On Dec 28, 4:55 pm, measekite
A Simple answer for a simple mind. They designed the printer and know it
beter than anybody; even the undocumented quirks so they know how to make
the best.
Quaker State doesn't make cars, and so far as I'm aware no auto
manufacturer makes oil, gas, or other fluids.
This logic also presumes that you are being sold the best that can be
made for a given unit. Obviously it's the goal of any business to
make a profit, and as such they have to balance out the cost to
produce vs sale price.
You can not automatically assume that a manufacturer knows what's best
for their products. The best they can do under ideal circumstances is
product a product that covers the mean consumer.
I never had a Canon print fade in over 5 years. I am sure it will one day
faster than pigmented ink from an Epson.
I highly doubt that you even bothered to check other than looking at
it. You also have no credibility. Even so, I trust Weilhelm over
you. And you use costco paper? That's not exactly archival. Good
looking paper, but not exactly a good choice if you want it to stick
around for a while.
http://www.canon.com/technology/canon_tech/explanation/chromalife.html
"ChromaLife100 is an advanced system for preserving the beauty of
photos that combines Canon genuine dye inks and genuine photo paper to
produce photos with 100-year album life, 30-year lightfastness, and 10-
year gas resistance.*"
IIRC 100 years in an album with an air tight seal, 30 years under
glass, 10 years if exposed to air. This is actually not all that
great in contrast to Epson or HP solutions. Sorry dude.
I can't say I have any aftermarket prints over 5 years old. I do have
some discs 3 years old, but I've since changed printers so it would be
impossible to evaluate them.
Best and the amount one spends are two different things.
Let's use their 10 year figure, and let's presume a google map? Do
you really need to spend 10x as much to print out a one time use map?
Further, the black is pigmented and is used on plain paper. OEM
hasn't even been tested, but since it's pigment it's not prone to
fading as much as dye. It's simply not an issue.
Let's say you want an archival print. Odds are high you're NOT going
to be using Canon dye models in the first place.
I do buy OEM cartridges for the Canon to refill. But
As long as they warranty the printer it is their business.
No it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act
Obviously if the ink you used damaged your printer then they do have
every right to deny a warranty claim. That goes without saying. But
all you need to do as a consumer is to prove the product isn't working
specifications. It's up to them to prove the ink you used caused the
problem. They can't do that.
For canon, all you need to do is print with 10 cartridges per tank in
order to match head life using OEM ink. I see 15 my self, others see
more.
Now, there are a couple of points I can agree with. Ignoring a
printer it may be possible that OEM does better than aftermarket. I
happened to have a bottle of Hobbiecolors that's over a year old. I
didn't seal the cap and there was very little yellow remaining and the
yellow jelled up and became semi-solid. The yellow in my cartridges
did not, nor did the cyan, magenta, or either black. I'm sure OEM
would do something similar, but my experience base with recovering
printers that have been ignored with OEM ink has been pretty good.
This is pretty much a moot point since the cost of a used printer with
OEM ink is likely to equal the cost of a new replacement. It only
makes sense if filling it with ink costs a good deal less.
