options. Nor did they
    level the playing field and limit the HP to just 4 colours and compare
    costs from that point.

    They also don't say what kind of paper was used for colour or photo
    printing. In my comparisons, the cost of paper is not included because
    the prices vary a lot depending on what you choose to use. Prices can
    easily soar to 2x higher with a simple paper change.

    Anyway, I found my HP 6540 prints MORE four colour graphs and photos for
    LESS than the cost of CMY ink tanks from Canon when using the HP 97
    tri-colour cartridge. For instance, the HP 97 costs $49 CDN, and the
    three Canon BCI-6 CMY tanks cost $57 CDN. But the HP cartridge prints
    more pages. Some people will say the individual tanks save ink, and
    while that may be true in some circumstances, it's a negligible amount
    with typical use, and the cost savings will even that out.

    Granted, my results are based on Canadian costs of various cartridges
    where Canon costs are a bit higher. But even at US prices, the HP is
    nowhere near as costly as Tom's Hardware suggests. I've also seen cost
    per page results from other tests in the past that compare 4-colour inks
    only, and those tests are more in line with Canon costs and my own
    results.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On 23-Aug-05 18:24, 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

    I almost cannot believe my eyes that someone would switch from Epson
    to Canon! Of course its your call, however as long Canon will not
    go beyond their dye ink technology (BCI-6), you might be up to a
    bad surprise...

    http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading

    The problem described on this web page relate to the Photo Paper Plus,
    not to the Pro, not even to the Photo Matte paper. But, why bother
    in the first place if Epson offers their leading technology with
    pigment inks?

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

    > the real problem there are no brands. a brand is a product that is made by a
    > mfg/formulator and is sold under a name he chooses through a varity of marketing
    > channels under that name. soon customers will either respect or disrespect that
    > product name.

    While it's true the large majority of companies that sell 3rd party ink
    don't disclose the mfg/formulator... there are indeed at least a few
    brands on the market, even two that i'm aware that meet measekite's
    strict requirements.

    > in this <ink> industry we have all of the dorks you talked about
    > selling who knows what they bought from who knows who and will not tell you who
    > made it. this is even more true when buying prefilled carts. the
    > chances are very high that you get the same thing from multiple <venders> so you
    > unknowingly repeat your mistake several times.
    <corrections mine>

    This is actually somewhat true. The several venders may indeed might
    be buying their ink from the same source. For example I can lookup on
    the web WJ797, Image Specalist yellow for the bci-6. And boom
    http://www.google.com/search?client=measekite-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=WJ797+&btnG=Google+Search
    I can see that several venders are selling WJ797 which would sugest
    it's the same thing. Another means of establishing if two venders are
    selling the same product is to request a MSDS from them.

    But not all venders will refuse to disclose that information.

    Measekite is very wise in sharing this observation... and I can't
    stress that one should consider getting a review of any product before
    buying it. But at the end of the day the major factors in selecting an
    ink are

    1. How much is it
    2. How does it look
    3. how long will it last
  31. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > They also don't mention the type of paper they used, but from the
    > results shown I'd say they used some kind of coated inkjet paper, not
    > plain paper where the Canon ink bleeds into the paper really bad
    > compared to the HP ink.

    If you are really curious you could ask. I would agree they probally
    used an inkjet bond paper which is reasonably priced.

    > And again, their colour costs are _WAY_ too high. I can only conclude
    > they're using an unfair comparison model since the Canon printers are
    > 4-colour models but the HP are 6-colour printers. The HP costs are much
    > higher and it must be because they're using the costs of the TWO ink
    > cartridges with six colours (95 & 99) compared to only four colours in
    > the Canon. Likely they just used what came in the box and didn't widen
    > the comparison to include the more cost effective options. Nor did they
    > level the playing field and limit the HP to just 4 colours and compare
    > costs from that point.

    Hey... valid points.. you should reccomend this to them. I can only
    assume that it is possible on the HPs to choose between 4 color and 6
    color printing. I was not aware of this.

    > As for legibility with tiny fonts, I agree the HP isn't as good as the
    > Canon since HP 94/96 printheads use 15pl droplets. But then no one in
    > their right mind would use such a small font, so I don't see the point.
    > At realistic font sizes the HP is easily a match, if not better.

    The lowest font I typicaly use is 6point. That to me on my other hp,
    which is I admit an older model, is the point where it starts to become
    too fuzzy to read. There are times when I go lower for disclaimers
    and such on the discs that I make (warning this is a fair use backup
    bla bla bla).

    > For starters, they don't say anything about getting a black ink
    > cartridge for the HP models, because when you buy a PhotoSmart > printer,
    > it doesn't include a black cartridge since they're intended for six
    > colour photo printing. But if they used the small 94 black cart, I can
    > see where the black text price would be so high. Using the much more
    > economical 96 cart easily cuts the cost in half, so roughly 4 cents per
    > page

    I know a question that's always been on my mind is whether you can use
    a #96 in a printer designated #94 only. At the time this review was
    new and I was considering printers I know I looked up those models and
    asked if they would accept a #96... and I didn't know. If they made an
    error in this regard I understand because the #96 wasn't listed at the
    time as being used in those printers.

    > Granted, my results are based on Canadian costs of various cartridges
    > where Canon costs are a bit higher. But even at US prices, the HP is
    > nowhere near as costly as Tom's Hardware suggests. I've also seen cost
    > per page results from other tests in the past that compare 4-colour inks
    > only, and those tests are more in line with Canon costs and my own
    > results.

    >From my understanding they are just going with the MFG published yields
    and the MSRP of the ink tanks. For example

    BCI-6 (3x($11.95))/280p=13c/page
    (to be fair one should add the black in)
    BCI-6 (4x($11.95))/280p=17c/page
    (note black is listed as 500p yield, the above reflects the assumption
    of 280p yield)
    HP97 $39.99/450p=9c/page
    HP98 $29.35/133 p=22c/page
    #97+98 = 31c/page
    BCI-6 (6x($11.95))/280 26c/page

    Assuming the yields are 100% accurate it looks like for 3 color
    printing the HP might actually be cheaper. To be fair one should take
    the BCI-6 black into account making it cost a tad more. But assuming
    US prices it looks like the canon might be cheaper than HP 6 color
    printing. What I don't know is how accurate the yields are for the #97
    and #98. As it's sold in a single tank they could be reporting 150
    cyan, 150 magenta, 150 yellow pages. I honestly don't know.

