R
Richard Steinfeld
What?
Nobody's got anything to say about this printer? (Not even The Troll?)
Nobody's got anything to say about this printer? (Not even The Troll?)
T
Taliesyn
Richard said:
I don't see the "Troll" anymore as I've filtered out any posts with his
name in it - also ones where he posts under his real name.
As for the Z65... I had its lesser cousin, the Z55. The cabinet had a
futuristically goofy shape. But in fact it was a very basic printer with
VERY few print options, unlike the various Canons I currently use. It
printed graphics very well, photos not so. Kind of washed out unless you
boosted - greatly! - all the vital print settings. I ran it for almost
2 years with the same two original Black and Color cartridges, refilling
them myself. The print options were just too limited for my more
complicated printing needs. About the only thing I liked on it was the
automatic printhead alignment feature, something Canon didn't
incorporate until their i860 model, which came out a year after the Z55,
I believe. The Z55 also had the nasty habit of jamming sometimes in its
earnest effort to quickly feed the paper. And the paper would always
feed slightly crooked. Not good for those of us needing precise
printing. I got a little fed up after a while and moved to the Canon
i850, i860, the iP5000 and iP4000. The last three I still have and
operate successfully, strictly with refills otherwise I couldn't afford
to run even one using OEM inks.
-Taliesyn
R
Richard Steinfeld
Taliesyn said:
I really dislike this type of industrial design -- it's not only ugly to
look at, but wasteful of space; the printer could be smaller and maybe
more practical, too.
But in fact it was a very basic printer with
Whose ink can you recommend to me for these printers? Any significant
"gotchas" in the refill process?
The print options were just too limited for my more
I noticed this skewed misfeed issue immediately. The Z65 has two paper
slots. The #1 slot has the automatic paper type sensing "feature." This
is the feeder that screws up. The #2 slot is manually pre-set. That one
feeds nicely. I am not impressed with the excessive speed with which
this machine hurls paper into itself; this coupled with what appears to
be the design to pull the paper in from only one side, at least in the
#1 slot, is what I'm certain causes the misfeed. Sometimes, slower is
better.
It's also a top-loader. I'm underwhelmed with this design because
there's no practical way to keep the paper and feeder from picking up
dust and shmutzing up the innards. I bought a used Brother laser printer
for my son that's designed similarly. And, man; you should see the
amount of crap that I cleaned out of the thing! And since household dust
is abrasive (and a laser printer's drum can be damaged by excessive
abrasion), the result of this type of engineering could be early
degrading of the expensive drum. Is this stupid design or what?
T
Taliesyn
Richard said:
Yeah, a lot of empty cranium space in that printer . . .
I can only recommend the one seller I used for this Lexmark -
atlanticinkjet.com (note separate divisions for US and Canada at their
website). I used the straightforward refill instructions that came with
the refill kit. No problem refilling them though I found the cartridges
quite small, requiring frequent refills. The ink sometimes wouldn't flow
properly, or perhaps an air bubble in the passageway. I'd have to wrap
the cartridge in a paper towel and swing it from overhead towards the
ground in an effort to dislodge the air bubble. Just don't let go of the
cartridge - unless you get really mad and the ink still won't flow
.But it always did after a while. Unfortunately it would sometimes
require this "baseball warm-up pitch" procedure in the middle of a
printing job.
Yes, my observations too; the paper feed should have been smoother, less
herky jerky.
I think all top-loaders should have a cover that closes to keep out dust
and anything that could potentially fall into the paperfeed mechanism. I
once dropped a pen in an open top and didn't see it until I printed
something and the printer jammed. But if you use the covers, like the
ones on the current Canons, they close up like a clam. Very nice.
-Taliesyn
B
Brendan R. Wehrung
Richard said:
Unlike the others who replied, I've been reasonably happy with my Z65,
except for the cost of ink cartridges, of course, and I solved that by
knocking down the color saturation when I didn't want heavy color and
buying cartridges at Target, which has regular sales.
I've replaced it with a Canon all-in-one in hopes of getting lower cost
per page. It (the MP600) has a red color cast the Lexmark didn't have but
prints a little sharper, although the Z65, being nominally a photo printer
(I never tried the photo color cart), always printed decently for me.
