[dosequis]

I have an ibook G4 and am going to be attending college in the fall. I am look to buy a printer for under $75. I want it small because it is for my dorm. Does anyone have any recomendations?

[SpaceMonkey]

What are you primarily going to use it for? Just text? There are plenty of cheap inkjets out there, but if you're looking to spend that much you might consider one of the lower-end B&W laser printers. I've heard good things about the Samsung ML-1740, but I don't know if it will work with a Mac out of the box.

[SSharon]

I have also heard good things about the samsung and I have 2 firends that have it. I have a brother hl-1450 and its given me no problems at all and since I only print b&w its perfect for me. They recently introducewd a newer, much smaller model, that another friend of mine has, if you are interested I can ask her the model number.

[egleband83]

Don't forget that you can get a free printer after rebate ($100) if you purchase any mac between now and like the beginning of Septemeber. Check out the Apple Store for details.

[DeathToWindows]

I am a college student and here are my suggestions:

if you are going to do text and [i[only[/i] text, pick up one of the cheap laser printers... the previously-suggested Samsung is a nice unit.

If you're like me and a flamingly crazed photo geek, pick up a really good inkjet (not one of the $50 epson POS units - they guzzle ink like frosh do booze).

And if you can scrape $300-400 together, hunt up HP's color laserjet... which has gotten obscenely cheap!

[dosequis]

I am looking at the Canon Pixma iP2000 for photo and black and white. Its only about 80 bucks and gets good reviews.

[ginoledesma]

I'd chime in for the laser printer suggestion as well -- they cost a whole lot cheaper in per page printout. Of course, if you're in a course that involves design, graphics and printing them out, getting an inkjet printer may be the way to go. I was eyeing a Brother MFC 420CN when it went on sale for $99 -- an ok and capable all-in-one printer that seemed right for the price.

HP Inkjet printer cartridges have a "life span" -- they expire if you after a certain time.

[dosequis]

I guess I should clarify and say that I don't want a laser printer. I will be rpinting some digital pics and so I want an inkjet. I think the Canon Pixma IP2000 might be a good bet. Any thoughts?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by DeathToWindows

If you're like me and a flamingly crazed photo geek, pick up a really good inkjet (not one of the $50 epson POS units - they guzzle ink like frosh do booze).

It's been a long time since I saw "frosh" used correctly!

Good information here. I might add that there is little reason to buy an inkjet that offers only two cartridges-black and multicolor-if you plan to print in color at all. The multicolor cartridges I've used tend to either have far less ink than the black cartridges (each color has just a little that may add up to about the same capacity as the black cartridge), or they have enough ink, but still use the three colors disproportionately so you run out of one color long before the others.

The exceptions I've seen have usually been HP's printers, like the 832C that's been quietly spitting out nice prints for me for many years. In this case, the multicolor cartridge is much bigger than the black cartridge, holding a total of about 2 1/2 times the ink. The color usage is up to you, of course, but don't be surprised if an HP printer goes down to the wire with all three colors.

And DO NOT get a printer that does not have a separate black cartridge! The "black" that these printers make is horrible, not saturated, and uses a LOT of color ink. There are still a few of these out there.

[Apfhex]

The Canon's probably a good bet for an affordable ink jet. I love my i860 for color photo prints (it offers a separate "photo black" that's different from the regular black, and comes with an 4x6 sheet feeder attachment). No experience with the Pixma series, I guess they're the replacement for the iXXX series (the iP4000 looks to be the closest equivalent to the i860, almost the same printer in specs and retail price).

[tooki]

Just look on eBay or craigslist -- you can get a brand new Canon iP3000 for $40-50 shipped (that's the same as a change of ink for it). It's the cheapest printer on the market that uses separate inks, plus it has built-in duplex printing and dual paper trays. Highly recommended.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

And DO NOT get a printer that does not have a separate black cartridge! The "black" that these printers make is horrible, not saturated, and uses a LOT of color ink. There are still a few of these out there.

I haven't seen one of those in years and years and years. I'd love for you to show me one, cuz I doubt they still exist!

tooki

[Mithras]

Just want to add that I would *still* consider a laser + inkjet, because the laser will serve you well for a long time, and is much much cheaper for printing black+white pages.

[Sage]

Whatever you buy (lots of good choices), avoid Epsons at all costs (though that's fairly well-known around these forums ) – that includes the ones that come with Apple's rebate thingie. I swear that Epsons are made to self-destruct if they accidentally last longer than a year.

