HP 5550 vs Canon i850...again

[Bill]

I'm not sure you can compare by using the capacity of ink cartridges, can
you? (ie: are they both as efficient at using ink as the other?)

That's why I mentioned "all other things being equal". Still, capacity
does have some effect on cartridge life.

According to that site's information the 57 (and it's three colors for a
total of 17ml or 17ml each?) will print 400 pages. The Canon cartridges are
14.5 ml each (and cost $20 each) and will print 280 pages each and/or 280
pages with all colors like the HP. (I'm not sure where you got the $12
from)...

The $12 was an approximate cost based on tripling the page count to get
the volumes matched and then averaging it out to 500 sheets to match the
HP at 500 sheets. Based on the averaged costs for that many sheets, it's
less than half the cost to run the Canon.

Personal experience bears that out.

And like another poster mentioned, the HP requires that you also insert
the Photo cartridge to get the best results. Without it, the image
quality is poor. So that adds another chunk of cash to the printing
costs for the HP 5550.

Anywho, this is all pretty unscientific, and I'm haven't seen many people
claim that the HP is more economical than the Canon for ink.

It's ok, I wasn't trying to make it more scientific.

I just wanted to show you how the comparison was slightly flawed and
that the Canon does cost less to run than the HP, contrary to what your
data showed...it's the main reason I switched from HP to Canon when
upgrading.

And we too used to have a Canon 4200 and HP 720 and the Canon was constantly
running out of ink way before the HP. But the cartridges were half the
price.

ps. Anyone care to comment on 5550 6 color photos vs 850's 4 color photos...

From actual images I had printed prior to making a final decision, I was
surprised to see the 4-colour Canon i850 beat the HP 5550. In fact, the
i550 beat it too.

I had prints from the HP 5550, Canon i550 and i850. I found the i850 had
the best photo quality, with the i550 second, and the HP third. Granted,
that's looking very closely. To a guest viewing a photo album, the
difference likely wouldn't be noticed since there wouldn't be a
side-by-side comparison, but it's there. Under magnification or
enlargements, the difference becomes VERY noticeable.

Note that originally I was comparing the i550 and 5550, but for the cost
difference, the i850 was worth a look as well, especially when you
compare the difference in photo quality (the Canon i950 was too pricey
for my needs).

The HP was/is less expensive, but after comparing ink costs, that was
not really a problem for me. I knew the lower costs would make up the
initial printer cost difference in the long run. And after printing
several dozen photos (4x6, 5x7, 8x10), I'm glad I chose the i850.

If I was a photo printing nut, I'd buy the i950.

 

[Bill]

Kpiog, it seems my news server was acting up yesterday when I made a few
posts - they'll probably show up with this one. :-/

Anywho, I said the Canon i850 has BETTER quality photos than the HP 5550
when you look closely. Side-by-side comparison shows the Canon is
obviously better.

Having seen both printers' output, the 5550 (6 colours used) is better
quality than the i850.

I gather if you've seen both, it wasn't side-by-side, since you would
know the i850 has much finer detail and shading thanks to the 2PL
(PicoLitre) droplets, smoother contrast, better colour rendition, and
slightly truer tones than the HP 5550. Side-by-side comparisons show the
obvious differences.

While the difference isn't easily noticed on a 4x6 when NOT compared
side-by-side, it becomes more obvious at 8x10 or 8.5x11, and VERY
noticeable with cropped enlargements or any kind of magnification.

Heck, even the Canon i550 prints are better, which I think is closer
competition for the HP 5550. As far as I'm concerned, the i850 is in a
separate class ahead of the 5550, and worth the price difference.