    I can say my printing costs have gone down assuming I was spending MSRP
    on inktanks since switching from the PSC 950.

    > I'm sorry, but unfortunately the test samples on the page you mention do
    > not reflect blackness level at all - they all appear to have the exact
    > same darkness. But when you compare real pages side by side, the
    > difference is quite striking - the HP ink is very much "blacker",
    > especially when printing anything with lines or blocks in it.

    I'll have to evaluate this further... To me the blackness level of the
    ip3000/mp760 is roughly equal to that of my old laser. But this is not
    a matter I'm ultra critical about. When printing off B&W diagrams I
    vote for clarity over contrast.

    Keep in mind i'm not a raving canon fananitic... I picked them up
    because the text quality was more than acceptable, the black printing
    was cheap, and it did DVD printing.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > I almost cannot believe my eyes that someone would switch from Epson
    > to Canon! Of course its your call, however as long Canon will not
    > go beyond their dye ink technology (BCI-6), you might be up to a
    > bad surprise...

    Reasons to switch from Epson to Canon

    1. Epsons clog, the heads foul, and they stop printing
    2. Epsons clog, the heads foul and they stop printing

    Granted this is only one reason but if a user's primary concern is
    trouble free operation i.e. hitting print... at least the base level
    epsons are not exactly a great choice.

    In all fairness to canon you are talking last years ink. The current
    generation of ink is Chromalife100 available in bci-7 or cli-8 tanks.
    In all fairness I must also say you can only order the bci-7 from Japan
    nears as i'm aware, and te cli-8 won't fit in current generation
    canons. I suspect you could if you desired mail order the bci-7s and
    put them into current generation canons and set them via service mode
    to the corisponding japanese model (pixus 3100/4100/6100 etc etc) but
    i've not actually tried this. Now this only raises the bar a little
    bit assuming photo paper plus, the spendy canon stuff... 25 years vs 20
    years. But you are not mistaken that the stock canon inks fade more
    quickly other options, including other dye options. I have observed
    this my self.

    I would agree, it's annoying that Canon doesn't offer pigment inks in
    their consumer line of products. They do offer them in their pro-wide
    printers but the price mark is several grand. I'm told the prowides
    are also bubble jets, so I have NO clue why they are not an option on
    the consumer line. Not that pigments are the end all be all of
    everything, HP does a great job with dye.

    My choice if it matters was my primary application was CD printing.
    Cost per page for black entered into the equation as well. I tried the
    r200 as was so displeased with it that I bought a ip3000... while I
    agree even epson's dye offers longer life, less wicking, and the color
    rendering of even their consumer printers is better than that of
    canon... I voted for a lack of head fouling over outright quality.

    I didn't consider the c84 or c86, whatever their base model is for
    durabrite inks, as much as I might have liked to. These printers and
    the r200 I see in 2nd hand shops with either head clogs... dislodged
    head gaskets, and generally give me the impression that these are not
    quality products that are likely to last beyond their warranty.. or
    hell even the 1 year warranty.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:58:53 -0700, ThomasH wrote:

    > On 23-Aug-05 18:24, 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
    >
    > I almost cannot believe my eyes that someone would switch from Epson
    > to Canon! Of course its your call, however as long Canon will not
    > go beyond their dye ink technology (BCI-6), you might be up to a
    > bad surprise...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    >
    > The problem described on this web page relate to the Photo Paper Plus,
    > not to the Pro, not even to the Photo Matte paper. But, why bother
    > in the first place if Epson offers their leading technology with
    > pigment inks?
    >
    > Thomas

    You must be kidding! Apparently you do not read the posts on this forum.
    Epsons clog, clog, clog, clog !
    --
    r.s.nevin@att.net
  34. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > ie If I want a Nikon camera I can buy the same model in many different
    > places.

    A better analogy would be film as it is a consumable. In fact...
    consumer reports actually did a report some years back about the best
    vender labled film available. Given the fact that there are a limited
    number of manufacturers of film and the manufacturer is etched on the
    film after developing it's not all that hard to establish the who.

    Buy why would you care if you could buy the same model Nikon from
    multiable places? You could buy a Nikon in a big retail shop, small
    specality shop, or mail order warehouse for example. Big shop is
    likely to have a limited selection of models, a lack of knowlege of the
    product, but might offer a good price.
    A specality shop is likely to have more models and more accessories and
    what they don't have they are likely to get via customer customer
    fulfillment. Prices tend to be higher but tend to make up for that
    with technical support from people who are experenced.
    Mail order warehouse is less likely to offer support but tends to be
    best on price and selection. Customer fulfillment is less nessicary as
    anything you want you can get from an online dealer.

    -Major concerns-
    1. How much is it
    2. How does it look
    3. how long will it last
    -Minor concerns-
    > 4. Who made it

    This information without context or experence is meaningless. I don't
    know who makes canon ink. But still that information is available from
    some places.

    5. What is the reputation of the BRAND

    Even in the retail world not everyone buys "brand named" prodcuts. You
    could buy Kelloggs Rice Krispies or you could buy rice puffs. I for
    example buy Trader Joe's Raisin Bran... this is a vender label for a
    breakfast cerial. No idea who makes the stuff, but I know it's very
    tasty.

    Milk is a better analogy. You could buy name brand milk, or you could
    buy the store label milk. I'm very picky about milk but you can look
    at the bottles and see the code for the dairy the milk came from... and
    often see that the milk at the very least came from the same place.
    Ultimatly for me I find that how the vender chooses to store the milk
    is my deciding factor. I don't typicaly buy milk from mini-marts as
    some choose to kill their refrigerators at night and the product goes
    slightly rancid to my taste. Others don't notice or care.

