Epson vs Canon: Clogging, Ink cost?

[kuoann]

http://www4.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/printer-10.html
Note the dramatic differences in cost of ink in favour of Canon.

If you include the cost of photo paper, then the price differential is less obvious since the paper itself takes up the majority of the cost.

HOWEVER, I bet that the Tom's Hardware Guide test did not take into account print head flushing, and I suspect that in real-life use this will push up the Epson running costs much more than Canon.

As for printout quality, I'm pretty satisfied with my new Pixma 8500, although I think real silver halide prints are still better (and cheaper and probably longer lasting).

 

[Watcher]

http://www4.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/printer-10.html
Note the dramatic differences in cost of ink in favour of Canon.

If you include the cost of photo paper, then the price differential is less obvious since the paper itself takes up the majority of the cost.

HOWEVER, I bet that the Tom's Hardware Guide test did not take into account print head flushing, and I suspect that in real-life use this will push up the Epson running costs much more than Canon.

As for printout quality, I'm pretty satisfied with my new Pixma 8500, although I think real silver halide prints are still better (and cheaper and probably longer lasting).

If you look at a few pages after the one you had quoted, the average cost of the Epson is about 4.5% more than the iP5000.

However, it seems that you are still feeling very bitter about the clogging. If you count the flushing (which I have not done once on my R200), can I put in the cost of reprinting faded prints from Canon?

The R800 exceeds silver halide in terms of durability and its colors are not too far off as well.

 

[kuoann]

There is a difference between bitterness and exasperation. I am not bitter. However, I do confess to having had enough of clogging.

I kid you not... with my Epson 890, I waste > 1/2 the cartridge clearing blockages. Even when I use it every few days, some print head will invariably clog. I then run the cleaning cycle. That usually fails to clear the blocked nozzle. I run it again, and twice more... eventually the culprit clears, BUT THEN, ANOTHER nozzle somehow gets clogged in the cleaning process! (bubble?) I run the cleaning cycle another once or twice to clean this new clog.

Before long, my cartridge is empty. Now, if only they were smart enough to allow you to choose WHICH nozzles/colours to flush, you'd at least save tons of ink. Imagine, there may be 100 nozzles, and 2 or 3 are blocked. Therefore, 97% of the ink is wasted by unnecessarily flushing the good nozzles.

Now, every company builds up a certain amount or goodwill (or the opposite) with its customers. Having been fleeced thrice by Epson, I'm almost certain to give the competitor a chance, whether or not the current batch of Epson printers is claimed to be improved.

Well, perhaps in another 2-3 years time, when the current batch of Epsons have had the time to prove themselves wallet-friendly, owners of R200's like yourself can then share your experiences and provide the confidence I need to make my next printer an Epson.

----

BTW, as mentioned by Tom's H.G., the 4.5% marginal differential is because the savings from cheaper ink APPEAR less when the total cost of printing which includes expensive paper is considered.

HOWEVER, as everyone knows, the cost of ink cartridges is nothing to sniff at, and once you factor in frequent cleaning, the true cost of owning and using an Epson will rise dramatically because ink cost becomes a relatively big factor again.

If its true that Epsons (at least the previous generations) are much more prone to clogging, as borne out by anecdotal experiences of these and other forum members, then its obvious that the Tom's HG extrapolation is underestimating the liability of Epsons because they would have printed continously rather than once every few days/weeks like most normal users.

BTW: in case anyone mistakes my rant again, I'm discussing this in the most rational and unemotional way as possible!

 

[Watcher]

I understand your pain; I still own an Epson 830! ;( Choke, clog and leak! :bigeyes: It is now sitting at a corner...

Good images but horrible ink system. I decided to try out the R210 but is pleasantly surprised. Better colors and now no clog in >9 months of usage. I had left it on for like oh 1 month w/o turning it off, as well as another time leaving it off for >1 month due to vacation . Both time, no clog at all, comes up with a cleaning cycle (that take about oh 2% of inks) and that was it. I never have had to initiate a cleaning cycle at all.