[ghporter]

Tooki, obviously these non-black units are very low end printers-the last one I saw was several months ago at a large grocery store(!), and it was marked at an otherwise attractive price. Of course it wasn't a brand that anyone would recognize, so that's probably a clue about how well it would work...

That Cannon printer you mentioned is a VERY good deal! ANY printer with built in duplexing (that you can afford) is a good idea, but one that inexpensive is great!

Originally Posted by Sage

Whatever you buy (lots of good choices), avoid Epsons at all costs (though that's fairly well-known around these forums ) – that includes the ones that come with Apple's rebate thingie. I swear that Epsons are made to self-destruct if they accidentally last longer than a year.

That's not necessarily true. The real problem with Epson printers is that their print jets are so tiny that they clog easily, and that combined with the chemistry in their inks (which is very good once it's dry) equates to permanent clogs. The way to avoid this is to print something with ALL the colors every few days. It doesn't have to be a big picture, just a small color test pattern will do. This keeps the ink that stays on the jets from congealing. For the price, Epsons are often good printers, they just take some pampering. But then, most inkjets need some pampering.

[tooki]

I disagree with that assessment. It's the print head type (piezo) that seems to be the source of the trouble. The nozzle size is definitely not it, because Canon's nozzles are appreciably smaller. (The Canon iP5000 is a four-color photo printer which uses 1pl drops in lieu of photo inks -- the smallest on the market. With great results, I might add.) For sure the ink formulation must have something to do with it, though.

I also strongly disagree that an inkjet should need pampering. Canon's inkjets don't. HP's inkjets don't. It should not be necessary to waste super-costly ink every few days just to keep it from failing. This level of "pampering" is a serious design defect.

Considering that other printers, which are faster, quieter, print nicer, have more features, and use cheaper ink with no chips, are available for the same cost, I can't possibly see how anyone could recommend an Epson right now. I wouldn't even tell someone to keep it if they got it for free -- the hassle's too big.


I highly recommend the Canon Pixma series. The iP3000, as I said, is cheap, full-featured, fast, uses cheap ink, and prints great. (I use the i850, which uses the same print mechanism and printhead and it's been great.)

Mithras, one of the requirements of the original poster was "small" for a dorm room. Getting TWO printers is not going to help meet that goal. Besides, the print cost of the cheapest laser printers is about the same as that of the inkjets with the cheapest ink: the Canons I am suggesting. The toner for those cheapie lasers is small and doesn't hold much. You don't save much, if any, money with them. It's also impossible to get an inkjet AND laser for under $75. The Canon iP3000 for $45 new off craigslist is a great compromise, since it's fast and uses very cheap ink, and it has the duplexer.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Tooki, obviously these non-black units are very low end printers-the last one I saw was several months ago at a large grocery store(!), and it was marked at an otherwise attractive price. Of course it wasn't a brand that anyone would recognize, so that's probably a clue about how well it would work...

Was it Apollo?

That's HP's super-super-low-end spin-off brand, selling outdated HP technology for not much cheaper than a modern printer at a computer or electronics store. AFAIK, there's nothing wrong with them, other than being outdated technology.

tooki

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tooki

Was it Apollo?

That's HP's super-super-low-end spin-off brand, selling outdated HP technology for not much cheaper than a modern printer at a computer or electronics store. AFAIK, there's nothing wrong with them, other than being outdated technology.

tooki

I've seen Apollo printers, but this one wasn't one of them. I almost got my son a Barbie edition Apollo printer, but I figured it was just throwing money away.

The name started with an A I think, something like Apox... but even the text on the box seemed to be badly translated from an Asian language, so there's no telling. The thing that struk me was the price of less than $40, and that it was at a grocery store. Just wierd. It seemed like the sort of thing you'd see in a Tiger Direct ad, or maybe more likely in a Tiger Direct-wannabe ad. You're right about this type of thing being scarce, it's just something to watch out for when you see a real "deal."

[Graymalkin]

I would like to throw in a suggestion for a small laser printer instead of an inkjet. Even printing out hundreds of sheets of text a laser is going to power on. A decent quality toner cartridge is likely to last >1000 sheets. A high capacity cartridge is going to last upwards of 2000 sheets. I have an HP 1012 and I love it. Its print quality is beautiful and everything comes out extremely sharp. It also works swimmingly with my Airport Express and is fairly small. The newer Sansung, Minolta, and Brother laser printers are also very small and fairly inexpensive. A majority of your printing in school will be and a laser will give you much better results than an inkjet and likely go a year or two between toner cartridges. For color prints hit up Kinko's and do your photo printing at Target, Costco, or through iPhoto's print ordering (Kodak).

