Arthur Entlich said:
NO, I will not allow you to have the "last word" when you leave a
misrepresentation of what I have stated.
I am guilty of no such thing.
I have seen numerous tests done on ink usage. Believe me, all the inkjet
printer companies need to know about this,
slightly arrogant statement there.
and there have been
many test does of this nature. On average, in 4 color printers (CMY-K)
Two things there. 1. on average. 2. 4 colour printers.
there is little ink left over once one of the three (CMY) color runs
Considering there is little ink to start with......
out unless unusual production is involved.
So nothng unsusual about holiday beach shots -lots of blue water then more
blue sky. landscapes lots of blue.
This has nothing to do with refilling, or third party products, neither of
which I have mentioned in this thread.
never said you had.
TO reiterate once more, this thread was initiated
okay but threads change over their length. my comments were justified.
Besides things like cost of use ease of refilling etc are something to
consider.
by someone asking
about the best system to avoid head clogging when a printer was going to
be left unattended for up to half a year because this person had two
residences and did not want to move the printer.
Considering the cost of hp printers and genuine refills he may as well buy a
cheap one and chuck it once it clogs. The carts are that expensive.
"1. if it wasn't for hps greed they would have the best system."
if he wishes to do quality prints that infrequently i would suggest the
local lab far more cost effective. As for doing text a mono laser would be
infinitely cheaper yes even an hp one. Hp lasers seem to go on nearly
forever.
The only two modern inkjet systems using the removable ink/head combo are
Lexmark and HP. I cannot recommend Lexmark in good conscience,
me neither
.. That leaves HP, which provide
a good quality image, and have a reasonable acquisition cost.
They all do. Total cost of ownership is another matter.
I have not priced the cartridges, but obviously with millions of them
being > sold, and with HP the number one sold inkjet printer, they can't be
horribly more costly than other brands.
For someone who puts store so much by independent scientific testing that
well.....
Not until the poor souls come to buy a new cartridge but there are still
plenty of first time buyers getting stung. I should know i sell them the
cartridges then watch their faces when the work it out. Can count on their
next purchase not being an HP>
In the case at hand, they strike me as the best alternative.
Mono laser and local lab.
Now, as to the Canon issue... Just this weekend, I was looking over the
newest Canon Printers which are just arriving in Canada now. The 500,
3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, etc. The print results on their super glossy
paper is tremendous, especially the 3000 and above. The 6000 is
fantastic. I'm speaking print quality... not speed, not reliability, not
clogging, not cost of ink, not print driver quality, or color accuracy,
not refillability and certainly not permanence. Most of these things I
cannot determine from looking at test prints which were produced by Canon.
Canon are renouned for their speed. Most manufacturers are catching up.
Now the difference is 1 or two minutes not 10 or 20. so fair enough there my
lad. At least until you get to A3 models.
However, I can say one thing about permanence of earlier models. At same
said dealer they had several prints from the previous i series printers on
display. These were exposed to medium high level fluorescent light,
unprotected by anything (no glass or plastic). These prints were probably
between 6 and 8 months old and were also printed by Canon (or for them).
They all showed unbalanced fading which manifested in loss of the light
cyan and black density, making them look like very old color C2 prints.
Yup. they have quite a problem there. I have dealt with that by using non
canon paper and careful storage but yes it is an issue.
I like a lot of things Canon is doing. I like the fact they are moving
back to four color with new smaller droplets. I like it that they are
somewhat more reasonable with their inks and that the inks cartridges are
easy to refill, should people so desire. I like that they aren't spending
a fortune on trying to thwart companies from making 3rd party product.
I only wish they produced printers which worked with more stable inks, and
I hope they do so soon.
Then Hp will no longer justify stupidly high costs for their carts.
Epson produces consumer inks and papers that can hold the image together
for up to 200 years, and HP has some that are good for half a decade or
more. Many 3rd party inks are available for Epson printers, even those
sold for dye inks, which will allow for much better permanence. I haven't
followed the Canon market, are their pigmented inks that work well with
them now?
nah! But its a start.
I totally agree that Epson printers should be more user friendly in
keeping them clog free. Epson has made some improvements, especially with
their dye based inks, but now they need to work out those details with the
pigmented inks. Canon has some issues also, such as head life,
Yes very much so. Probably why they made it so easy to remove.
and if they can resolve ink permanence.
yeah that would be great.
I have often stated in the last year or so, that print quality is very
similar between the three major brands of inkjet printers, and so except
in quite critical situations, that is no longer the major consideration.
I hope so. Friend just bought a very expensive scanner, fax, copier,
printer. will let you know.
So, in the end, which printer one gets depends upon what features one find
most critical. I can only advise people based upon what they indicate is
important to them, and that is why I responded to this thread that HP was
the best answer for that poster.
Art
I will be generous and say out of the inkjets its probably correct. But
local labs and lasers were overlooked. Considering the costs of hp inkjets
their laser jet range shouldn't be overlooked. Nor should the local labs.
In fact in most circumstances even in my own shop when someone asks "whats
the best printer you would recommend" I point to the kiosk.
Inkjets are cheap n cheerful and multipurpose all rounders. If you
desperately want the best and typcially only want small prints then get a
dye sub. Print at home for 30pence per print and get the long life.
If you want big prints. lab or inkjet. Dye sub still too new to be cost
effective even at a4 let alone a3.
So to summarise yet again
1.Single inktank systems still rule
2. hp would be great except for their excessive cartridge pricing
don't overlook dye subs or mini labs. or the humble mono laser for text.