As for the inks, note that they are using US prices so to be honest, may not be accurate but certainly indicative. The price difference in operation would not be as much as the inks are about S$2-3 difference but the Epson tanks are bigger. With the program found here, I can monitor and even try to extend my ink cart's life! :sweatsm:

My place is full of dust as I live on the 2nd floor. So with the kind of performance, I satisfied given that it is about $289 when I bought it. In 6-9 months time, I may get another Epson printer, most likely the R800 replacement pigment printer which has already been released in Japan. But even then, I would expect to keep this printer running in parallel, as it is a proven system.

 

[eric69]

Hi, I'm using a Canon printer that use 6 cartridges. No clog even after non-use for 2 weeks. Someone told me it's due to the printer head design. Can't confirm on that. My company is using Epson. Generally, I think the printout for Epson is better for similar pried printers.

 

[maddog]

Hi, I'm using a Canon printer that use 6 cartridges. No clog even after non-use for 2 weeks. Someone told me it's due to the printer head design. Can't confirm on that. My company is using Epson. Generally, I think the printout for Epson is better for similar pried printers.

It's due to print head servicing. Basically the print head is wiped against a sponge periodically.

 

[dennisc]

Sorry to say this too but I bought epson printers 4 times already. Believe it or not, each time, the 'printer' only lasted me 1-3 weeks, and only 2 uses before it KO-ed. HONESTLY!!!! Its dam shocking but true. Each time I convinced myself it's just me who's unlucky not Epson.
1st time I bought it, used 1 1 1/2 time, then the PAPER began to JAM. Jam JAM so many times until the cartridge head spoiled. In which BTW I printed less than 50 pages, JAm so I kept cleaning its head, and POOF, all INKS BW + Coloured gone. 1 BW cost sgd 48 and coloured cost 48 = 100SGD bullshit! might as well buy a new one.
Same goes for the 2nd and 3rd printer, I really gave up on it. Epson sucks in my real life experience, not once, not twice, 3 TIMES and all lasted max 3 weeks 1-2 uses (I seldom use btw) EPSON?:? NO THANKS!!
I go for Canon, smaller, beautiful prints, not so bulky, quality, cheaper ink. I was very sore with Epson, though higher resolution + cheaper, but COASTTTLY INKS, MEGA LOW GRADE PARTS - NO THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oH YA, LASTLY, CANON HAD LOWER dpi PRINTS that time, BUT suprisingly looks nicer than Epson. Real life testimonal. Trust me Im a 4 times EPSON buyer (even used Epson in my office, INK is enough to brankrupt the office)
Owned 810-830, 1280, clogged, paper jam, inks gone in 2 uses!!
Use in office = high end ones costing more than 500sgd (still clog), occasional paper jam, v frequent ink changing, glad I'm not the 'headmaster' only 1 of the chief, no need to pay haha.

Epson? pls, I'm very very sore with it.

 

[Ink-Specialist]

Sorry to say this too but I bought epson printers 4 times already. Believe it or not, each time, the 'printer' only lasted me 1-3 weeks, and only 2 uses before it KO-ed. HONESTLY!!!! Its dam shocking but true. Each time I convinced myself it's just me who's unlucky not Epson.
1st time I bought it, used 1 1 1/2 time, then the PAPER began to JAM. Jam JAM so many times until the cartridge head spoiled. In which BTW I printed less than 50 pages, JAm so I kept cleaning its head, and POOF, all INKS BW + Coloured gone. 1 BW cost sgd 48 and coloured cost 48 = 100SGD bullshit! might as well buy a new one.
Same goes for the 2nd and 3rd printer, I really gave up on it. Epson sucks in my real life experience, not once, not twice, 3 TIMES and all lasted max 3 weeks 1-2 uses (I seldom use btw) EPSON?:? NO THANKS!!
I go for Canon, smaller, beautiful prints, not so bulky, quality, cheaper ink. I was very sore with Epson, though higher resolution + cheaper, but COASTTTLY INKS, MEGA LOW GRADE PARTS - NO THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oH YA, LASTLY, CANON HAD LOWER dpi PRINTS that time, BUT suprisingly looks nicer than Epson. Real life testimonal. Trust me Im a 4 times EPSON buyer (even used Epson in my office, INK is enough to brankrupt the office)
Owned 810-830, 1280, clogged, paper jam, inks gone in 2 uses!!
Use in office = high end ones costing more than 500sgd (still clog), occasional paper jam, v frequent ink changing, glad I'm not the 'headmaster' only 1 of the chief, no need to pay haha.

