Computers & Electronics

Feedback on All-in-one printers that use least amount of ink? ...or standalone.

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 2nd, 2006 5:58 am
Tags:
None
Newbie
User avatar
Nov 13, 2003
89 posts
Calgary
My point was/is: 5 Reviewers found the Canon to be the superior Multi-function, and it costs less than 1/2 the price of HP/Lexmark to operate.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 11, 2004
6724 posts
69 upvotes
As I have earlier stated, those reviews were not done in direct market comparison - and that's what is important. If you compared models that are direct competitors from each brand within the same price range, the Canon cannot hold a candle to the competition. Specification wise, they do not perform as well - except in photo printing as their only strong suit.

Reviews only pick the Canon as a printer of choice out of the latest offerings from each manufacturer - but *not* because it is superior to direct counterparts. See this recent THG review to see how misleading it can be for people.
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20 ... rs-17.html

THG, like all other review sites, only pick the latest offerings from each manufacturer and compare them in that respect. Notice that the printers reviewed vary in price range? Their findings are only meant to inform consumers of what they should be expecting and the shortcomings on each of the latest models. I've always felt reviews were meant as guides than to serve as decision makers. So it comes down to how you want to look at it - from THG's standpoint: these are the latest models from such and such manufacturers, and this is what it can do, and this is what we found.... Or as consumers, the standpoint we should be looking at is something like "if i spend 130 dollars, what's the best performance i can get?"

This goes back to consumers facing the decision between AMD versus Intel. Review sites will grab the latest offerings from each manufacturer and compare them. At times they picked AMD. Other times they picked Intel. But when it comes to going out to the store, consumers will ask "if i spend 130 dollars, what's the best performance i can get?"

And when you look at printers *that* way, Canon is the worst in the pack. For $130, why the hell would i buy a canon printer when I can get better features and performance from the competition? If Canons are so great, why are they a distant dead last in the market race? The answer is simple. Canon is *not* superior to HP or Lexmark.
Innovatively Silent. :cool:
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 11, 2004
6724 posts
69 upvotes
Evil Techie wrote:we dont want to compare MP130 here
we want to compare something like MP390 and up
MP130 isnt meant to be a great photo printer so really, canon printers itself cost a bit more than the competition but you save on the ink in the long run
so it makes sense to also compare canons in a bit higher price range with the lower price ranged competition as in the long run, its all about the same if not cheaper
Sorry Evil Techie, don't have time at work to dig up all the research, but I did compare $130 multifunctions and canon came out the worst. but if you're that interested in how the MP390 stacks up against its direct competition, it's easy. Just find out what HP, Lexmark, and Epson offer for around the same price range, compare the features, and the cost per page for each. I am sure the results will be the same as my findings for multifunctions.
Innovatively Silent. :cool:
Newbie
User avatar
Nov 13, 2003
89 posts
Calgary
Cafe_333 wrote:If you want to be econimocal, Canon is a good way to go because of low cost per page, but you sacrifice performance. The bottom line is, the ink costs are the same regardless of manufacturer when you can compare against the same industry standards.
Many reviewers on the net consider Canon to have the best Text and Photo quality, and cost less than 1/2 the money to operate. Better output at a lower cost per page would seem to make Canon a clear winner, no matter how you slice it.
Member
User avatar
Nov 28, 2002
408 posts
7 upvotes
Cafe_333 wrote:Sorry Evil Techie, don't have time at work to dig up all the research, but I did compare $130 multifunctions and canon came out the worst. but if you're that interested in how the MP390 stacks up against its direct competition, it's easy. Just find out what HP, Lexmark, and Epson offer for around the same price range, compare the features, and the cost per page for each. I am sure the results will be the same as my findings for multifunctions.
Since your "research" seems to run counter to common knowledge some evidence of your claims would be nice. BTW Canon is second in market share (for inkjet printers 2004) not distant last.
Deal Fanatic
Oct 25, 2003
9294 posts
415 upvotes
I've owned 3 different HP printers, and haven't been disappointed with any of them.

First was the HP 500C which went for $300 (ouch, but then again this was 1993) damn thing still works to this day, in perfect order, just slow as hell.

