Consumer reports printer reviews

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan G
  • Start date Start date
D

Dan G

This year's printer reports just came out. There are 4 PIXMA models in the
top 10. Oddly, they did not include the 3000 in the review, but the 4000 is
their "best buy". Once again they are looking at the cost per page for both
text and photos, as well as print quality and features.
 
their "best buy". Once again they are looking at the cost per page for both
text and photos, as well as print quality and features.

Keep in mind that Consumer Reports is odd in that they don't do what
any 'resonably educated consumer' would do - use a price search engine
to find the lowest online, out-of-state shops to buy the printer and ink
from. Nor do they tell the users that the price of printers actually
makes home photo printing extremely expensive for most home users (vs.
printing images at Walmart, Ofoto, and other places where you don't have
to factor in the cost of the printer itself).

eg. Today, you could walk into any store and buy a Canon iP4000 for
$149.99 retail, or buy it at buy.com for $133.99 + $20 rebate, or
amazon.com for $139.99 + $20 rebate + $35 amazon.com visa card
first-time use rebate.

Inks go even cheaper -- and we all know makers get up to and well
over 50% profit on tiny ink cartridges (see Computer Reseller News
magazine ads; ie. rip us off!).

Oddly, CR doesn't even point you to excellent deal websites like
www.fatwallet.com/forums/ -> hot deals where often you can buy a new
printer for <$50 (price of a new set of cartridges, so might as well get
a free printer tossed in the deal which has everything).

eg. the latest post yesterday for a iP5000 for $107.98 AR/PM/Coupon.
eg. the 6 day old post for the iP400 for $78 AR/PM/Coupon.

-----------

Let's think about this.

$150 iP4000 printer CR would buy. Typical yield of most photo
printers of about 50 letter photo prints per set of cartridges. Let's
say 50 letter photo paper sheets for $30.
TOTAL cost of ownership = $180 for 50 photo prints. Or $3.60 per
print for the first 50 prints.

A 2nd case, smart buyer picks up the printer for $78 AR/PM/Coupon.
Same $30 for paper. $78 + 30 = $108 for 50 photo prints. Or $2.16
per print for the first 50 prints.

$180 - $108 = $72 dollars.
$9 for each cartridge using a price search engine (vs. $12 regular
pricing). You can spend the $72 and a few dollars more on another 50
photo letter sized prints for about the same $180 as CR would have spent.

So, CR makes 50 prints for $180; you make 100 prints for $180 - but
CR won't tell you how to do it!

(If you're printing 4x6" prints, you can make 3-4x as many as above,
so then the figures become more like 150-200 4x6" photo prints for $180
CR; you make 300-400 4x6" photo prints because you know how to find the
lowest prices.)

200 / 24 frames of 35mm film on a roll = about 8 rolls of film printed.
300 / 24 frames = about 12 rolls.
400 / 24 frames = about 16 rolls.

Let's say you're like most users - be smart and buy the printer cheap
at $78, use up two sets of ink cartridges while making 300 4x6" photo
prints on a budget of $180 or so.

When do most people take and develop more than 1 roll of film per
month? (300 4x6" prints; about 12 rolls of film equivalent printed from
above) (or basically, take one picture per working day of the month for
an entire year that you =want to print=?)

CR doesn't take this into account. They only give you a simplistic
straight cost per print based on price of ink + paper alone, but don't
consider the price of the printer, nor how many prints most people will
take and make over a year.

Most users will benefit more from the cheaper online prices because
they'll not only be taking 1 or less rolls of film equivalent number of
photos per month, but also be making less than that in prints. They'll
save a lot vs. buying retail... but sadly, still be spending a lot more
than printing at Walmart,Costco,etc (due to the cost of the printer
added to each inkjet print price).

eg. for $180, at $0.29 per 4x6" print made at these retail locations,
you'll have to make 620 prints (or 25 rolls equivalent) before you even
spend more than the photo printers for home use!