For a long time I was really disappointed with HP's printers. I have gone through a number of their inkjets and all of them have clogged even though I took good care of them. I found my LJ 1012 cheap at a Gateway store when they were closing them all down. It's been through lots of papers, developer documentation, code prints, maps, and web receipts. The 1012 got me over my general distate for HP's printers.

[AU_student_iceBook]

Originally Posted by Graymalkin

I would like to throw in a suggestion for a small laser printer instead of an inkjet. Even printing out hundreds of sheets of text a laser is going to power on. A decent quality toner cartridge is likely to last >1000 sheets. A high capacity cartridge is going to last upwards of 2000 sheets. I have an HP 1012 and I love it. Its print quality is beautiful and everything comes out extremely sharp. It also works swimmingly with my Airport Express and is fairly small. The newer Sansung, Minolta, and Brother laser printers are also very small and fairly inexpensive. A majority of your printing in school will be and a laser will give you much better results than an inkjet and likely go a year or two between toner cartridges. For color prints hit up Kinko's and do your photo printing at Target, Costco, or through iPhoto's print ordering (Kodak).

For a long time I was really disappointed with HP's printers. I have gone through a number of their inkjets and all of them have clogged even though I took good care of them. I found my LJ 1012 cheap at a Gateway store when they were closing them all down. It's been through lots of papers, developer documentation, code prints, maps, and web receipts. The 1012 got me over my general distate for HP's printers.

I agree! The 1012 rocks!

Do color at a store, and buy a cheap laser. You won't regret it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tooki

I disagree with that assessment. It's the print head type (piezo) that seems to be the source of the trouble. The nozzle size is definitely not it, because Canon's nozzles are appreciably smaller. (The Canon iP5000 is a four-color photo printer which uses 1pl drops in lieu of photo inks -- the smallest on the market. With great results, I might add.) For sure the ink formulation must have something to do with it, though.

Interesting. The Cannons I've had dealings with seemed to be as cranky and clog-prone as Epsons...but they were all portables, and all "corporate property" as well-which probably explains the difference in my experience.

Originally Posted by tooki

I also strongly disagree that an inkjet should need pampering. Canon's inkjets don't. HP's inkjets don't. It should not be necessary to waste super-costly ink every few days just to keep it from failing. This level of "pampering" is a serious design defect.

My HP 832C needs a bit of pampering-I have to print something in color every now and then to make sure it doesn't sieze up. Of course in the case of HP printers, since the printhead is part of the ink cartridge, I don't have to worry about permanently disabling the printer with clogs, as I did with my deceased Epson.

In my experience, inkjets can be as flakey as lasers, and are often as vulnerable to dust intrusion, with the attendant side effects of screwed up printing and smearing. But "pampering" to me includes keeping the thing clean on the outside as well keeping the printhead clog-free.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

...The thing that struk me was the price of less than $40, and that it was at a grocery store. ... You're right about this type of thing being scarce, it's just something to watch out for when you see a real "deal."

Somehow, i don't see myself rushing to the grocery store to get my next printer!!

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Interesting. The Cannons I've had dealings with seemed to be as cranky and clog-prone as Epsons...but they were all portables, and all "corporate property" as well-which probably explains the difference in my experience.
My HP 832C needs a bit of pampering-I have to print something in color every now and then to make sure it doesn't sieze up. Of course in the case of HP printers, since the printhead is part of the ink cartridge, I don't have to worry about permanently disabling the printer with clogs, as I did with my deceased Epson.

In my experience, inkjets can be as flakey as lasers, and are often as vulnerable to dust intrusion, with the attendant side effects of screwed up printing and smearing. But "pampering" to me includes keeping the thing clean on the outside as well keeping the printhead clog-free.

Glenn, am I correct to guess that printers aren't your area of expertise?

Portable printers are more finicky, but yeah, the "corporate" thing should be a big red flag!!

An HP 832C is a very old model. Obviously this discussion, and everything I am saying unless specified otherwise, is about contemporary models.

"...as flaky as lasers" !!!??!?!?!?! B&W lasers have always been far more robust than inkjets (perhaps not including the ultra-cheapie lasers of recent times). B&W lasers have always been the workhorses, while inkjets have been more the temperamental virtuosos. Color lasers -- which are not part of this thread -- are entirely different beasts, only in the past 2 years, perhaps, having begun to shed their mule-like difficulty and primadonna neediness.


tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

But "pampering" to me includes keeping the thing clean on the outside as well keeping the printhead clog-free.

