which printer ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris 159
  • Start date Start date
Hecate said:
You sure you've got that right. Don't you man use pigment not dye? The
figures I've seen show dye lasting a lot less time than pigment.
Click to expand...

If you like glossy prints, the difference isn't that big. Canon
dye inks (BCI-6 series) rate 38 years while Epson 2200 pigments
is rated 50 years on their corresponding glossy papers. Both
numbers in the same article with info from Wilhelm:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,105461,pg,3,00.asp

Mike

p.s. - Canon dye ink cartrides cost about the same as Epson pigment
cartridges (roughly $10 ea). Don't know if print-yield is
different.
 
If you like glossy prints, the difference isn't that big. Canon
dye inks (BCI-6 series) rate 38 years while Epson 2200 pigments
is rated 50 years on their corresponding glossy papers. Both
numbers in the same article with info from Wilhelm:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,105461,pg,3,00.asp
Click to expand...
Interesting, though I'm not entirely convinced by Wilhelm.
p.s. - Canon dye ink cartrides cost about the same as Epson pigment
cartridges (roughly $10 ea). Don't know if print-yield is
different.
Click to expand...

I do know, however, that my Permajet CIS has approximately 8.9 times
as much ink per bottle for only 2.5 times the price ;-)
 
You sure you've got that right. Don't you man use pigment not dye? The
figures I've seen show dye lasting a lot less time than pigment.
Click to expand...

Exactly - he just got excited because someone proved the error in his
logic. I don't care HOW many thousand of prints he ran off in WHAT
business environment. The fact remains he said he's had no failures,
but has owned 7 or 8 printers in a few years. Ane now he justifies
why the printers failed, or no longer produced the quality they did
when new, effectively saying:

1. They don't fail. I've had no trouble.
2. The reason I've had no trouble is because I buy a new one every 12
months.

Allan.
 
Not to pick a nit or anything, but don't you have your Dye and Pigment a bit
confused.
Click to expand...

You weren't nitpicking. (Neither was I by the way - the simple fact
is, his logic doesn't hold water.) Obviously the printers DID have a
day of trouble, or they wouldn't have been replaced by 7, 6, 5, 4, 3,
2, 1 - new printers.
 
Exactly - he just got excited because someone proved the error in his
logic. I don't care HOW many thousand of prints he ran off in WHAT
business environment. The fact remains he said he's had no failures,
but has owned 7 or 8 printers in a few years. Ane now he justifies
why the printers failed, or no longer produced the quality they did
when new, effectively saying:

1. They don't fail. I've had no trouble.
2. The reason I've had no trouble is because I buy a new one every 12
months.
Click to expand...
Allan, that would be a logical assumption unless, of course, he's say
eight printers, four of which he used for the 4 years, and then four
new ones which he used for the next four years. ;-)
 
I don't have page counts, but they aren't that high.

I'm glad someone has few issues with these things :)

-Larry
 
Just Allan said:
You weren't nitpicking. (Neither was I by the way - the simple fact
is, his logic doesn't hold water.) Obviously the printers DID have a
day of trouble, or they wouldn't have been replaced by 7, 6, 5, 4, 3,
2, 1 - new printers.
Click to expand...

Unless he was using them for commercial production work. Printers like
the 2200, I think, are intended for home use where the total number
of prints in the life the printer is fairly modest. That's probably
why Epson makes multi-kilobuck inkjets for commercial use (that has lower
dpi, etc as well) that have larger ink cartridges, etc. He could just
be using them for other than their intended use.

Possibly, anyway.

Mike
 
They may have been replaced due to the need or desire for faster models,
or improved printing characteristics or ink types available.

Art
 
Back
Top