(factor in time spent fiddling with home printers vs. simply dropping
off a flash card or uploading images from your computer)
 
David said:
Keep in mind that Consumer Reports is odd in that they don't do what
any 'resonably educated consumer' would do - use a price search engine
to find the lowest online, out-of-state shops to buy the printer and
ink from. Nor do they tell the users that the price of printers
actually makes home photo printing extremely expensive for most home
users (vs. printing images at Walmart, Ofoto, and other places where
you don't have to factor in the cost of the printer itself).

eg. Today, you could walk into any store and buy a Canon iP4000 for
$149.99 retail, or buy it at buy.com for $133.99 + $20 rebate, or
amazon.com for $139.99 + $20 rebate + $35 amazon.com visa card
first-time use rebate.

or Frys for a net of $100 after a $30.00 instant store rebate plus a
$20.00 Canon mail in rebate.
Inks go even cheaper -- and we all know makers get up to and well
over 50% profit on tiny ink cartridges (see Computer Reseller News
magazine ads; ie. rip us off!).

Oddly, CR doesn't even point you to excellent deal websites like
www.fatwallet.com/forums/ -> hot deals where often you can buy a new
printer for <$50 (price of a new set of cartridges, so might as well
get a free printer tossed in the deal which has everything).

eg. the latest post yesterday for a iP5000 for $107.98 AR/PM/Coupon.
eg. the 6 day old post for the iP400 for $78 AR/PM/Coupon.

-----------

Let's think about this.

$150 iP4000 printer CR would buy. Typical yield of most photo
printers of about 50 letter photo prints per set of cartridges. Let's
say 50 letter photo paper sheets for $30.

$7.50 for Costco/Kirland
 
Dan G said:
This year's printer reports just came out. There are 4 PIXMA models in the
top 10. Oddly, they did not include the 3000 in the review, but the 4000 is
their "best buy". Once again they are looking at the cost per page for both
text and photos, as well as print quality and features.

An interesting spin in the manner of the cute little book "How to lie with
statistics". Another cut at the same data would be "HP takes top spot and five
of the top six in printer reviews".

- Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
 
Dan G said:
This year's printer reports just came out. There are 4 PIXMA models in the
top 10. Oddly, they did not include the 3000 in the review, but the 4000 is
their "best buy". Once again they are looking at the cost per page for both
text and photos, as well as print quality and features.

I was wondering about that meself but I figured out that the 4000 and 3000
are so closely related they must not have cared.

I was pleased, after doing all my research before buying my 3000, to see my
choice verified a month later by 10's of thousands of other consumers and
their own testers, and that my Epson really was a POS.
 
An interesting spin in the manner of the cute little book "How to lie
with statistics". Another cut at the same data would be "HP takes top
spot and five of the top six in printer reviews".

- Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

Cutting out all bullshit, Canon and HP are all in the top and Lexmark and
Epson are almost all on the bottom.

Just that simple.
 
Mapanari said:
"Bob Headrick" <[email protected]>
wrote



Cutting out all bullshit, Canon and HP are all in the top and Lexmark and
Epson are almost all on the bottom.

Just that simple.

I can understand why Lexmark is at the bottom because contrary to
popular belief shit does not float. But Epson does have a reputation
for being a reasonable decent printer when using OEM inks. Yes they are
ink guzzlers and Epson is at war with the after market world making it
difficult to use 3rd party inks and their chip functionality is a pain
in the ass. But the results are not bad and they do stand behind their
product.

So why did CR give them a poor rating? =-O
 
David Chien said:


Hilarious....the Dell and the Lexmark parts.

Just like consumer reports and their ratings on a Japanase car and an
American car that is the exact same car but rebadged; the ratings always show
the American car worse.

Dell IS lexmark, yet the silly mooing morons who buy Dell crap believe the
hype and adverstising and think their "Dell" printer is ok, and if you told
them it was really a lexmark they would not believe you.

From my experience in human nature, polling and cultural
anthropology/psychology, I'd say a good 30% of all polls are skewed by how
much the responsant has a brand loyalty fixation due to successful marketing.
 
Back
Top