Next was the HP 5550, this was the real workhorse, printing all those lecture slides in first to third year univ, cheap ink too (only because of that $50 off $100 Staples dealie, stocked up on ink big time then heh). ($100)

Now I have the HP Photosmart 7760, uses the same carts as the 5550 so I'm good for a while, the 5550 was given to a friend so :D ($70 or something? the deal with that PM with Bestbuy)

I also own the Canon iP8500, great printer! Dad prints insane amounts of photos with that thing, and I gotta say, for printing 4x6 photos, it's INSANELY fast. Downside is that we find outselves replacing the ink carts often, maybe a nice Staples coupon will roll around and we'll stock up on that BJC-6 carts :D

I guess the problem is that most people buy bottom of the barrel printers, and expect that they'll be the best, (since they use the same carts, they must be just as good/efficent with the ink usage) Well I've got news for you, some guns use the same ammo, but the bullets pierce at different depths!

Stop skiming on your printers people!
Deal Fanatic
Feb 11, 2005
7431 posts
2505 upvotes
BC
Hehe, dejavu, Cafe_333?

Firstly, the suggestion of the X6170 is getting a bit dated - Tom's Hardware reviewed this printer back in late 2003, putting it a generation or two behind other products. Even back then, they weren't particularily impressed, with either print costs or print quality.

Even the current generation, reviewed here, crowns the Canon & Epson printers as the best, which leave Lexmark & HP in the dust for print quality, speed, and cost. As for the long-standing 600dpi vs 1200/2400dpi debate, look at the difference between Lexmark's 2400dpi to Canon's 600dpi.
Canon ip2000:
[IMG]http://tomstec.net/ip2000.jpg[/IMG]
Lexmark Z816:
[IMG]http://tomstec.net/z816.jpg[/IMG]

Keeping in mind these are similarily-priced models, too.

Next up, print speed: http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20 ... er-06.html

Finally, the cost over 3 years of average use: http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20 ... er-11.html

I invite you to read the full review and draw your own conclusions, but I think it would be difficult to argue that Canon don't make great printers compared to Lexmark. I also invite all Canon owners to share stories of clogged print heads. Anyone have this happen to them?

I think that I'd rather save $350 (US), to get better quality prints faster by going with Canon... You could use the savings to buy a Laser and bring costs down even more!

-EDIT-
Also wanted to add a point about longevity - I dropped a computer on my i860.. put a hole in it.. I tried to repair it, and this is what it now looks like.(sorry for poor image quality - not much light to work with). [IMG]http://tomstec.net/bang.jpg[/IMG]
It has been working like this for over a year. I've owned the printer for about 2 years.
By comparison, the HP 5850 at work became unusable when the cartridge holder snapped off... go figure.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 8, 2005
31836 posts
1354 upvotes
ilfsoy wrote:Since your "research" seems to run counter to common knowledge some evidence of your claims would be nice. BTW Canon is second in market share (for inkjet printers 2004) not distant last.
Curious ...where'd you get the info that canon was #2 in market share ?

Also wondering how far is Canon from HP ( # 1 ? ) - is it closing in or a real 'distant' second.

Last thought, perhaps for others to suggest models - if the canon MP 780 is the multifunction benchmark for comparison, does anyone know which Epson ( Rx 6?? ), Lexmark ( X 7170 ?) and HP ( 2710 ? ) multi are the closet to it in terms of specs ?

As cafe-333 suggested, and "apples to apples" comparison among like models is pehaps the only meaningful basis for comparison and to accurately evaluate Canon's quality.
Member
Jan 7, 2004
487 posts
1 upvote
poedua wrote:Curious ...where'd you get the info that canon was #2 in market share ?