Epson? pls, I'm very very sore with it.

i don't think canon printer is good. if i were you. i will buy hp printer because it print head is together wif cartidge. easy to refill and save cost. ;p

 

[kuoann]

Actually the whole business of home inkjet photo printing, I suspect, is one big conspiracy. I suspect that if there were any Epson/Canon/HP employees/managers in this forum, they could (but won't) confirm that we, the hapless consumers, are paying many many many times the true cost of ink and paper.

Seriously, does Coloured Water and Blank Paper cost that much to make?
One wonders then, why they are priced as stratospherically as they are? Because, they can!... and we are the suckers!

The alternative is lab printouts. Why is it that 4R inkjet paper 'happens' to cost the same as a photo lab 4R print (about 40cents)? Inkjet manufacturers charge as much as they can but are limited only by the price of their competitor, the Lab.

As it is, I already think that our photo labs charge too much for digital prints.
In the UK, where I had the oppurtunity to live for 2 years, the price of digital lab prints is considerably lower than Singapore's. 4R photo lab prints at Jessops were equivilent to about 30-35 cents, whilst 5R prints were about 50-60cents. I used the digital kiosks all the time.

Seriously, in Singapore, if you can, just use the labs. You get true professional prints with the Gold Standard in colour reproduction and archival stability against which Inkjet makers aspire towards with their various 'Pro' papers and 'Pro' inks.

The only reason why I could see why we would want to do our own inkjet prints is that we can get one or two instant prints in the comfort of home.

Remember how much mobile phone subscriptions used to cost before M1? remember how much internet access used to cost before Starhub? Prices PLUNGED OVERNIGHT with competion. What we need are for the Alternative Ink/Paper Suppliers (eg Sepom) to pull up their socks on performance and reliability issues. We would then see Ink/Paper prices from Epson/Canon etc fall closer to what they COST instead of what we CHARGED.

 

[Watcher]

kuoann, you are actually right. In UK, a computer mag actually calculated and you know what? The cost of these synthetic inks are more, per volume than great vintage champaign! ;( . It is really ridiculous. Frankly, if not for inks, HP themselves would be in debt. That is why the printers are so cheap; it is covered by the price of the inks.

As for the prints, there are more and more cheaper ones that goes like 30 cents in Singapore if you print enough numbers. As for the large ones, I guess the shops want to earn $$$. The pro inks are actually not more expensive (cf the price of R800 and R200 inks, $20 vs $18.30).

 

[maddog]

Actually the whole business of home inkjet photo printing, I suspect, is one big conspiracy. I suspect that if there were any Epson/Canon/HP employees/managers in this forum, they could (but won't) confirm that we, the hapless consumers, are paying many many many times the true cost of ink and paper.

Seriously, does Coloured Water and Blank Paper cost that much to make?
One wonders then, why they are priced as stratospherically as they are? Because, they can!... and we are the suckers!

The alternative is lab printouts. Why is it that 4R inkjet paper 'happens' to cost the same as a photo lab 4R print (about 40cents)? Inkjet manufacturers charge as much as they can but are limited only by the price of their competitor, the Lab.

As it is, I already think that our photo labs charge too much for digital prints.
In the UK, where I had the oppurtunity to live for 2 years, the price of digital lab prints is considerably lower than Singapore's. 4R photo lab prints at Jessops were equivilent to about 30-35 cents, whilst 5R prints were about 50-60cents. I used the digital kiosks all the time.