Well, modern Canons' heads simply don't clog -- with no special treatment.

tooki

[OreoCookie]

First, IMHO you should decide what you want: color or bw. If you want color and a budget close to what you have in mind, you'll get an inkjet. Do a search in the forums and the majority of the posts will tell you Canons (like the IP3000 with separate ink cartridges) are a good choice. The IP2000 does not come with separate ink tanks, so I would suggest you up your budget by a bit and go for the larger model.

If you don't care that much about color, it's clearly a laser, because it'll beat the hell out of inkjets in the same price category. Take a look at brother printers.

In any case, I think your budget is a bit low, especially if you intend to keep the printer for four years.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by tooki

Well, modern Canons' heads simply don't clog -- with no special treatment.

There's a few threads every week or so at www.dpreview.com about someone who's Canon ixxx clogged and wants to learn how to clean it. It does happen and frequently.

That being said, neither my Canons or Epsons have clogged. (many have clogged Epsons as well) You just have to turn them off if you're not printing for a day or so.

[tooki]

I follow some photo sites, and I think that clogged Canon threads are very rare. In contrast, one reads about clogged Epsons daily.

tooki

P.S. Pretty much all of the clogged Canons I've read about had used non-Canon ink.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tooki

I follow some photo sites, and I think that clogged Canon threads are very rare. In contrast, one reads about clogged Epsons daily.

tooki

P.S. Pretty much all of the clogged Canons I've read about had used non-Canon ink.

I'm begining to believe it's not just the Epson ink that causes Epson printers to clog, but ANY inks that have characteristics similar to Epson's inks. As you mentioned, Canon printers make exceptionally small droplets, which requires pigments that are exceptionally fine as well. Epson, on the other hand, makes larger droplets, so they don't need such fine pigment...maybe it's the pigment that's congealing, independent of the ink-vehicle and causing these clogs.

And considering how much of a mega-royal-ultra-turbo pain in the butt refilling cartridges turns out to be, I think I'll stick with name brand-though expensive-cartridges.

[tooki]

All Canon inks (except the pigment black used in some models) and most Epson inks are dye inks that have no particles in them. Nonetheless, pigment or dye-based, ink formulation is critical.

Note that Canon's printers with the ultra-small droplets use the same ink tanks as models from 4 years ago, so obviously the small droplets did not necessitate special ink. Note that the pigment black is not printed with the ultra-small droplets -- and the pigment black ink is a 5 year old formulation.

I (and others) still maintain that it's the piezo heads' design that is causing the problem. (Heck, it's probably not even piezo itself, but just Epson's implementation.)

The upshot is that, for whatever reason, Epson dropped the ball and has never picked it up. Between clogging, ink cost, print speed, paper handling flexibility and operating noise -- all areas where Canon beats Epson -- I can't see how anyone could recommend the Epson.

tooki

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tooki

All Canon inks (except the pigment black used in some models) and most Epson inks are dye inks that have no particles in them. Nonetheless, pigment or dye-based, ink formulation is critical.

Note that Canon's printers with the ultra-small droplets use the same ink tanks as models from 4 years ago, so obviously the small droplets did not necessitate special ink. Note that the pigment black is not printed with the ultra-small droplets -- and the pigment black ink is a 5 year old formulation.

I (and others) still maintain that it's the piezo heads' design that is causing the problem. (Heck, it's probably not even piezo itself, but just Epson's implementation.)

The upshot is that, for whatever reason, Epson dropped the ball and has never picked it up. Between clogging, ink cost, print speed, paper handling flexibility and operating noise -- all areas where Canon beats Epson -- I can't see how anyone could recommend the Epson.

tooki

Excellent points. While I used the term "pigment," I was more referring to the chemistry, whatever it might be, that makes the color. I think there's some issue with dye chemistry not remaining stable depending on the medium used, but that may be a bad impression of a poor memory. Whatever, if Canon can do great stuff with inks that haven't changed formulation is such a long time-and Epson has not done anything to correct their well recognized ink issues-then I think when it's time to replace the venerable HP beside me, I'll be looking at Canon.

