Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
Well, first of all, one never quite knows how "higher quality" the inks
are that you used, or how compatible they were. The R800 uses a
uniquely designed ink that Epson owns the rights to. Canon printers do
not currently come with pigment colorant inks, only dye, and as a
result, they fade rather badly. And yes, Canon 3rd party inks can
causes clogging, but dye inks are less clog prone than pigment colorant
types.
Most people buy the R800 because it uses these specialized pigment
colorant inks which have very good light resistance. Are the 3rd party
inks you put in pigment types? Do they use Epson's patented pigments or
equivalent, which are every finely ground? Do they use polymer
encapsulation? I am not just tossing these terms around because Epson
uses them in their advertising. The Durabrite and Ultrachrome inks were
designed by/for Epson and are a patented formulations. Getting pigment
colorant inks through an inkjet is no simple matter. The formulations
need to be designed very carefully, their solvents and carriers are
critical, as are the sizes of the ground pigments. Their drying time
and ionic charges are important also.
It's a bit like the difference between diesel and jet fuel. You can run
a diesel engine of oil furnace fuel without a problem, but I wouldn't
try mixing up jet fuel in my backyard.
If you want a Canon printer, and be saddled with fading inks, go ahead
and buy one, and use 3rd party inks with it, and chances are it won't
clog too badly. Buying a C , CX or the R800 or 2200 printers and then
running them of 3rd party inks is perhaps pushing the current limit of
the 3rd party ink distributors. Tests have show even some of the 3rd
party dye inks have problems in the Epson dye ink printers.
Art
measekite wrote:
> Do you know if Canon has the same head clogging issue when using the
> higher quality 3rd party inks?
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I find myself in an odd situation here. I certainly have a number of
>> issues with how Epson approaches their ink sales, and cartridge
>> design, and I am not pleased with their business model, or the waste
>> they create in the cartridges being non-reusable.
>>
>> However, although I'm happy on your account that Epson chose to
>> replace your printer, I am less happy on my account, (because there is
>> a good likelihood they should not have) and because you are not
>> correct about where the laws stand on their warranty.
>>
>> Although there are differences between the law used in different
>> countries, they are all pretty much based upon the concept of what is
>> referred to as Tie-In sales. The basis in law is that a company
>> should not be able to require a purchaser to have to buy certain goods
>> to get other goods, and that creating a warranty that forces a present
>> to use certain specific parts or consumables in order to maintain a
>> warranty is another way to coerce a purchaser into having to buy a
>> tied-in product.
>>
>> However, the law goes further in its interpretation, and I feel that
>> this is only fair. The warranty cannot be refused on account of use
>> of of a different brand of consumable IF:
>>
>> 1) The consumable was not in any way related to the nature of the
>> failure (as an example a company would have a hard time proving a
>> power supply failure was related to the brand of paper you used)
>>
>> 2) The consumable product was a reasonable equivalent and met the
>> manufacturer's or an independent bodies standards.
>>
>> For instance, you use a standard brand of gasoline or oil in your car
>> that is equivalent or exceeds the manufacturer's stated standards to
>> protect the car, the manufacturer cannot deny the warranty claiming
>> that the engine failure was caused by the oil or gas not being their
>> brand.
>>
>> However, let's say the gasoline was too low an octane, causing pinking
>> or it contained dirt and water in it, or the oil did not have proper
>> anti-oxidation additives and became sludgy and clogged the oil ports,
>> so the engine died from friction. That would be a legitimate right
>> for the manufacture to bill for the engine failure.
>>
>> Epson recently paid for an "independent" test on their inks compared
>> to several un-named brands. However, these unnamed inks were
>> described by origin. Several were made in the UK and sold in the UK
>> and the US. Some were made in China, one or two were US.
>>
>> All were found to be inferior, either leading to lower yield per
>> cartridge, or more often leading to rather severe clogging. The tests
>> were done both with refill inks, and with "compatible" cartridges.
>>
>> Now I know that Epson makes their profits on the ink, but then again,
>> so do the 3rd party vendors, and they don't have the cost of making
>> the printers which are often sold near cost.
>>
>> In many cases, especially with Durabrite and Ultrachrome substitute
>> inks there are some major clogs that can occur. The people I know
>> that are using the R800 have used exclusively Eposninks, andEpson inks
>> still printing without difficulties.
>>
>> So, yes, you got a new or refurb printer from Epson, and that's "nice"
>> but it is also what raises costs for everyone. Head clogs are always
>> the result of the ink, on some level. The risk of problems with newer
>> ink formulations made by 3rd party is yet a higher risk. Yes, it
>> saves money, but how can you expect Epson to be responsible? People
>> could feed anything into their printers.
>>
>> Epson has taken a policy of not arguing too often about this issue,
>> because of the misperception about the law, and because it would
>> become a he said/she said situation. But there may come a time,
>> especially as OEM ink products lose market share to compatibles, that
>> Epson may well dig in their heels and say, we will test each printer
>> for inks installed, and if it's a head clog and a 3rd party ink, we
>> will only repair or replace by charging the customer. They would be
>> in their rights to do so, and it would lower costs for others.
>> Warranty repair and replacement is one of the most expensive cost in
>> servicing a client.
>>
>> I'm guessing, as profit margins shrink some companies may indeed begin
>> to get hard-nosed. Especially in the low end printers, where they
>> give you the printer for the "cost" of the ink, and then people use
>> non-branded ink, to save money, but expect the printer manufacturer to
>> pay cost to repair or replace when bad ink is used.