    The smart manufacturers make both a branded product and a generic
    product that are essentally the same thing. Those with brand loyality
    get what they want, and the more fruggle shopper is still buying your
    product rather than a lost sale.

    > 6. Can you buy it in multiple places.

    This is even more meaningless. But as you pointed out as in the case
    of ink it's common for many venders to buy ink from the same source.
    According to you this is common and I would agree. As the case with
    media street... they list dealers of their brand on their website.
    Priterite does not, not that i'd reccomend it but they are a very well
    known brand sold in such volume that such a database would be massive.
    The US market though typicaly gets this brand sold under a house label.
    Europe on the other hand can spy this at their local shop with ease.

    For example I liked the Arizona Jeans Wear leather vests. I could only
    buy them at... either Sears or J.c. pennies... a place that had an
    exclusive contract for their products. The fact that I could only buy
    that product in one place didn't bother me at all, I could go to my
    local sears or mail order it.

    > 7. Does the BRAND have a reputation for clogging printers.

    Well... this would be covered under "is it any good". Something that
    clogs would be "bad".

    Besides, I don't believe clogging is the biggest issue users should be
    concerned about. Not that it isn't important, but I don't see it
    happen as often as people like your self claim.. not in canon anyway.
    Lightfastness seems to be the most common trait that some 3rd party
    solutions lack.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    zakezuke wrote:

    >>the real problem there are no brands. a brand is a product that is made by a
    >>mfg/formulator and is sold under a name he chooses through a varity of marketing
    >>channels under that name. soon customers will either respect or disrespect that
    >>product name.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >While it's true the large majority of companies that sell 3rd party ink
    >don't disclose the mfg/formulator... there are indeed at least a few
    >brands on the market, even two that i'm aware that meet measekite's
    >strict requirements.
    >
    >
    >
    >>in this <ink> industry we have all of the dorks you talked about
    >>selling who knows what they bought from who knows who and will not tell you who
    >>made it. this is even more true when buying prefilled carts. the
    >>chances are very high that you get the same thing from multiple <venders> so you
    >>unknowingly repeat your mistake several times.
    >>
    >>
    > <corrections mine>
    >
    >This is *actually *somewhat *true*. The several venders may indeed might
    >be buying their ink from the same source. For example I can lookup on
    >the web WJ797, Image Specalist yellow for the bci-6. And boom
    >http://www.google.com/search?client=measekite-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=WJ797+&btnG=Google+Search
    >I can see that several venders are selling WJ797 which would sugest
    >it's the same thing. Another means of establishing if two venders are
    >selling the same product is to request a MSDS from them.
    >
    >But not all venders will refuse to disclose that information.
    >
    >*Measekite is very wise *in sharing this observation... and I can't
    >stress that one should consider getting a review of any product before
    >buying it. But at the end of the day the major factors in selecting an
    >ink are
    >
    >1. How much is it
    >2. How does it look
    >3. how long will it last
    >
    >
    4. Who made it
    5. What is the reputation of the BRAND
    6. Can you buy it in multiple places.

    ie If I want a Nikon camera I can buy the same model in many different
    places.

    7. Does the BRAND have a reputation for clogging printers.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Bob@see-below-for-address.com wrote:

    >On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:58:53 -0700, ThomasH wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>On 23-Aug-05 18:24, 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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>I almost cannot believe my eyes that someone would switch from Epson
    >>to Canon! Of course its your call, however as long Canon will not
    >>go beyond their dye ink technology (BCI-6), you might be up to a
    >>bad surprise...
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    >>
    >>The problem described on this web page relate to the Photo Paper Plus,
    >>not to the Pro, not even to the Photo Matte paper. But, why bother
    >>in the first place if Epson offers their leading technology with
    >>pigment inks?
    >>
    >>Thomas
    >>
    >>
    >
    >You must be kidding! Apparently you do not read the posts on this forum.
    >Epsons clog, clog, clog, clog !
    >
    >

    HERE THAT ART
  37. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > >A better analogy would be film as it is a consumable. In fact...
    > >consumer reports actually did a report some years back about the best
    > >vender labled film available
    >> This information without context or experence is meaningless. I don't
    >> know who makes canon ink.
    > canon controls the mfg and quality control process as well as the engineering?

    Do you accept this on faith? I would imagine that canon does formulate
    inks. This is a reasonable assumption. Whether they have their own
    people in quality control I don't know. As far as the engineering I
    have no idea. According to you it's important to know who
    manufacturers the ink and there is absolutly no way for me to know who
    manufacturers canon's ink. I have no idea how involved canon is in
    the process of making the ink or what quality control standards are
    employed. To me it's just a label. Oddly enough since canon them
    selves don't manufacture the ink, by your own defination it can not be
    called a brand. They might formulate, they might even distribute, but
    ink production is done from a dedicated ink production facility.

    You seem to be overly obsessed with canon's ink. I know that Epson ink
    for example the color consistancy varies a great deal.. and country of
    orgin gives "some" indication of what to expect. If I was still
    printing with epson I would make it a choice to buy ink from a single
    country of orgin so to lower the risk of a lack of consistancy.

    > >Even in the retail world not everyone buys "brand named" prodcuts. You
    > >could buy Kelloggs Rice Krispies or you could buy rice puffs. I for
    > >example buy Trader Joe's Raisin Bran...

    > do you take the empty box to a <vender> and refill it?
    <edit mine>

    I don't understand your point here but since you asked....
    For Raison Bran no, I buy it in the box. For granola I buy that in
    bulk, as with spices, flour, sea salt, nuts, and a varity of other
    things. Sugar I tend to buy in a package simply because it tends to
    cost less that way.

    >>Milk is a better analogy. You could buy name brand milk, or you could
    >>buy the store label milk. I'm very picky about milk but you can look
    >>at the bottles and see the code for the dairy the milk came from... and
    >>often see that the milk at the very least came from the same place.
    >>Ultimatly for me I find that how the vender chooses to store the milk
    >>is my deciding factor. I don't typicaly buy milk from mini-marts as
    >>some choose to kill their refrigerators at night and the product goes
    >>slightly rancid to my taste. Others don't notice or care.