Both have two paper trays, but while it takes up more space I favor top
feeding paper because there is less chance of jamming and you can load
heavier stock (eg card stock) in either tray. Canon says the MP600 won't
take anything thicker than 24 lb but the top feeder handles Exact Bristol
without problem. I've come to the conclusion that Lexmark designed the
paper feed to grab one side first and then straighten the sheet by the
second roller bringing the long edge of the sheet square against the
vertical tray side. Once the second roller gets glazed the paper stays
cocked, but if you don't push the movable guide too tightly against the
pages there's a better chance of the drawn-in sheet straightening up. In
any case, I have had little problem with crooked feed.
Would I buy a Lexmark ink-jet new, now? No. I read the reviews just like
everybody else and they haven't had one that scored enywhere near the top
in about 3 years. But I think the Z65 might have been the last of the
decent ones. Mine now lives happily with my back-up computer.
If you are asking becuase you are thinking of buying a Z65, be sure to run
a test print every week or so. It doesn't take much ink and the nozzles
tend to dry up if not used.
Brendan
Ps The troll only speaks DRIVEL, the language of the confused mind.
R
Richard Steinfeld
Thanks to both of you, Taliesyn and Brendan. That's the kind of stuff I
need to know.
Brendan, as I mentioned in the original post, I was given this printer
by an old woman as I walked along the street past her house. She said
that it "wouldn't work" and that the ribbon cable looked like it was
broken. Actually, the carriage was just stuck on the left side; it
responded nicely to a gentle push. (Is that where the ink station is?)
It's working nicely now, but won't print hardly at all due to dried out
carts. I've attempted to get them flowing by planting them on wet paper
towels overnight (distilled water), but I think that they're kinda empty.
The first think that I needed to do was to somehow determine whether the
thing was usable before spending good money on cartridges. Now, I'm
pondering the next step. I've got three *working* printers already, so I
can take my time with this thing. From what you said, B, it sounds like
I've got to see if I can get at the rollers and clean them. No? Is is
possible for an ordinary talented repair guy like myself to get inside
this piece of offensive "artwork" to clean it out?
need to know.
Brendan, as I mentioned in the original post, I was given this printer
by an old woman as I walked along the street past her house. She said
that it "wouldn't work" and that the ribbon cable looked like it was
broken. Actually, the carriage was just stuck on the left side; it
responded nicely to a gentle push. (Is that where the ink station is?)
It's working nicely now, but won't print hardly at all due to dried out
carts. I've attempted to get them flowing by planting them on wet paper
towels overnight (distilled water), but I think that they're kinda empty.
The first think that I needed to do was to somehow determine whether the
thing was usable before spending good money on cartridges. Now, I'm
pondering the next step. I've got three *working* printers already, so I
can take my time with this thing. From what you said, B, it sounds like
I've got to see if I can get at the rollers and clean them. No? Is is
possible for an ordinary talented repair guy like myself to get inside
this piece of offensive "artwork" to clean it out?
M
measekite
Richard said:
Since it is a Lexmark you can use any crappie relabeled ink. It makes
no difference. Use the cheapest you can find.
R
Richard Steinfeld
measekite said:
Since this was "contributed" by our troll, I know that the person spends
so much time submitting predictable, condescending posts, that he has no
experience whatsoever with printers and ink. He makes it all up easily
because he says the same things repeatedly.
The reason that he has no knowledge is simple: he has no time to obtain
any experience because he posts crap from dawn to dusk; then sleeps.
What he says makes no difference.
F
Frank
Richard said:
He's (meashershithead) been declared "brain dead" years ago.
Frank
B
Brendan R. Wehrung
Richard said:
One thing I can tell you is that Lexmark's idea of a cleaning cycle seems
to be to blow ink into a little tub to (I think, without looking) the far
right. Eventually this fills up and leaves ink on the bottom of the
printhead, causing streaks. You can see how much the printer has been
used by shining a flashlight in there. I've had to clean the resulting
mound of ink poop with a series of wet Q-tips a couple of times.
Brendan