My only question is does Canon make a printer that prints directly on CDs? I was looking at an Epson for that specific purpose, but my hesitation has grown into full-blown fear. And while I don't need a printer for CDs, it would sure be nice.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by tooki

The upshot is that, for whatever reason, Epson dropped the ball and has never picked it up. Between clogging, ink cost, print speed, paper handling flexibility and operating noise -- all areas where Canon beats Epson -- I can't see how anyone could recommend the Epson.

I have both Canons and Epsons and they are both great printers.

There are reasons to reccomend Epson:
1) Paper selection - everyone and their brother makes papers and printer profiles for the Epson photo printers. You can print on much more media with an Epson than a Canon, from Roll papers (great for panoramas) to canvas to t-shrt transfers.

2) B&W - if you're into B&W there are more options for Epson as a dedicated solution.

3) RIP - mainly for high end Epsons, but there are RIPs available for the Epsons while there are few for the Canons.

4) Archival - despite Canon's new inks, Epson pigment printers set the standard for archival prints. Many have seen their Canon prints (me included) fade in a relatively short order.

5) CD Printing - due to patent issues, Epson is the only one to do this.

6) Ink Cost - numerous independent reviews have pegged Epson right in the middle of Canon (cheap) and HP (Expensive). The cost of an archival Epson print is only a few more cents (1-2) USD than a Canon, with HP being much more expensive. The R1800 I have seems to use just as much ink as the i960 it replaced. And the cartridges are the same price.
With the r1800, I've printed about:
3x 13x19 on Epson Watercolor
1x 11x17 on Epson Watercolor
1x 4.5x17 panorama on Epson Watercolor
probably 10-15 8x10's on Glossy and semigloss
5 5x7's on Semigloss
10-20 4x6's on Semigloss
1x 8x10 on Matte
1x 8.3x36.5 Panorama on Epson Premium Luster

And these are my ink levels:
Ink Levels
It tells me I have enough photo black for ~ 30 4x6's....

7) Speed - while that may have been an issue, Epson has finally learned to print speedily and is not that far behind Canon.

8) Quietness - I'm confuded. Even my 875DC is about as loud as the i960 and i560.

9) Clogging - happens with both brands and if you're lucky, the Epson won't clog. Best advice is to turn it off when done printing. The new Epsons have been having less clogging than previous.

Either printer will print great prints at a relatively low cost. I've owned both brands and they both have been equally trouble free.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Excellent points. While I used the term "pigment," I was more referring to the chemistry, whatever it might be, that makes the color. I think there's some issue with dye chemistry not remaining stable depending on the medium used, but that may be a bad impression of a poor memory. Whatever, if Canon can do great stuff with inks that haven't changed formulation is such a long time-and Epson has not done anything to correct their well recognized ink issues-then I think when it's time to replace the venerable HP beside me, I'll be looking at Canon.

My only question is does Canon make a printer that prints directly on CDs? I was looking at an Epson for that specific purpose, but my hesitation has grown into full-blown fear. And while I don't need a printer for CDs, it would sure be nice.

You are correct about dye inks. Everyone's been working to improve them, though, since pigment inks aren't as vibrant.

Canon makes direct CD printing -- but not for the U.S. :::grr overbroad Epson patent:::

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by itguy05

I have both Canons and Epsons and they are both great printers.

There are reasons to reccomend Epson:
1) Paper selection - everyone and their brother makes papers and printer profiles for the Epson photo printers. You can print on much more media with an Epson than a Canon, from Roll papers (great for panoramas) to canvas to t-shrt transfers.

2) B&W - if you're into B&W there are more options for Epson as a dedicated solution.

3) RIP - mainly for high end Epsons, but there are RIPs available for the Epsons while there are few for the Canons.

4) Archival - despite Canon's new inks, Epson pigment printers set the standard for archival prints. Many have seen their Canon prints (me included) fade in a relatively short order.

5) CD Printing - due to patent issues, Epson is the only one to do this.

6) Ink Cost - numerous independent reviews have pegged Epson right in the middle of Canon (cheap) and HP (Expensive). The cost of an archival Epson print is only a few more cents (1-2) USD than a Canon, with HP being much more expensive. The R1800 I have seems to use just as much ink as the i960 it replaced. And the cartridges are the same price.
With the r1800, I've printed about:
3x 13x19 on Epson Watercolor
1x 11x17 on Epson Watercolor
1x 4.5x17 panorama on Epson Watercolor
probably 10-15 8x10's on Glossy and semigloss
5 5x7's on Semigloss
10-20 4x6's on Semigloss
1x 8x10 on Matte
1x 8.3x36.5 Panorama on Epson Premium Luster

And these are my ink levels:
Ink Levels
It tells me I have enough photo black for ~ 30 4x6's....