    > put milk in the ink tank

    Or better yet... use my experence I have buying milk and use that to
    buying ink. Buy some, try it out, if I like it buy more. Trust the
    vender's purchacing choice and continue buying it. Once and a while I
    get a bad jug, which they will be happy to replace. Observe the
    markings on the jugs and use that to compair quality.

    If milk refills were an option, i'd go for it. But the only city that
    still sells milk in glass bottles is located 30 miles away from me.
    I'm simply not close enough to a dairy for glass bottles to be a viable
    solution. Even milk delivery where I live use plastic bottles.

    As a bonus, glass bottled milk while it may cost a little more tends to
    be ultra ultra fresh as the only stores that would carry glass bottles
    are close enough to the dairy to make recycling of the bottles
    practical. Less waste and no odd taste from the jug are a big bonus.


    Being a concerned with your environment that you picked a printer with
    auto-duplexing though slow to save paper, i'm sure you can be most
    empathitic to someone who would choose no or minimal packaging to
    reduce waste and in most cases save money. I'm suprised you would be
    critical of someone who would make the same choice as you would.

    > >For example I liked the Arizona Jeans Wear leather vests. I could only
    > >buy them at... either Sears or J.c. pennies...

    > since you frequent these stores then i now understand why you buy
    > aftermarket <carp> from a whore.
    <edit mine>

    I do not understand your point. I don't have much in the way of store
    loyality. I happen to like some products from the Arizona Jeans
    Company and they happen to be sold in only one store. The fact that I
    can't remember which one would sugest that I don't frequent either one.
    Also the fact they are no longer available... leather vests are out of
    fashion but I still wear them. Your observation is moot. I like
    leather vests as I need external pockets to hold film and a mobile, and
    they are durable. Also I like Gap Jeans. No clue who makes them,
    only they last a good long time and they fit me rather well. I
    wouldn't consider anyone foolish for making another choice in jeans...
    or be critical of where they choose to buy them. It's their choice.

    Given the fact that you have never used the same carp that I use, you
    have no frame of reference to judge whether it's carp or not carp.
    Your opinion is moot.

    My buying habbits do not make me a better or lesser person than your
    self. The fact that I have a different belief system is solid evidence
    that not everyone believes the same thing you do. As a Standard MBA
    you should understand consumer demographics.

    When I choose a product... I choose it based on the product... faith in
    the label or brand doesn't really enter into it. I own some Canon
    Cameras. I do have some canon lenses but I made a choice to buy them
    based on how they work, not because I accepted on faith. I also have a
    Bushnells lens which is just so happens to be a superb 135mm.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > According to HP's website, the full line of 90 series cartridges work in
    > the 8150, and also in my 6540. That's part of the reason I bought the
    > 6540, the cost per page of the high yield 96 and 97 cartridges were
    > reasonable. If all I could use were the lower yield 94 and 95 carts, I
    > wouldn't have bought it.

    Useful to know, clearly my info is out of date. When I looked it
    wasn't listed.


    > Part of the difficulty in calculating costs is that BCI-6 times 3 tanks
    > will yield more than 280 pages. It won't be 3x as many since the ink is
    > layered to produce various colours, but it's more than 280.

    Assuming a fair contest, the HP tri color is rated at a given yield for
    the unit, so it's only
    fair to rate the canon 3 or for pack as the same.

    You can reasonably expect a photo to yield 25% to 50% of color..perhaps
    as much as 75% unless we are talking a dark murky photo like a gothic
    church at night then 90% to 100%.

    > There is no 98 cart, but from the price I presume you meant the 96. If
    > so, the yield is 833 pages, not 133, so the cost is p=4c/page rounding
    > up from 3.5c/page.

    I ment the 99, as you might have seen lower down. yes it was a typo,
    my bad. The offical yield is pretty low.

    >>#97+98 = 31c/page

    > This is also incorrect. It should read 96+97=13c/page

    Nope.
    > HP99 $24.99/450p=6c/page - note the yield is a guess based on volume.

    > #97+99 = 15c/page

    The yield for the photo color, I assume light cyan/magenta is listed
    officaly as 133p. While it's possible canon and HP might use different
    systems of measurement... you can reasonably expect HP to use the same
    standard of measurement for their own tanks.

    But anyways, you said something standards for meaurement of yields

    PIXMA iP4000:
    BCI-3eBK: 740 pages (1,500 character pattern, plain paper / standard
    mode)
    1,500 pages (ISO JIS-SCID No. 5 / plain paper / standard mode)
    BCI-6C: 550 pages (ISO JIS-SCID No. 5 / plain paper / standard mode)
    BCI-6M: 430 pages (ISO JIS-SCID No. 5 / plain paper / standard mode)
    BCI-6Y: 360 pages (ISO JIS-SCID No. 5 / plain paper / standard mode)
    BCI-6BK: 2,000 pages (ISO JIS-SCID No. 5 / plain paper / standard mode)

    Toms hardware if i'm not mistaken went with the yields listed on the
    box, which are typicaly 5%. You'll note using ISO JIS-SCID N5 the
    yields are higher.

    IP5200R
    Colour Ink Tank Life
    420 pages at 5% coverage per ink tank
    Cyan: 710 pages,
    Magenta: 500 pages,
    Yellow: 480 pages, (Printing ISO/JIS-SCID N5)

    As you'll note the estimated yield for JIS-SCID n5 is higher than the
    usual reported yield of 5%.

    > I've figured that my costs are roughly the same with the HP 6540 as they
    > were with the Canon i850, both using 4 ink colours. If I use 6 inks,
    > then costs are higher. But then a similar Canon printer would also be
    > more costly to use.

    The numbers actually agree with you for the 4 or 5 tank canon printers,
    depending on HPs standard of measurement and it's accuracy. I've
    observed differently with the mp760.