Also wondering how far is Canon from HP ( # 1 ? ) - is it closing in or a real 'distant' second.
FAR, HP has 73% of the market, atleast that was in 2004 or 2003 i believe.
The consumer market means nothing thou. HP really has it won on the business side of the market, and thats where they make most of their money, they only have a keep up their presence in the consumer market.
Deal Addict
Aug 28, 2002
1680 posts
3 upvotes
cafe works for HP i'm sure. Canon is widely knowledged to have the best printers in its class What HP printer other than business printers which they're great at have the same costs as a canon? what your saying just does not make sense
Deal Fanatic
Feb 11, 2005
7431 posts
2505 upvotes
BC
TrEvOrLiCioUs wrote:FAR, HP has 73% of the market, atleast that was in 2004 or 2003 i believe.
The consumer market means nothing thou. HP really has it won on the business side of the market, and thats where they make most of their money, they only have a keep up their presence in the consumer market.
Okay, so this is getting OT, but it's not quite 73% - latest data I could find shows:

1. HP - 47.6%
2. Epson - 22.3%
3. Lexmark - 16.3%
4. Canon - 11.2%

This is according to Gartner Dataquest August 2003
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 11, 2004
6724 posts
69 upvotes
So we meet again kwirky.... lol ;)

The suggestion of the X6170 was made because I was comparing it to what is currently offered in today's market for multifunctions. So it doesn't matter what generation it is from - what counts is what you can physically get your hands on when you walk into a store.

And from your review links, unforunately they mean nothing to me. Review sites always grab the latest offerings from every company and show what they can and cannot do against each other. A more valid comparison in performace is to directly compete against printers within the same price range.

The text quality comparison you showed me for instance, unfortunately was not compared from the same class of printer. One cannot possibly compare the quality of an iP2000 photo printer to an inkjet Z816. The reason why photo printers are classified as photo printers, and inkjets as inkjets, is because photo printer cartridges use photo grade ink - which do not bleed as much as inkjet grade cartridges. I have yet to be convinced that a 600dpi printer can outperform a 1200dpi printer of the same class.

Again, with the print speed, they need to be models of the same price range and same category first. The link you provided is misleading as it did not do that. But here's what I've found for inkjets (lexmark does not offer an inkjet in the same price range):

Hewlett Packard 3845 - $89: 18ppm
Epson Stylus C66 - $90: 17ppm
Canon PIXMA iP1500 - $80: 22ppm
Lexmark Z816 - $50: 22ppm

As for cost of use, it is proven that the cost per page is the same regardless of manufacturer when you can compare it to direct competitor models. Again that link did not make any direct comparisons, which unforunately renders it meaningless. But I can say that all 1200dpi printers have the same cost per page - Lexmark and Epson proves it @$0.06/page. Canon @$0.03/page, being half the cost doesn't count because it is a 600dpi printer. If the competition were also 600dpi printers, the ink cost would be just as cheap. To show you what I mean, at work I have an old 720dpi Epson880 printer and it is $0.04/page.

Oh and two of my friend's canons are streaking....

Your Rebuttals? :D
Kwirky wrote:Firstly, the suggestion of the X6170 is getting a bit dated -

As for the long-standing 600dpi vs 1200/2400dpi debate, look at the difference between Lexmark's 2400dpi to Canon's 600dpi.

Next up, print speed: http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20 ... er-06.html

Finally, the cost over 3 years of average use: http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20 ... er-11.html
Innovatively Silent. :cool:
Deal Addict
Mar 24, 2005
1361 posts
117 upvotes
No offence to anyone but it is truly sad how many disillusional people there are on printers. Cafe_333 is definately right on the mark. I have worked in the printer industry with close contacts from management teams at HP, Lexmark and Canon, with some relationship to Epson as well and know the product management of each printer in the market.

Fact 1: All printer manufacturers base their print results on an industry standard specification. That is, 25% yield on 600x600 dpi resolution for black. The statistics show that canon models will have a lower cost per page but what is not shown is its rate of ink depreciation. Because their ink cartridges are not sealed from the print head, the inks dry quicker than compared to Lexmark and HP cartridges and in the end, you pay out more in replacement cartridges - the lower prices in ink end up costing you about the same or more. Ink drying has been a huge problem on the Canons and Epson although Epsons have since invested in a better detachable print head mechanism. We have yet to see Canon follow suit.

Fact 2: Statistics are further misleading because the only time Canons work out to be cheaper is if you have heavy printing needs - that is you are printing a lot on a daily basis. Otherwise ink drying occurs. Even then, Canons have been notorious for their reliability. Just open up the cover of a Lexmark or HP printer and compare that against the Canons. You will see a visual difference with the build quality. Statistically, BB and FS has received a lot more Canon returns and/or Warranty Services on Canons more than any printer on the market. This is shown on the monthly reports that I used to look at working with General Managers and District Managers.