Seriously, in Singapore, if you can, just use the labs. You get true professional prints with the Gold Standard in colour reproduction and archival stability against which Inkjet makers aspire towards with their various 'Pro' papers and 'Pro' inks.

The only reason why I could see why we would want to do our own inkjet prints is that we can get one or two instant prints in the comfort of home.

Remember how much mobile phone subscriptions used to cost before M1? remember how much internet access used to cost before Starhub? Prices PLUNGED OVERNIGHT with competion. What we need are for the Alternative Ink/Paper Suppliers (eg Sepom) to pull up their socks on performance and reliability issues. We would then see Ink/Paper prices from Epson/Canon etc fall closer to what they COST instead of what we CHARGED.

You've brought up a good point. How much does coloured water cost?? :bsmilie: But you're forgetting all the infrastructre behind manufacturing all that special water. The plant itself cost a couple hundred million dollars to build. The workers are on 8 or 12 hour continuous shifts. If you just look at the material costs, you can't help feeling cheated. I do too. BTW, I do most of my printing at work as I find it ridiculous to have to pay for coloured water. :devil:

 

[maddog]

kuoann, you are actually right. In UK, a computer mag actually calculated and you know what? The cost of these synthetic inks are more, per volume than great vintage champaign! ;( . It is really ridiculous. Frankly, if not for inks, HP themselves would be in debt. That is why the printers are so cheap; it is covered by the price of the inks.

As for the prints, there are more and more cheaper ones that goes like 30 cents in Singapore if you print enough numbers. As for the large ones, I guess the shops want to earn $$$. The pro inks are actually not more expensive (cf the price of R800 and R200 inks, $20 vs $18.30).

Lets look at wine. What is wine actually? Basically it's grape juice from grapes that are grown on cheap land and harvested by dirt cheap labour. How much technology is involved in this? You probably need a couple of tracktors and in some vineyards they just get the townsfolk to step on the grapes to get the juices out. Think about it. What is vintage wine? Basically it's wine that you store for extended periods in a cellar. Big deal. That's why wine costs less than ink.

 

[kuoann]

If Sepom or whatever 3rd party manufacturer can sell and still profit from inks sold at a fraction of the price of Epson etc, then I think that the infrastructure cost isn't that much. I may be ignorant, but for all you know, inks can be produced from any backyard factory in Malaysia. Just buy the ingredients from Primary Producers, mix them in your secret proportions and package them in plastic for distribution.

If the justification for high prices is the R&D for developing the printers, then I say, charge upfront for the printers and compete with other manufacturers on who can make the best printer for less, instead of hiding any inefficiencies behind the hidden cost of runnning that printer. All other computer peripherals do exactly that. A good monitor vs lousy monitor is reflected in the price. However, in the printing world, you can get a better printer (eg if Epson has better prints) without paying more intially, but its made up for by collecting the revenue eventually from the use of the printer. This, I find, isn't very honest, or very nice.

In a sense, our printers are not ours but rented from the companies. No use owning one unless we print with it. But each time we print, I am forced to pay through the nose for the 'priviledge'.

You've brought up a good point. How much does coloured water cost?? :bsmilie: But you're forgetting all the infrastructre behind manufacturing all that special water. The plant itself cost a couple hundred million dollars to build. The workers are on 8 or 12 hour continuous shifts. If you just look at the material costs, you can't help feeling cheated. I do too. BTW, I do most of my printing at work as I find it ridiculous to have to pay for coloured water. :devil:

 

[maddog]

If Sepom or whatever 3rd party manufacturer can sell and still profit from inks sold at a fraction of the price of Epson etc, then I think that the infrastructure cost isn't that much. I may be ignorant, but for all you know, inks can be produced from any backyard factory in Malaysia. Just buy the ingredients from Primary Producers, mix them in your secret proportions and package them in plastic for distribution.