    > I've compared the same documents (PDF tax forms actually) side-by-side
    > between the iP3000 and the HP 6540, and the HP is definitely darker. The
    > difference is actually quite dramatic. I never noticed the difference
    > until the pages were beside each other though.

    This could be true... I don't honestly know... i'll have to look at the
    current generation HPs. I think perhaps they could be darker because
    they add color to the black... for example a bluish black would look
    blacker than an ordinary black. All I can say i'm pretty pleased with
    the output quality, and defination, even if the contrast could be
    higher.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    zakezuke wrote:
    I have no idea how involved canon is in
    > the process of making the ink or what quality control standards are
    > employed. To me it's just a label.

    Measekite, just like all who purchase Canon OEM ink carts has no clue,
    no idea at all as to who actually manufacturers Canon inks.

    Oddly enough since canon them
    > selves don't manufacture the ink, by your own defination it can not be
    > called a brand. They might formulate, they might even distribute, but
    > ink production is done from a dedicated ink production facility.

    Measekite cannot comprehend this concept of a dedicated ink production
    facility. It makes no sense to his way of thinking at all. It is beyond

    >
    > You seem to be overly obsessed with canon's ink.

    We think he is a shill, a plant put here by Canon to promote Canon OEM
    inks. Problem is, after running into him, I will never again purchase
    Canon OEM ink carts for my i9900 Canon printer.
    And I may never again purchase any Canon printers.
    In the end, Measekite has done much more damage to the here-to-for good
    image of Canon than any competitor could have ever done.
    What an accomplishment!

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

    > We think he is a shill, a plant put here by Canon to promote Canon OEM
    > inks. Problem is, after running into him, I will never again purchase
    > Canon OEM ink carts for my i9900 Canon printer.
    > And I may never again purchase any Canon printers.
    > In the end, Measekite has done much more damage to the here-to-for good
    > image of Canon than any competitor could have ever done.

    Canon is getting a bad reputation for spamming as of late, basicly
    turning every blog, fourm, and public site into mirror images of junk
    from their marketing department. I don't think they are employed
    directly by canon but some 3rd party company like Mosaic for example.
    Whether or not this gent is employed to post in the newsgroups or does
    it on their own doesn't make them any less a commercial spammer.
  41. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    zakezuke wrote:

    >Hey... valid points.. you should reccomend this to them. I can only
    >assume that it is possible on the HPs to choose between 4 color and 6
    >color printing. I was not aware of this.

    From what I gather, all HP inkjet printers can use black and tri-colour
    cartridges. Some models will hold all three carts.

    >I know a question that's always been on my mind is whether you can use
    >a #96 in a printer designated #94 only. At the time this review was
    >new and I was considering printers I know I looked up those models and
    >asked if they would accept a #96... and I didn't know. If they made an
    >error in this regard I understand because the #96 wasn't listed at the
    >time as being used in those printers.

    According to HP's website, the full line of 90 series cartridges work in
    the 8150, and also in my 6540. That's part of the reason I bought the
    6540, the cost per page of the high yield 96 and 97 cartridges were
    reasonable. If all I could use were the lower yield 94 and 95 carts, I
    wouldn't have bought it.

    >> Granted, my results are based on Canadian costs of various cartridges
    >> where Canon costs are a bit higher. But even at US prices, the HP is
    >> nowhere near as costly as Tom's Hardware suggests. I've also seen cost
    >> per page results from other tests in the past that compare 4-colour inks
    >> only, and those tests are more in line with Canon costs and my own
    >> results.
    >
    >>From my understanding they are just going with the MFG published yields
    >and the MSRP of the ink tanks. For example

    It's very unclear how they tested. They said they did their own
    estimates using some unspecified method:

    "using a lot of patience and many reams of paper"

    I don't know if that means they printed until the cartridge was empty or
    what. If so, it wouldn't be an estimate, it would be exact.

    They also said there is no common way to compare ink costs:

    "Manufacturers haven't agreed on a universal way of calculating cost per
    page"

    Well that's simply untrue, since virtually all manufacturers use the
    standard 5% coverage for black text, and 15% coverage for colour when
    calculating page yields.

    >BCI-6 (3x($11.95))/280p=13c/page
    >(to be fair one should add the black in)
    >BCI-6 (4x($11.95))/280p=17c/page
    >(note black is listed as 500p yield, the above reflects the assumption
    >of 280p yield)
    >HP97 $39.99/450p=9c/page
    >HP98 $29.35/133 p=22c/page

    There is no 98 cart, but from the price I presume you meant the 96. If
    so, the yield is 833 pages, not 133, so the cost is p=4c/page rounding
    up from 3.5c/page.

    >#97+98 = 31c/page

    This is also incorrect. It should read 96+97=13c/page

    But if you meant the 99 photo ink cartridge:

    HP99 $24.99/450p=6c/page - note the yield is a guess based on volume.

    #97+99 = 15c/page

    >BCI-6 (6x($11.95))/280 26c/page
    >
    >Assuming the yields are 100% accurate it looks like for 3 color
    >printing the HP might actually be cheaper. To be fair one should take
    >the BCI-6 black into account making it cost a tad more. But assuming
    >US prices it looks like the canon might be cheaper than HP 6 color
    >printing. What I don't know is how accurate the yields are for the #97
    >and #98. As it's sold in a single tank they could be reporting 150
    >cyan, 150 magenta, 150 yellow pages. I honestly don't know.

    Part of the difficulty in calculating costs is that BCI-6 times 3 tanks
    will yield more than 280 pages. It won't be 3x as many since the ink is
    layered to produce various colours, but it's more than 280.

    Based on my own experience, I would guess that it's about half the yield
    times 3 or about 420 pages.

    The same scenario applies to the HP using the tri-colour and photo ink
    cartridges since you don't get double the number of pages. Nor does it
    produce the same number as just the tri-colour since the photo inks are
    used in place of the tri-colour inks for certain colours.

    >I can say my printing costs have gone down assuming I was spending MSRP
    >on inktanks since switching from the PSC 950.