For anyone who doesn't already know, the 2PL droplets are only from the
magenta and cyan nozzles. The 1600 nozzles and colours break down like
this:

-320 5PL nozzles for black (high speed grayscale printing)
-256 5PL nozzles for magenta
-256 5PL nozzles for cyan
-256 5PL nozzles for yellow
-256 2PL nozzles for magenta (fine detail)
-256 2PL nozzles for cyan (fine detail)

If you see a picture of the printhead, you'll notice the long strip for
black-only which is why it prints grayscale so damn fast, and two strips
for magenta and cyan, with a single yellow strip in the middle.

No personal experience here, but I've read a lot of comments saying it's a
good'un. Clogs are rare and can be cleared, but there's always that risk of
course. HP's never clog and if they did it's just a case of buying a new
cartridge.

All inkjet printers can clog up, some more than others. My old HP
printers rarely clogged, but dabbing on a damp paper towel fixed any
problems. My current i850 hasn't clogged once since I bought it months
ago, and that includes over a week of sitting idle.

If it every does clog, and a cleaning cycle doesn't fix it, I know I can
just pop out the printhead and dab it on a moist paper towel to clear
the clog, and then put it back - no big deal.

 

[Kpiog]

I had prints from the HP 5550, Canon i550 and i850. I found the i850 had

the best photo quality, with the i550 second, and the HP third. Granted,
that's looking very closely. To a guest viewing a photo album, the
difference likely wouldn't be noticed since there wouldn't be a
side-by-side comparison, but it's there. Under magnification or
enlargements, the difference becomes VERY noticeable.

This is about the third time I've heard this (and not vice-versa)....
Heck, if I have to use a magnifying glass to compare printouts, then they
are close enough for my eyes. With all things considered, it's looking
better for the 850 (maybe the "6660" will be better...made that one
up....but I need something now...)

Thanks everyone for the input..

 

[Bill]

This is about the third time I've heard this (and not vice-versa)....
Heck, if I have to use a magnifying glass to compare printouts, then they
are close enough for my eyes.

The difference is noticeable to the discerning naked eye. But like I
said, if a guest is viewing a 4x6 in a photo album, the HP photos would
be fine. But if you have two photos side-by-side, it becomes obvious the
Canon is much better.

 

[Deathwalker]

I have also seen the printouts from both printers and think that the
one from the i850 is better. i850 has better (nicer?) skin colours
transitions (don't know why) even though the 5550 was using 6 carts.
The printout from i850 also had more vivid and life-like colours.


If a printer doesn't have a permanetn printhead it doesn't mean that
it doesn't clog. Every inkjet will clog if you will left it unused for
some peroid.
Remember that with HP, you pay about 35$ for one cartidge.

the point being made is that if a hp printer clogs you replace the cartridge
as the heads are built in. so at least you get a brand new print head with
every cartridge. That is supposed to justify the price and also be a
selling point. However they could just make the print heads properly in the
first place. Espon have no excuse. there was no circuitry at all in their
cartridges. When it did appear it was to stop thirdparties and to prevent
refilling. Even those experienced persons at my photograhic society
foolishly believed that the chip adds to the value of the printing process
and measures ink usage rather than guessing which is not the case.

Only canon do permanent heads and suitable priced cartridges. usually half
of an epson equivalent in size.--
Ian Lincoln Independent I.T Consultant

 

[Deathwalker]

The difference is noticeable to the discerning naked eye. But like I
said, if a guest is viewing a 4x6 in a photo album, the HP photos
would
be fine. But if you have two photos side-by-side, it becomes obvious
the Canon is much better.

So to summarise if you plan to print more than a few hundred photos in the
lifetime in the space of 3 years then the extra price of the canon redeems
itself.

This is the case even within canons own range. the s330 photo uses £12.99
cartridges and is cheap to buy the unit. however the cartridge will only do
10-15 sheets of a4 where as the much more expensive i850 that uses more
cartridges even if they are £7.99 each will produce £40 a4 sheets. It is
also a better printer with greater colour accuracy and the capability of
subtle colours. If you like strong contrasty pictures then a cheap canon or
an hp are fine. It just depends how much you value colour accuracy.