If the justification for high prices is the R&D for developing the printers, then I say, charge upfront for the printers and compete with other manufacturers on who can make the best printer for less, instead of hiding any inefficiencies behind the hidden cost of runnning that printer. All other computer peripherals do exactly that. A good monitor vs lousy monitor is reflected in the price. However, in the printing world, you can get a better printer (eg if Epson has better prints) without paying more intially, but its made up for by collecting the revenue eventually from the use of the printer. This, I find, isn't very honest, or very nice.

In a sense, our printers are not ours but rented from the companies. No use owning one unless we print with it. But each time we print, I am forced to pay through the nose for the 'priviledge'.

nowadays printers are sold at or below cost so they have to make profits from the supplies. this is more than fair in fact it's borderline charity. manufacturers like sepom dont have to recover any hardware losses. in the end the choice is up to you. why not just buy original hardware and imitation ink. why buy original ink and complain?

 

[Spectrum]

Sorry for the interruption. Can any good fellow help me out on this matter? I'm looking for a good flat-bed scanner (either from Epson or Canon) to scan colour slides & negatives & etc. Which best model to recommend? Thank you very much in advance.

 

[kuoann]

That's my point isn't it? However, I feel that printers should be sold for what they are worth right at the start. If buyers see the true cost of the printer, some will be put off by the high price and there will be fewer buyers. Printer companies will then be forced to bring costs down to generate demand.

Instead we have a situation where consumers, seduced by APPARENTLY cheap printers, commit to paying more than they might have been willing, had they been fully aware of the very significant 'hidden costs'.

Since most users will easily spend twice as much on the consummables than the printer itself, it implies that either all that extra money is used to offset what is in reality a very expensive printer (which implies that the printer companies are fat and ineffiecient), or that they are pocketing an obscene profit.

eg. My new Pixma 8500 costs $600. Supposing I am charged another $600 over the next 3y on consummables, but the value of the consummables is $200, then it means that I've really paid $1000 for the printer. Now, ask yourself, would you pay $1000 for a photo printer? Have we been overcharged?

Compare this to other tech stuff... CPU's, LCD screens, DVD drives... I doubt they cost less to R&D and produce than printers, yet they are relatively cheap and the prices keep falling every year. Should printer companies be immune to this by hiding the prohibitive cost behind "subscription fees"?

I think we are not as free to choose generic inks as I would like it to be. The printer companies dicourage competition by encouraging fear that 3rd party inks will damage your printer. Is this really true or is it just an image problem? Who knows? Its easy to be convinced that who else knows what ink formulation best suits the printer than the printer manufacturer itself. I don't think Epson or Canon are going to release technical and operational specs about their print head nozzles so 3rd party manufacturers will always be at a disadvantage when formuating inks for ever-changing printer models.

Charity?!? Cough cough! Wheeze! Splutter! Choke choke!
Hands up, those who think that Printer companies are being charitable!
Printer companies have the option of charging full prices on their printers upfront versus 'recuperating' costs by selling expensive consummables. Now, what does your gut feeling tell you? Did they choose the subscription model if they didn't know that they can make more money this way? Since there is no effective competition on consummables, how do we know if we are being overcharged, and by how much?

I know we live in a Capatalist society, but what the printer companies are doing is distorting the true 'affordability'-'demand' relationship in their favour.

Wow, another rant. After Watcher's comment, I must constantly emphasise that these are not hysterical complaints but rational reasonable arguements.

nowadays printers are sold at or below cost so they have to make profits from the supplies. this is more than fair in fact it's borderline charity. manufacturers like sepom dont have to recover any hardware losses. in the end the choice is up to you. why not just buy original hardware and imitation ink. why buy original ink and complain?

:bigeyes:

 

[StreetShooter]

Actually I paid $999 for my Epson Stylus Pro and $799 for my HP Photosmart 1100. That's close to a thousand bucks. But I made many fewer prints than I actually thought I would. Not just consumables cost but also time costs prohibited me.