Fact 3: While there is an avid fan base of canon owners who stay loyal, the majority of canon owners have opted to move away from canons. There is a reason why canon is losing in the printer market and are dead last. This is an irrefutable fact. They even can't afford to have reps in BB and FS stores anymore to push their products. Meanwhile, HP and Lexmark each have one rep for every store while Epson can only afford one rotating rep per district.

Fact 4: Canon and Epson Print Head cartridges are detachable but to order a replacement head costs roughly around $100 a pop. Depending on your print usage, you could be replacing your print head even after half a year of use.

Fact 5: HP and Lexmark printers offer more than just a "convenience". They typically offer a wider range of features and functionality and often have a better price to performance ratio. Reliability is also a key selling point.

Fact 6: Canon's strongest sell point is their photo quality printing but it's a give or take situation. You would get less features and functionality but the cost justification is there since ink prices work out to be relatively the same.

Fact 7: In the past for printers in the same price range, a Canon printer would have a larger drop size than a Lexmark or HP, resulting in more bleeding. This also means sharper image quality on the lexmarks or HPs. Not sure if this is the case anymore since I haven't looked into it but this was true two years a go.
Umbearto wrote:I have to take issue with this whole concept. Your own post indicates that the Canon model runs at $.029 per page (under 1/2 the cost of HP or Lexmark), but choose to dismiss this 50% savings based on the 600x600dpi resolution?

Statistical representation of image quality falls in step ahead of lies, and damn lies... The eyes tell all; how do the pages look? If you can't determine where your extra money has gone by looking at a page of HP/Lexmark text...

I'm curious as to where Canon got the reputation as "the most abismal printers you can get." Have you seen any particular reviews or assessments that I have missed?

In my opinion; the only true advantage to paying HP/Lexmark more for their Printer/Ink combination is the ease of clogged printhead replacement. For individuals less technically inclined, they can simply throw money at a new Cartridge set, and recover instantly from clogged/dry Carts.

For the rest of us, with more time than money, we know that printing anything other than Black Text is punishing on the wallet; even mild to moderate photo/colour printing can lead to a set of Cartridges a month. You can literally hear an inkjet printer glugging the ink when printing large format color images. (As an aside: I have one Catalogue document I print on occasion that consumes over 1/2 a Cartridge set at a time) Kids in the family, wife on the printer...? Have your wallet handy; there is a price to be paid for HP/Lexmark convenience.

Un-used inkjet printers dry, and clog. It's the nature of the beast. If you plan to leave your printer un-used for months at a time while you winter in Florida, buy a Laser Printer.

If you do alot of colour printing, you are unlikely to dry ink in the printhead, and won't need the "convenience" of expensive HP/Lexmark replacements. There is software available to send a document to your printer daily, so if you forget, or don't need to print for a week, or two, fresh ink can be sent through the printhead keeping your system unclogged, and ready for use.

Aftermarket replacement carts can be had for ~50% cost of Canon OEM carts; ignore the industry FUD regarding clogging and loss of warranty. Inkjet consumables is a multi-billion $ industry and the players in this market are fighting tooth and nail to keep your money coming! There are quality alternatives for an informed consumer; by choosing your Aftermarket Carts wisely, you can make Inkjet Printing affordable.

Print a-little-something every day, and save a fortune..!

Just my $.029 YMMV
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 19, 2003
7931 posts
48 upvotes
Burnaby
like i said
canon offers the best value when you look into printers that use BCI-3e ink
or the BCI-6 ink

those are where the money will be saved
that means from i560 and up
or iP3000 and up

not below

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/compu ... views.html

ALL of the reviews there have mentioned the excellence of canon provided that you dont compare the worst one canon has to offer which still uses old school canon cartridges

also report from august 2003 is really really really outdated
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 19, 2003
7931 posts
48 upvotes
Burnaby
here let me make it easy

which printer has the least printing cost?
http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/2 ... er-10.html

now we need to look for the same all-in-one with the same printing system as the iP4000 or iP5000
which is the MP390 and above

edit:

[QUOTE]What the Research Says
• Canon Pixma iP4000
(*est. $140)

>> Where to buy All-purpose inkjet. Along with separate cartridges for cyan, magenta, yellow and black, this printer uses a different dye-based black ink for better photo output, and editors at Steve's Digicams say this produces great photos for the price. The Pixma also posts the fastest text printing speeds in its class and low ink costs, making it an excellent multi-use printer. There's direct printing from compatible cameras, and an automatic duplexer for two-sided printing. Although the model is initially more expensive than the iP2000 (below) Tom's Hardware Guide notes that per-page costs are half that of the iP2000.[/QUOTE]
Deal Addict
Mar 24, 2005
1361 posts
117 upvotes
Reading review sites will not give you everything you need to know about printers. They are meant to serve as guides and as Cafe_333 said, a better comparison is when you look at the direct market comparisons. Canon is dead last in the printer industry and there is a reason for that. Point is, Canon is a clear loser, no matter how you slice it.
Umbearto wrote:Many reviewers on the net consider Canon to have the best Text and Photo quality, and cost less than 1/2 the money to operate. Better output at a lower cost per page would seem to make Canon a clear winner, no matter how you slice it.
Deal Addict
Mar 24, 2005
1361 posts
117 upvotes
And what "common knowledge" is that might I ask? Furthermore, from what I have read from Cafe_333's posts, his findings are based on facts - not claims.
ilfsoy wrote:Since your "research" seems to run counter to common knowledge some evidence of your claims would be nice.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 11, 2004
6724 posts
69 upvotes
Evil Techie wrote:like i said
canon offers the best value when you look into printers that use BCI-3e ink
or the BCI-6 ink
Well, I will not try to disprove your point on BCI-3e/6 ink. If what you say is true then I am in no position to object. I don't think I will be quick to agree either untill there are printer models that I can compare with it in the same price range. So I don't know if I can say that it offers the 'best value' untill I have something to compare it against. And ink costs have always remained the neck and neck through every generation, so I don't think it would be any different now with Canons. But in time we will know the answer to that. In any case, it will add up the same over regular usage since you will be replacing cartridges alot more often than any other brands because of ink drying problems. This includes the new type of cartridges as you describe them in higher end models because of Canons having a poor detacheable print head mechanism that allows the ink to dry up faster from the cartridge.

Untill then, I can only compare ink costs on printers where I can make direct comparisons - in which case the cost of ink is still the same regardless manufacturer.

Evil Techie wrote:here let me make it easy
which printer has the least printing cost?
http://www6.tomshardware.com/consum...printer-10.html
Well, Canon printers to make them perform better have switched from inkjet classification to photo printer classification. So you can't compare a photo printer to Lexmark that is an inkjet printer. My comparison of multifunction inkjet printers however did show that the cost per page is the same.
Innovatively Silent. :cool:
Deal Addict
Mar 24, 2005
1361 posts
117 upvotes
Excellent point.
B0000rt wrote:I guess the problem is that most people buy bottom of the barrel printers, and expect that they'll be the best, (since they use the same carts, they must be just as good/efficent with the ink usage) Well I've got news for you, some guns use the same ammo, but the bullets pierce at different depths!

Stop skiming on your printers people!
Deal Addict
Mar 24, 2005
1361 posts
117 upvotes
Another case in point I wanted to add: Based on THG's article of the estimated print costs over 3 years of average use, Canon's work out to be the cheapest. However, this would be true if you're a heavy printer - which is also stated in THG's article. Think about it: 500 pages of A4 text, 300 A4 mixed color/text pages, 100 4x6" photos, and 20 A4 photos over a 1 year span. That's a lot of printing over the course of a year. But in real world usage, the cost of printing for a canon can easily double due to the higher rate of ink drying and ink consumption of canon printers in the same price ratio against other manufacturers. Let's not forget the cost to replace print heads for Canons and Epsons.

http://www.tomshardware.com/consume...printer-11.html

Also from market research that I have read from HP and Lexmark, the biggest complaint consumers had about Canons and Epsons was the high rate of cartridge replacements required for general use.

Top