    I've figured that my costs are roughly the same with the HP 6540 as they
    were with the Canon i850, both using 4 ink colours. If I use 6 inks,
    then costs are higher. But then a similar Canon printer would also be
    more costly to use.

    >I'll have to evaluate this further... To me the blackness level of the
    >ip3000/mp760 is roughly equal to that of my old laser. But this is not
    >a matter I'm ultra critical about. When printing off B&W diagrams I
    >vote for clarity over contrast.

    I've compared the same documents (PDF tax forms actually) side-by-side
    between the iP3000 and the HP 6540, and the HP is definitely darker. The
    difference is actually quite dramatic. I never noticed the difference
    until the pages were beside each other though.

    In photos, I'd say the black levels are similar but it's difficult to
    compare because of the glossy paper.

    Not that it really matters, since the end result is a decent page of
    text, graphs, or photos from both printers.
  42. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > since canon controls the engineering and the process canon is the mfg

    I don't know what level canon is involved in the manufacturering
    process. But if you accept this as fact then you must accept that
    Lyson, Image Specalists, Formula Labs are brands as well. If you don't
    believe me e-mail any one of them and ask them who deals in their
    product. Media Street being formulators, manufacturers, and
    distriuting them though multiable sourses well. Print-rite has at
    least 20 years of experence under their belt and have more
    distrobution channels than I can shake a stick at.

    Reality is you are accepting these things on faith.

    > hope you get a printhead clog

    Why do you care what others buy? You said before you don't like seeing
    other people cheated but now you are saying you hope use of a product
    you don't approve of causes damage to our property?

    > good buy an epson. do you honestly think I give a <hoot> what the <heck> you buy
    <edit mine>

    You feel so strongly that if someone doesn't buy Canon inks they
    deserve property damage then I honestly think you give a big hoot!
    You are, with all due respect... obsessed with Canon and Canon inks.

    I do use 3rd party ink. If I get a printhead clog i'll be sad but
    chances are i'll clean it or if worse comes to worse i'll buy another
    head. I've establsihed that even buying a new printer would cost less
    than using the OEM inks.

    I wish you would actually offer valid arguments on the subject. We
    need someone to evaluate OEM vs 3rd party solutions based on the
    important things

    1. How much they are
    2. Are they any good
    3. Where do I get them

    > why are you getting dumber?

    Because I buy some bulk food products? I would buy bulk coffee more
    often but Trader Joes offers a better deal for tins. Because I
    honestly feel General Mills Cheerios(tm) quality has declined and many
    of the bottom shelf non boxed round oats actually taste better?
    Because I would choose to buy things not in a box?

    Well, you are the one that said a brand had to be sold via multiable
    distribution channels, which well is wrong. There are quite a few
    brands that for whatever reason get sold via one retail chain.

    I unlike you self don't actually care what someone else buys. I will
    share what I use, my experences with a product, and let someone else
    make up their own mind without emotional manipluation. And I will not
    throw a fit if someone buys OEM ink. It's my firm belief that
    competition.... real competition breeds a situation that the consumer
    wins.
  43. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > the problem with the majority of the hp photo printers today is you have to play musical
    > carts. 3 or more carts and 2 slots. to me this ruins most of the hp printers

    I wonder which is better. Having the ability of a lesser printer to do
    the same things as a better printer by swaping out the carts, or being
    limited to a specific ink set.

    For example, it should be technicaly possible for Canon to create a
    printer that could accept a ip4000 head, ip5000 head, i960 head, and
    perhaps even a i8500 head. Head would report back to the printer what
    it is and the printer would print accordingly. With different inksets.
    This would be a cool feature.

    While I agree playing musical carts could be annoying.... I'd rather
    have that option available to me than not at all. This way if you
    decide you needed a photo printer you can buy the photo printer
    consumables... you are not locked into one compliment of tanks.
  44. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
    news:vuidnUnF6tiulI_eRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
    > On 23-Aug-05 18:24, 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
    >
    > I almost cannot believe my eyes that someone would switch from Epson
    > to Canon! Of course its your call, however as long Canon will not
    > go beyond their dye ink technology (BCI-6), you might be up to a
    > bad surprise...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    >
    > The problem described on this web page relate to the Photo Paper Plus,

    And it also states it was on a refridgerator - you know those big cold
    things that give of ozone gas. He didn't look after the print and then
    complains that it faded.
  45. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:48:35 +0100, "Patrick"
    <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote:

    >
    >"ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
    >news:vuidnUnF6tiulI_eRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
    >> On 23-Aug-05 18:24, 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
    >>
    >> I almost cannot believe my eyes that someone would switch from Epson
    >> to Canon! Of course its your call, however as long Canon will not
    >> go beyond their dye ink technology (BCI-6), you might be up to a
    >> bad surprise...
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
    >>
    >> The problem described on this web page relate to the Photo Paper Plus,
    >
    >And it also states it was on a refridgerator - you know those big cold
    >things that give of ozone gas. He didn't look after the print and then
    >complains that it faded.
    >
    Now you've peaked my interest, what on the 'fridge' exudes ozone?