7) Speed - while that may have been an issue, Epson has finally learned to print speedily and is not that far behind Canon.

8) Quietness - I'm confuded. Even my 875DC is about as loud as the i960 and i560.

9) Clogging - happens with both brands and if you're lucky, the Epson won't clog. Best advice is to turn it off when done printing. The new Epsons have been having less clogging than previous.

Either printer will print great prints at a relatively low cost. I've owned both brands and they both have been equally trouble free.

Most of the points you've made revolve around fine art prints. This thread is about an all-purpose, text-heavy printer. With that in mind:

1) Irrelevant
2) Irrelevant (though true)
3) Entirely irrelevant, and barely correct (RIPs for Canons just aren't as well known, esp since Canon only released its large-format inkjets in the U.S. a month ago. In Europe they are established.)
4) True, but again probably irrelevant
5) Correct, within the U.S. only
6) Exactly. Canon always comes out cheapest. If Epson has narrowed the gap, I applaud it. But at this price range, Epson's inks are FAR more expensive. (With high-end models, the gap is much smaller, but the original poster won't be buying a high-end unit.)
7) Canon's "draft" text mode -- an important one for a college student -- is almost as high-quality as Epson's much slower "standard" mode. (Epson draft text is awful.) I do agree that the gap has narrowed appreciably.
8) In a quiet room, I can tell the difference, in particular if the Canon is in Quiet Mode (great for being considerate of a roomie). (Admittedly, modern Epsons make nowhere near as much noise as old ones. But the Canons are damned near silent.)
9) The Epson clogging problems are widespread (esp in low-end models), while the Canons have proven to clog very little, even when only used sporadically. Oh, and the Canons have auto power on and off, so you don't have to remember to do so. In an Epson, it's critical, yet they didn't bother to autmate it.


I have owned both brands:

The Canons (an original Apple StyleWriter, a Color StyleWriter Pro, an i850, and now an iP3000) have all treated me well, and all still work fine. Print costs for these are low.

The first Epson, a Stylus Color 800, treated me very well. It only clogged when my mom decided to use el-cheapo ink in it. The second, a Stylus Color 740, printed well for a year, then clogged and got permanent banding. Its print costs were high. My dad (without asking me) got himself a Stylus Photo 820. It clogged within 4 months, necessitating costly repeated cleanings to clear up.

Various clients of mine have had similar experiences.

So yes, for fine arts prints, in environments where the printer will get constant use, a high-end Epson can be a good choice. But for an individual seeking a solid, no-fuss all-purpose printer, a Canon is a vastly better choice.

tooki

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by tooki

Most of the points you've made revolve around fine art prints. This thread is about an all-purpose, text-heavy printer. With that in mind:

The OP also expressed his desire to print photos.

4) True, but again probably irrelevant

Nothing worse than having someone come back to you for a repirint of a photo that you printed for them because it looks bad now. Or the dismay of seeing one on your wall fade before your eyes. Although I switched papers and the Canon now lasts quite long.

6) Exactly. Canon always comes out cheapest. If Epson has narrowed the gap, I applaud it. But at this price range, Epson's inks are FAR more expensive. (With high-end models, the gap is much smaller, but the original poster won't be buying a high-end unit.)

Are they? At the price of the OP, under $75 (I'm assuming retail from the Canon site), that leaves the low end Canons with single ink carts for color and B&W. Those things are not all that cheap or large ($20 tri-color), ($10 black)- I know, the wife owns a i250, which uses the same basic small cartridges.

And I still wonder at the wisdom of the separate cartridges. I wonder if I am truly better off buying 6 separate inks @ $70 (Canon i960) or a color T008 ($20) and Black T007 ($24). Seems great in theory, but it seems like I'm always replacing them one right after the other....

7) Canon's "draft" text mode -- an important one for a college student -- is almost as high-quality as Epson's much slower "standard" mode. (Epson draft text is awful.) I do agree that the gap has narrowed appreciably.

Unless they have changed it, the draft (economy) mode on my i560 is equally as horrible as the draft on my Epson 880 was. And the racket it makes is insane.

8) In a quiet room, I can tell the difference, in particular if the Canon is in Quiet Mode (great for being considerate of a roomie). (Admittedly, modern Epsons make nowhere near as much noise as old ones. But the Canons are damned near silent.)

Never used quiet mode as I think they all are quiet enough.