>>
>>
>> As far as usenet, I think perhaps couching the terms a bit more fairly
>> without jumping to conclusions as to cause, may have been more fair,
>> especially consdiering the company got you a new printer.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Zero wrote:
>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I find this posting suspect.
>>>>
>>>> You admit the R800 clogged right after you replaced the Epson ink
>>>> cartridges with a third party product. You then blame Epson for not
>>>> taking responsibility for this clog which occurred right after you
>>>> changed the ink.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Art,
>>>
>>> Well, the failure didn't happen straight away - for a while the printer
>>> ran perfectly with combined Epson and Jettec inks on board. As the
>>> original Epson ones ran out so they were replaced by Jettec items. In
>>> fact I changed the cyan and yellow twice with Jettec before needing a
>>> magenta. It was when I replaced this cart for the first time that it
>>> all started going wrong. To me it seemed to be a mechanical failure
>>> with the printer - I even ditched the offending magenta cart for
>>> another (Jettec) one but to no avail. Why should a printer that was
>>> working fine with a third party product all of a sudden NOT work?
>>>
>>> I have some evidence that early R800s had problems with cracked intake
>>> ports (where the cart's ink outlet meets the printer). Bought last
>>> July, I'd say my R800 was one of the first...
>>>
>>> Or, maybe it is as you suggest; some sort of chemical reaction, in this
>>> case with the magenta.
>>>
>>> As for blaming Epson for not taking responsibility - at the end of the
>>> day, I bought an expensive printer to print photos. The printer
>>> printed the most beautiful images I've ever seen, until it broke down -
>>> therefore it is a warranty claim against Epson. Whether or not I chose
>>> to use third party consumables in it makes no difference; despite
>>> Epson's FUD in this respect they cannot force customers to buy their
>>> (overpriced) inks by threatening not to honour the warranty, because
>>> this is against the law. You have to bear in mind where the profit is
>>> - you guessed it; in the inks and papers, not the printer itself.
>>> Incidentally, I only use Epson's very best photo paper.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Somehow your case is coincidental, in spite that you
>>>> admit there have been no reports of clogged heads in the R800 (yet).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It
>>>
>>>> is a very new printer, but I know of several cases of people who have
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> gone through over 4 sets of ink with no problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They are on Epson ink? OK, I have to admit, if faced with a free
>>> choice of Epson or Jettec ink for my printer, I'd choose Epson. Faced
>>> with the bill, I'd choose Jettec.
>>>
>>> What I'd like to know is; who is using third party ink to print lots of
>>> photos, trouble free, on an R800?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You state the R800 replaced the 875DC. I can't tell if that was a
>>>> replacement by Epson or what.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I still have the 875DC - now used for printing invoices.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I can state that there is a 98% chance
>>>> that the "permanently clogged yellow head" could have been cleared of
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> that clog and been made into a printer almost as new with a little
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> home
>>>
>>>> maintenance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm - I've tried ALL this 'maintenance'on the 875DC; Windowlene, paper
>>> towels, running cleaning cycles and leaving the thing overnight etc.
>>> None of it worked. Then again, why should I have to mess about with my
>>> printer like this? If I look at Canon for instance, I see non-chipped
>>> cartridges and removable print heads. To top this the cost of the
>>> proper Canon carts isn't extortionate, unlike Epson's prices.
>>>
>>> So, why did I choose the R800? On the basis that it was the best photo
>>> printer available that took my favourite paper and could also use a
>>> ready supply of high quality, reasonably priced third party inks.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I also wonder how you know "Jettec guard their reputation for high
>>>> quality". It seems to me they are, at least for now, accepting some
>>>> responsibility for the clog,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Because they state this in their guarantee - if their product causes a
>>> problem, they'll take the printer in and sort it out.
>>>
>>>
>>>> While Jettec may indeed "guard their reputation" they may still be at
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> fault. Maybe the inks react with each other, maybe they made a bad
>>>> batch, maybe its all a coincidences, but we don't know. What I do
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> know
>>>
>>>> is "guarding one's reputation" doesn't prove the product is
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> appropriate.
>>>
>>> Quite true, but I am assured that there are many satisfied Jettec users
>>> out there. Maybe they're not all as fussy as me when it comes to photo
>>> quality output. For me, an inkjet photo has to be indistinguishable
>>> from a RA45 print. This *was* achieved to begin with using part
>>> Jettec, part Epson ink.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think that Jettec is being responsible in evaluating the printer to
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> determine if their inks were involved in the failure, but that
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> doesn't
>>>
>>>> imply the problem wasn't of their product's doing, and it certainly
>>>> doesn't point the finger at Epson, at least not yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quite honestly, I don't know which is to blame. However, Epson have
>>> now replaced the printer and Jettec are sending me a complimentary set
>>> of cartridges for my trouble.
>>>
>>> Both companies are therefore rather brill. But, I haven't plucked up
>>> the courage to even unpack the printer yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know you don't want to irritate Jettec while they have your printer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and may replace it for you, but your posting is pretty biased,
>>>> especially considering the circumstantial evidence turns exactly 180
>>>> degrees to your own conclusions. I think you should have waited for
>>>> much more knowledge before making a public pronouncement, don't you
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> think?
>>>
>>>
>>> Nooo - that's what Usenet is for! Put it this way, there are other
>>> Jettec / R800 users out there and they will find this thread most
>>> helpful. I'm hoping that one or two will pipe up and declare the
>>> Jettec cart to be absolutely fine for photo work, then again maybe the
>>> opposite will happen. Then we'll all know for sure.
>>>
>>> What I'm trying to achieve is a characterisation of the problem - from
>>> there a solution will emerge.
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>