    "The best proof of intelligent life in space is that it hasn't come here."
    - Sir Arthur C. Clarke
  46. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    WHY ARE YOU GETTING DUMBER?

    zakezuke wrote:

    >>>A better analogy would be film as it is a consumable. In fact...
    >>>consumer reports actually did a report some years back about the best
    >>>vender labled film available
    >>>This information without context or experence is meaningless. I don't
    >>> know who makes canon ink.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>canon controls the mfg and quality control process as well as the engineering?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Do you accept this on faith? I would imagine that canon does formulate
    >inks. This is a reasonable assumption. Whether they have their own
    >people in quality control I don't know. As far as the engineering I
    >have no idea. According to you it's important to know who
    >manufacturers the ink and there is absolutly no way for me to know who
    >manufacturers canon's ink. I have no idea how involved canon is in
    >the process of making the ink or what quality control standards are
    >employed. To me it's just a label. Oddly enough since canon them
    >selves don't manufacture the ink, by your own defination it can not be
    >called a brand. They might formulate, they might even distribute, but
    >ink production is done from a dedicated ink production facility.
    >
    >You seem to be overly obsessed with canon's ink. I know that Epson ink
    >for example the color consistancy varies a great deal.. and country of
    >orgin gives "some" indication of what to expect. If I was still
    >printing with epson I would make it a choice to buy ink from a single
    >country of orgin so to lower the risk of a lack of consistancy.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>Even in the retail world not everyone buys "brand named" prodcuts. You
    >>>could buy Kelloggs Rice Krispies or you could buy rice puffs. I for
    >>>example buy Trader Joe's Raisin Bran...
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
    >>do you take the empty box to a <vender> and refill it?
    >>
    >>
    ><edit mine>
    >
    >I don't understand your point here but since you asked....
    >For Raison Bran no, I buy it in the box. For granola I buy that in
    >bulk, as with spices, flour, sea salt, nuts, and a varity of other
    >things. Sugar I tend to buy in a package simply because it tends to
    >cost less that way.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>Milk is a better analogy. You could buy name brand milk, or you could
    >>>buy the store label milk. I'm very picky about milk but you can look
    >>>at the bottles and see the code for the dairy the milk came from... and
    >>>often see that the milk at the very least came from the same place.
    >>>Ultimatly for me I find that how the vender chooses to store the milk
    >>>is my deciding factor. I don't typicaly buy milk from mini-marts as
    >>>some choose to kill their refrigerators at night and the product goes
    >>>slightly rancid to my taste. Others don't notice or care.
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
    >>put milk in the ink tank
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Or better yet... use my experence I have buying milk and use that to
    >buying ink. Buy some, try it out, if I like it buy more. Trust the
    >vender's purchacing choice and continue buying it. Once and a while I
    >get a bad jug, which they will be happy to replace. Observe the
    >markings on the jugs and use that to compair quality.
    >
    >If milk refills were an option, i'd go for it. But the only city that
    >still sells milk in glass bottles is located 30 miles away from me.
    >I'm simply not close enough to a dairy for glass bottles to be a viable
    >solution. Even milk delivery where I live use plastic bottles.
    >
    >As a bonus, glass bottled milk while it may cost a little more tends to
    >be ultra ultra fresh as the only stores that would carry glass bottles
    >are close enough to the dairy to make recycling of the bottles
    >practical. Less waste and no odd taste from the jug are a big bonus.
    >
    >
    >Being a concerned with your environment that you picked a printer with
    >auto-duplexing though slow to save paper, i'm sure you can be most
    >empathitic to someone who would choose no or minimal packaging to
    >reduce waste and in most cases save money. I'm suprised you would be
    >critical of someone who would make the same choice as you would.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>For example I liked the Arizona Jeans Wear leather vests. I could only
    >>>buy them at... either Sears or J.c. pennies...
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
    >>since you frequent these stores then i now understand why you buy
    >>aftermarket <carp> from a whore.
    >>
    >>
    ><edit mine>
    >
    >I do not understand your point. I don't have much in the way of store
    >loyality. I happen to like some products from the Arizona Jeans
    >Company and they happen to be sold in only one store. The fact that I
    >can't remember which one would sugest that I don't frequent either one.
    > Also the fact they are no longer available... leather vests are out of
    >fashion but I still wear them. Your observation is moot. I like
    >leather vests as I need external pockets to hold film and a mobile, and
    >they are durable. Also I like Gap Jeans. No clue who makes them,
    >only they last a good long time and they fit me rather well. I
    >wouldn't consider anyone foolish for making another choice in jeans...
    >or be critical of where they choose to buy them. It's their choice.
    >
    >Given the fact that you have never used the same carp that I use, you
    >have no frame of reference to judge whether it's carp or not carp.
    >Your opinion is moot.
    >
    >My buying habbits do not make me a better or lesser person than your
    >self. The fact that I have a different belief system is solid evidence
    >that not everyone believes the same thing you do. As a Standard MBA
    >you should understand consumer demographics.
    >
    >When I choose a product... I choose it based on the product... faith in
    >the label or brand doesn't really enter into it. I own some Canon
    >Cameras. I do have some canon lenses but I made a choice to buy them
    >based on how they work, not because I accepted on faith. I also have a
    >Bushnells lens which is just so happens to be a superb 135mm.
    >
    >
    >
  47. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Bill wrote:

    >zakezuke wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Hey... valid points.. you should reccomend this to them. I can only
    >>assume that it is possible on the HPs to choose between 4 color and 6
    >>color printing. I was not aware of this.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >From what I gather, all HP inkjet printers can use black and tri-colour
    >cartridges. Some models will hold all three carts.
    >
    >

    THE PROBLEM WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE HP PHOTO PRINTERS TODAY IS YOU HAVE
    TO PLAY MUSICAL CARTS. 3 OR MORE CARTS AND 2 SLOTS. TO ME THIS RUINS
    MOST OF THE HP PRINTERS.