9) The Epson clogging problems are widespread (esp in low-end models), while the Canons have proven to clog very little, even when only used sporadically. Oh, and the Canons have auto power on and off, so you don't have to remember to do so. In an Epson, it's critical, yet they didn't bother to autmate it.

Again, there are quite a few threads on dpreview that highight that Canons do indeed clog with a decent frequency, even with OEM inks.

I do love Canon's auto on/off feature.

I'd not hesitate to reccomend either brand.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by itguy05

1) The OP also expressed his desire to print photos.

2) Nothing worse than having someone come back to you for a repirint of a photo that you printed for them because it looks bad now. Or the dismay of seeing one on your wall fade before your eyes. Although I switched papers and the Canon now lasts quite long.

3) Are they? At the price of the OP, under $75 (I'm assuming retail from the Canon site), that leaves the low end Canons with single ink carts for color and B&W. Those things are not all that cheap or large ($20 tri-color), ($10 black)- I know, the wife owns a i250, which uses the same basic small cartridges.

4) And I still wonder at the wisdom of the separate cartridges. I wonder if I am truly better off buying 6 separate inks @ $70 (Canon i960) or a color T008 ($20) and Black T007 ($24). Seems great in theory, but it seems like I'm always replacing them one right after the other....

5) Unless they have changed it, the draft (economy) mode on my i560 is equally as horrible as the draft on my Epson 880 was. And the racket it makes is insane.

6) Never used quiet mode as I think they all are quiet enough.

7) Again, there are quite a few threads on dpreview that highight that Canons do indeed clog with a decent frequency, even with OEM inks.

I do love Canon's auto on/off feature.

I'd not hesitate to reccomend either brand.

1) Right -- and even a cheap Canon will do that with admirable speed and quality.

2) I suppose. I haven't had a problem with it. I did a test print where I masked off part of a tet print and put it in the window. After 6 mos there was still no fading (then I moved and lost the test).

3) Canon's single-ink printers can be found new in stores for under well $100 on sale, and under $50 on ebay or craigslist. (I just picked up an iP3000 for $40.)

4) The separate cartridges save some people a lot of money, others very little -- it depends on what you print. But Canon's ink isn't cheaper because it's separate, it's cheaper because they charge much less per ml of ink. E.g. a BCI-6 tank is 9ml of ink for $12. One Epson tricolor tank i looked at was $30 for 15ml (3x5ml) of ink. That's a LOT more expensive.

So yes, you may be handing over a bit more money, but you get a LOT more ink.

5) The draft text mode on, say, my SC740 was barely legible. The draft text on my i850 (which is the same printhead as the i560 and iP3000) is very clear, only a TINY step down from the SC740's standard mode.

6) Quiet mode just advances the paper more slowly to reduce noise further.

7) And look at any printer thread here -- it's almost exclusively Epsons having clogging trouble. I am NOT saying that NO Canons ever clog, but it is plain as day that Epsons suffer from FAR greater clogging problems.

tooki

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by tooki

1) Right -- and even a cheap Canon will do that with admirable speed and quality.

Tried on the wife's i260 and it was OK, tried on my i560 and it was not that great either. Even steves-digicams noticed a marked decline in quality of the Canon 4x6 inkjet printer compared to a "real photo printer"

2) I suppose. I haven't had a problem with it. I did a test print where I masked off part of a tet print and put it in the window. After 6 mos there was still no fading (then I moved and lost the test).

Mine were mainly on Canon Photo paper that may have been one of the original formulations as they have had a couple revisions to address fading. From reading on DPreview, it seems that the Canon papers are susceptible to gas fading and it's a very location dependent issue. Some have it, others never get it. But it's always in the back of my head with my i960 prints.

4) The separate cartridges save some people a lot of money, others very little -- it depends on what you print. But Canon's ink isn't cheaper because it's separate, it's cheaper because they charge much less per ml of ink. E.g. a BCI-6 tank is 9ml of ink for $12. One Epson tricolor tank i looked at was $30 for 15ml (3x5ml) of ink. That's a LOT more expensive.

And the BCI24's are quite small and relatively expensive as well. The carts for the R800/1800 cost about $.50 more than BCI6 at staples. They last about as long as the BCI6's.

It should also be interesting to see the prices on the new chipped Canon inks and how the aftermarket responds. I wonder if Canon will make the chips harder to duplicate in order to curb the aftermarket.