At that time there was no real alternative as digital lab prints were in the realms of science fiction.

Then I wised up.

My present Canon i560 cost a fraction of that. I certainly don't use it for mass printing, but for the occasional emergency prints. I use original inks and papers and find that it's still pretty economical. And yes, there is a difference between original and third party. The think-tank system gives you the psychological comfort of wasting less ink, but in reality the cost of 4 separate colour cartridges is about the same as that of a single cartridge. It's a 4-ink printer, I can imagine a 6-ink printer would cost more to run.

Most of my prints are done at the lab.

So it's a win-win situation if you don't get carried away by the thought of printing all your photos yourself.

As for the "sell-printers-cheap" strategy, it's a very old one, started by Gillette if I am not wrong. I think everyone knows about this.

 

[kuoann]

Let me be the first to congratulate you on Wising Up before the rest of us! If only we should be so lucky.

Anyway, despite the fact that everyone knows this wily strategy, human nature is STILL to buy based on the initial outlay cost rather than the real cost. Same reason why we buy cars with small downpayments (but huge loans), or buying a bigger flat/condo than we really can afford using our CPF which we don't SEE at the point of buying. Companies exploit this human weakness to the extent that the Government had to step in to raise the initial outlay costs of these items to discourage IRRATIONAL spending. To some degree, printer shopping is thus irrational because of the Buy Now - Pay Later pricing. The side effect of making cost of ownership apparently cheaper is to finally push up prices which never benefits the buyers at the end of the day.

Maybe I should have bought a IP5000 instead of the IP8500. Impulse buying weakness.

Its interesting that you should find that there is little cost saving to individual ink tanks. Is this experience shared by other Canon users?

Actually I paid $999 for my Epson Stylus Pro and $799 for my HP Photosmart 1100. That's close to a thousand bucks. But I made many fewer prints than I actually thought I would. Not just consumables cost but also time costs prohibited me.

At that time there was no real alternative as digital lab prints were in the realms of science fiction.

Then I wised up.

My present Canon i560 cost a fraction of that. I certainly don't use it for mass printing, but for the occasional emergency prints. I use original inks and papers and find that it's still pretty economical. And yes, there is a difference between original and third party. The think-tank system gives you the psychological comfort of wasting less ink, but in reality the cost of 4 separate colour cartridges is about the same as that of a single cartridge. It's a 4-ink printer, I can imagine a 6-ink printer would cost more to run.

Most of my prints are done at the lab.

So it's a win-win situation if you don't get carried away by the thought of printing all your photos yourself.

As for the "sell-printers-cheap" strategy, it's a very old one, started by Gillette if I am not wrong. I think everyone knows about this.

 

[erwinx]

Sorry for the interruption. Can any good fellow help me out on this matter? I'm looking for a good flat-bed scanner (either from Epson or Canon) to scan colour slides & negatives & etc. Which best model to recommend? Thank you very much in advance.

you're much better off getting a 2nd hand film scanner (eg: Nikon Coolscan) than a flatbed scanner

 

[StreetShooter]

Well, each tricolour cartridge is about $45. The 3 colour think-tanks are $15 each. How much residual ink is there in a tricolour cartridge when one colour runs out? My guess is not much. But at least with think-tanks you can squeeze one tank dry before throwing it out.

The i560 sips ink, so actually a pack of 3 inks goes a fairly long way. I'm saying that the cost would not be much different from a tricolour cartridge running on the same print engine.

The Epson wastes ink on cleaning cycles. Apparently the solution is to open up the printer and clean the sponge in there which is used to absorb the ink during cleaning cycles, but which contributes to the clogging. I had long given up on Epson printers by then so I would not know - I just read this somewhere. Or use a continuous ink system, but my printing volume cannot justify this.

The HP, despite having a print head with each print cartridge (which makes the cost of the cartridge ridiculously expensive) STILL clogs fairly easily, so it's the worst possible scenario.

Canon is the best. The print head is replaceable by the user! You install it into the printer when you first buy the printer!