    >
    >
    >>I know a question that's always been on my mind is whether you can use
    >>a #96 in a printer designated #94 only. At the time this review was
    >>new and I was considering printers I know I looked up those models and
    >>asked if they would accept a #96... and I didn't know. If they made an
    >>error in this regard I understand because the #96 wasn't listed at the
    >>time as being used in those printers.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >According to HP's website, the full line of 90 series cartridges work in
    >the 8150, and also in my 6540. That's part of the reason I bought the
    >6540, the cost per page of the high yield 96 and 97 cartridges were
    >reasonable. If all I could use were the lower yield 94 and 95 carts, I
    >wouldn't have bought it.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>Granted, my results are based on Canadian costs of various cartridges
    >>>where Canon costs are a bit higher. But even at US prices, the HP is
    >>>nowhere near as costly as Tom's Hardware suggests. I've also seen cost
    >>>per page results from other tests in the past that compare 4-colour inks
    >>>only, and those tests are more in line with Canon costs and my own
    >>>results.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>From my understanding they are just going with the MFG published yields
    >>and the MSRP of the ink tanks. For example
    >>
    >>
    >
    >It's very unclear how they tested. They said they did their own
    >estimates using some unspecified method:
    >
    >"using a lot of patience and many reams of paper"
    >
    >I don't know if that means they printed until the cartridge was empty or
    >what. If so, it wouldn't be an estimate, it would be exact.
    >
    >They also said there is no common way to compare ink costs:
    >
    >"Manufacturers haven't agreed on a universal way of calculating cost per
    >page"
    >
    >Well that's simply untrue, since virtually all manufacturers use the
    >standard 5% coverage for black text, and 15% coverage for colour when
    >calculating page yields.
    >
    >
    >
    >>BCI-6 (3x($11.95))/280p=13c/page
    >>(to be fair one should add the black in)
    >>BCI-6 (4x($11.95))/280p=17c/page
    >>(note black is listed as 500p yield, the above reflects the assumption
    >>of 280p yield)
    >>HP97 $39.99/450p=9c/page
    >>HP98 $29.35/133 p=22c/page
    >>
    >>
    >
    >There is no 98 cart, but from the price I presume you meant the 96. If
    >so, the yield is 833 pages, not 133, so the cost is p=4c/page rounding
    >up from 3.5c/page.
    >
    >
    >
    >>#97+98 = 31c/page
    >>
    >>
    >
    >This is also incorrect. It should read 96+97=13c/page
    >
    >But if you meant the 99 photo ink cartridge:
    >
    >HP99 $24.99/450p=6c/page - note the yield is a guess based on volume.
    >
    >#97+99 = 15c/page
    >
    >
    >
    >>BCI-6 (6x($11.95))/280 26c/page
    >>
    >>Assuming the yields are 100% accurate it looks like for 3 color
    >>printing the HP might actually be cheaper. To be fair one should take
    >>the BCI-6 black into account making it cost a tad more. But assuming
    >>US prices it looks like the canon might be cheaper than HP 6 color
    >>printing. What I don't know is how accurate the yields are for the #97
    >>and #98. As it's sold in a single tank they could be reporting 150
    >>cyan, 150 magenta, 150 yellow pages. I honestly don't know.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Part of the difficulty in calculating costs is that BCI-6 times 3 tanks
    >will yield more than 280 pages. It won't be 3x as many since the ink is
    >layered to produce various colours, but it's more than 280.
    >
    >Based on my own experience, I would guess that it's about half the yield
    >times 3 or about 420 pages.
    >
    >The same scenario applies to the HP using the tri-colour and photo ink
    >cartridges since you don't get double the number of pages. Nor does it
    >produce the same number as just the tri-colour since the photo inks are
    >used in place of the tri-colour inks for certain colours.
    >
    >
    >
    >>I can say my printing costs have gone down assuming I was spending MSRP
    >>on inktanks since switching from the PSC 950.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >I've figured that my costs are roughly the same with the HP 6540 as they
    >were with the Canon i850, both using 4 ink colours. If I use 6 inks,
    >then costs are higher. But then a similar Canon printer would also be
    >more costly to use.
    >
    >
    >
    >>I'll have to evaluate this further... To me the blackness level of the
    >>ip3000/mp760 is roughly equal to that of my old laser. But this is not
    >>a matter I'm ultra critical about. When printing off B&W diagrams I
    >>vote for clarity over contrast.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >I've compared the same documents (PDF tax forms actually) side-by-side
    >between the iP3000 and the HP 6540, and the HP is definitely darker. The
    >difference is actually quite dramatic. I never noticed the difference
    >until the pages were beside each other though.
    >
    >In photos, I'd say the black levels are similar but it's difficult to
    >compare because of the glossy paper.
    >
    >Not that it really matters, since the end result is a decent page of
    >text, graphs, or photos from both printers.
    >
    >
  48. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > Formulabs is a brand of wholesale ink. They are not a consumer brand.

    So you finally admit they are a brand. We are making progress. Based
    on my observation I would agree formulabs is a wholesale brand and near
    as i'm aware they do not make carts.

    Canon gets their carts manufactured though some other guys. I imagine
    if Formulabs wanted to they could offer their own prefilled tanks, but
    why would they want to?

    > I wish they would mfg prefilled carts under either the Formulabs or
    > Sensinent name and sell they through a variety of outlets for under
    > $4.00 per cart. They do not.

    What does it matter who mfg the cartridges? Clearly you don't care if
    they come in a box since you buy your ink at costco which come in
    plastic.

    If this is something you are about... you can get the Lyson Fotonic
    consumer brand. They come in a traditional retail box. The archival
    ink is not cheap, but that wasn't the point I was making. The point is
    there are brands... even "consumer brands" as you define them. Media
    Street is a consumer brand, Prite-Rite is a consumer brand, Lyson is a
    consumer brand.
  49. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > HP should accomodate 4 carts in all of their printers so you could
    > install the ink cart and not have to switch them. The 8400 does hold 3.

    How would they fit? Don't get me wrong... that would be "nice" but
    that would make for a huge printer.

    While this is a drawback... it's also a feature. I would like it for
    example if I could pull my ip4000 head and replace it with a ip5000
    head. That would be nice. Or better yet, if I owned a ip8500 it would
    be nice to swap that for ip4000 head, or even an ip3000 head. But near
    as I'm aware this isn't an option.

    >From my understanding on the HP, you have your choice between a black
    tank, a grey scale tank, a color tank, and a photo tank. And you have
    your choice between printing 3 color, 3 + 2 color, or 3 + 2 color and 3
    level black. With canon you have to change out the entire printer to
    upgrade to 3+2 color, and tri black isn't a stock offering. Sure it
    would be annoying to pull the black for the grey, but you are not
    required to. If your primary application is photos... and you want the
    grey buy the grey. If your primary application is text with the odd
    photo here and there buy the black. If you are a control freak swap
    them. Problem solved.
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Inkjet Peripherals