If nothing else, I love the $2 ink tanks for my i560 vs the $12 Canons. Sure print quality declined, but at those prices, I can easily live with the decline in quality. Even the $3 Epsons for the 875 are decent.

7) And look at any printer thread here -- it's almost exclusively Epsons having clogging trouble. I am NOT saying that NO Canons ever clog, but it is plain as day that Epsons suffer from FAR greater clogging problems.

Interesting as the ratio seems to be not as great over at the printer forums at dpreview. But I wonder if that has to do with the users - the printers at dpreview get more use on average than the users here?

[tooki]

Originally Posted by itguy05

1) Tried on the wife's i260 and it was OK, tried on my i560 and it was not that great either. Even steves-digicams noticed a marked decline in quality of the Canon 4x6 inkjet printer compared to a "real photo printer"

2) Mine were mainly on Canon Photo paper that may have been one of the original formulations as they have had a couple revisions to address fading. From reading on DPreview, it seems that the Canon papers are susceptible to gas fading and it's a very location dependent issue. Some have it, others never get it. But it's always in the back of my head with my i960 prints.

3) And the BCI24's are quite small and relatively expensive as well. The carts for the R800/1800 cost about $.50 more than BCI6 at staples. They last about as long as the BCI6's.

4) It should also be interesting to see the prices on the new chipped Canon inks and how the aftermarket responds. I wonder if Canon will make the chips harder to duplicate in order to curb the aftermarket.

5) If nothing else, I love the $2 ink tanks for my i560 vs the $12 Canons. Sure print quality declined, but at those prices, I can easily live with the decline in quality. Even the $3 Epsons for the 875 are decent.

6) Interesting as the ratio seems to be not as great over at the printer forums at dpreview. But I wonder if that has to do with the users - the printers at dpreview get more use on average than the users here?

1) Well obviously a dedicated photo printer will do a better job, but I would still call the photos from my i850 excellent -- and I am picky.

2) So I've heard. I am anxious to see if Canon's new inkset fares as well in this respect as it claims.

3) Yes, but Canon uses cheap single inks on much cheaper printers -- Epson inks for its low-end printers are MUCH more expensive.

4) Ick. I hate chipped inks.

6) But that's valid, too. Epsons don't clog much if they get constant use, as many photographers do. But the average home or student printer gets used sporadically, and the Canons handle that usage pattern FAR better.

Internet-wide, the Epson clogging is legendary. It's also very telling that 3rd parties make special cleaning kits for Epsons, but not for Canons.


tooki

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by tooki

1) Well obviously a dedicated photo printer will do a better job, but I would still call the photos from my i850 excellent -- and I am picky.

I'm picky as well and have never been happy with the output of a 4 color printer, esp. in the skintones and sky.

3) Yes, but Canon uses cheap single inks on much cheaper printers -- Epson inks for its low-end printers are MUCH more expensive.

Are they? BCI6's are ~ $12.50/ea. I just checked on the Office Depot site for ink for the Stylys C66 (Epson's lowest end printer) and they are $12.50 or you can get them all for $59. Sure, that's more than the BCI24's, but I would also guess they hold more ink. And you get the benefits of the individual colors.

Internet-wide, the Epson clogging is legendary. It's also very telling that 3rd parties make special cleaning kits for Epsons, but not for Canons.

Is it? Many sites tell that they are basically worthles and that you're better off flushing with ink vs the "special" stuff in the cartridges. Those are mainly for switching from different inks like color to B&W quadtone inks or for purging before installing a CFS so you can profile immediately.

There are even a couple websites devoted to cleaning the Canon clogs, including soaking, boiling, and windexing the print heads..... They all clog with about the same frequency now.

[tooki]

That's simply not true. I am glad that you've had good experiences -- perhaps it's evidence that Epson has begun to fix the clogging problem -- but the fact is, Epsons clog far more often. This has been the experience of too many people to discount it. And too many users of recent Canons have had zero problems to ignore that, either.

Furthermore, I googled "canon clogged" and all but one of the Canon reports were either about third-party inks, which seem to be very problematic, or about very old Canon models, from the days when their printhead was considered a consumable part to be replaced after 6000 pages. (And many of the hits had to do with "clogging" of the image buffer in Canon cameras.) A search for "epson clogged" finds far more reports of clogging problems, few having to do with 3rd party inks, and a much higher proportion dealing with recent models.

tooki

P.S. Above, I mistakenly said that BCI-6 tanks contain 9ml of ink. In fact, they contain 13ml. The BCI-3eBk pigment black is 27ml -- for $14.