Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Printers > Wide Carriage Inkjet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 28, 2005, 10:45 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Please help me here. I know I'm on the verge of beating a dead horse, but as hard asI've tried I cannotfindanyone whose had personalexperience using both a Tri color cartridge printer and an individual color cartridge printer.

Searching theinternet has,except for oneexample,produced only hypothetical, theoretical speculation on this subject. Isn't there anyone out there who actuallyhas experience with both these systems? The only real world view I've been able to come up withwas a guy reviewing a Canon printer whosaid he's had a lot of experience with printers and thought individual ink carts were a "dubious" advantage since in his experience most colors pretty much run out at the same time unless your printing alarge number ofpictures where one or more colors dominate. He said that dosen't happen very often.

That's it! That's all I've been able to find either in professional reviews of these products or in forums like this. Everything else I've read is theoryand supposition.

There has to be someone who has used both, come on, I know your out there!

tony
tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 28, 2005, 2:51 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 166
Default

tmumolo

OK, here is my experience with printers. In the last few years I have used an HP 930c (one tri color cart), an Epson C82 (individual), a Canon I9100 (individual), and a Canon I4000 (individual). The I9100 is my photo printer, and only used for photo prints. The others where used as everyday printers, with the HP being used for photos at the time.

For the Canon I9100, I go through about 2 of the Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta for every standard color. Depending on what I am printing, sometimes its more, or a little less. I also notice that I go threw more Megenta than the other standard colors too.

For the 930c, 82, and I4000, I noticed that the Megenta always went first. They all seemed to go through this color alot. For the 930c, half the time I had to toss the cartridge because one color was gone, while the other colors were still over half full. This sucked, because it was not cheap to replace the cartridge. The 2 black, and 1 color equaled a new printer.

So, I decided to go with individual color cartridges because of how it was easier and cheaper in the long run to replace just one cartridge, insead of a half full tri color HP.

The Epson was a big mistake, that printer clogged print heads, gave poor prints, was very slow. I took it back and replaced it with the Canon I4000. It is much better, faster, and prints are great.

I know that you have been looking at the new HP 8750 printer. It looks nice, but the cartridges will be very expensive. My past experience with HP is that they like to use Megenta, and you will have some half full cartridges that will have to be tossed out. Plus, they are not cheep. I was at Staples and they had the new ink set there, a two pack was an arm and a leg. I know that Canon ink is not cheap there either, but online I get it much cheaper.

I have been doing some reading, and Canon has released a new 9900 in Japan, with longer lasting inks (9910). I would wait and see when this printer will be out. I love my two Canon printers. I have had a few Epsons in the past, nothing but trouble. I do not know how they stay in business with the printers and troubles they put out. I have also read where peoplebought the new Epson 1800 and have had nothing buttrouble with it, same with the 2200. HP lost my business do to the small tri color cartridge. If they used the size of the older one, I might of stayed with them. But the small one will go much quicker.

Also, did you look who sponsored that test at Spencer Labs???? That does not look good to me if you sponsor a test, then you blow away everyone that much. Proper testing needs to be completely independent of the manufacturer, not sponsored. It seems biased to me. Yes, the Canon does do a small start up procedure, but I do not believe they use that much ink. The HP and Canon seemed about the same to me. The Epson just sucked. I killed many cartridges trying to get good prints. The print head would clog something horiffic.

So, my point is that the individual cartridges have been a better deal for me. I do not have to toss ink that is still good, I only get rid of the cartridge that is empty. The photo colors will go much faster than the regular colors, with an almost 2:! ratio. The tri color HP cartridge has wasted ink for me in the past, so I will not buy another printer that does not have individual cartridges in it.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

Bill
Speedie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2005, 3:31 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

I have aHP1120c which has a tri-color cartridge and a large black cartridge, I gave up on it for images because of the tri-color cart always going empty. Itis great black text printerand it is printing the studios forms non stop foryears.

Currentprinters with individual ink tanks:
  • Epson c80, use for brochures & flyer's, printing for years now, no problems, no clogs, no failures. [/*]
  • Epson 2200, used for images, printing for close to 2 two years, no problems, no clogs, no failures
[/*]
Forbusiness use the smallest format printer to get ultraGiclee (epsons version of the giclee)certification is the epson 4000. http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/pdf/...aseFinal_1.pdf

[color=black]
I can't say the same for the Canon printer I tried, non stop paper transport problems, I took it back and replaced it with the Epson 2200.

Peter.

PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2005, 4:08 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Thanks for the input Bill

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"If Canon had an archival printer on the market today, that's what I'd probably get. I'm a Canon guy. I've been using their camera's for over 30 years. But it looks like I'm stuck with two choices since I can't wait for Canon.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I understand the new Epson R1800 puts out beautiful printsbut I've heard so many horror stories aboutEpson that I just can't get past that.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I'm not necessarily thrilled with the tri-color cartridge concept, I wish HP had individual carts,but given the only alternative available right now for an archival printeris Epson, I don't see any other way to go than the HP 8750.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Regarding the tests. I can't believe a reputable research lab like SpencerLab Research woulddiseminate false test data because it was sponsored by HP. It may well be that HP already knewwhat the test results would beand wanted the credibiltiy of independanttesting. All someone would have to do is run their own tests to dispute those findings. If disprovedit would be very damaging to the credibility of the lab and to HP. I don't think they would be willing to take that kind of risk. I think HP already knew what the outcome would be from their own internal testing. Car makers do the same thing.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Another area ofinterest for me is whether the new 9 ink configuration on the 8750 will mitigate the problem of imbalanced ink use. That being said, I'm sure there will be times when there will be waste but then again Epson wastes a prodigious amount of ink in it's maintenance and cleaning cycles so it's probably a wash.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"The new carts are:

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"cart 101: Light magenta-Light cyan-new Blue ink

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"cart 97: Cyan-Yellow_Magenta

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"cart 102: Light grey-dark grey-Black

If yourONLY choice wasbetween these two printers, what would you do?

Again, I appreciate the thoughtful comments.



tony

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"
tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2005, 4:11 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Peter

Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think the 2200 used pigment ink, doe's it? I thought it was a dye based printer. Let me know.

tony
tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2005, 4:14 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Excuse me but what the **** doe's style=background color #0000,mean. I didn't put that in my post.

tony
tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2005, 4:51 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

The Epson 2200 is a 7 color pigment ink printer using UltraChrome inks, the same inks as the large format Epson 4000, 7600, 9600 printers.

The Epson c80 is a 4 color pigment printer using DuraBright inks.

I've been using Canon cameras since the 60's and love them, just can't say the same for their printers. I'm currently making the plans to move to larger formatoutput and my present top choices are the Epson 4000 followed by the HP 130.

Peter.

PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2005, 4:53 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

:blah:those are artifacts from the web based editor, making an error, probably a unclosed block somewhere.

Annoying when it happens :-)

Peter.

Quote:
Excuse me but what the **** doe's style=background color #0000,mean. I didn't put that in my post.

tony
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2005, 4:24 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 9
Default

tmumolo, again.....not to make accusations, but your posts smack of the exact same things that my friend who in a HP rep is told to propagate. HP knows they are losing a battle when it comes to individual inks, as almost every "independent" review and not paid for by HP shows them to have the highest cost per page. Tom's Hardware, while not the greatest site to read printer reviews did a very good job of estimating TCO of printers, and Canon consistently came out on top, followed by Epson. BTW, Epson is nowhere near as bas as you might want to believe, and they are very much the market leader in the pro market.

As for Spencer Labs.....it is biased and the tests are flawed. It has already been debunked by a great number of pros, which you can find out for yourself if you do some research. The tests are done to showcase only the strengths of HP, as is the case in their review of the Stylus Pro 4000 and 7600 wherenot matte paper tests were done. Well, as you would know, matte media is by far the preferred choice of pros, but it was left out because HP Vivera inks are ONLY archival on HP premium glossy papers or soft gloss, and not on any non-HP papers or matte papers. BTW, it was also left out that HP smears easily due to the swellable media, and oftentimes sticks to the glass when framed, hence ruining the print.

Certain things to not from Spencer:

"The SpencerLab Digital Color Laboratory is an independent test laboratory with a broad base of industry clients. Although this comparative study was commissioned by Hewlett-Packard Company, SpencerLab believes these results maintain its reputation for the integrity of its procedures and analyses. Results stated herein are based upon direct testing by SpencerLab personnel of actual products believed to be representative."



Also note that they are paid to post favorable results:

"Whether testing confidential unreleased products or publishing favorable study results (click here for example), SpencerLab strives to surpass your expectations. "

Many companies do this, and you shouldn't be surprised at all. And no, Spencer is not respeced in the industry and HP won't be harmed by such a review even if found to be false. Just think about Apple's marketing campaigns about having the "World's Fastest Computer" or having the "First 64-bit Processor." As much as I love Apple as a Mac user, those claims were proven false and were reported all over the web. Apple wasn't hurt by it, as is shown by their healthy reports of profits.

And sorry if I came across a bit harsh, but it really does seem like your intent here is to justify HP's over-priced and low-capacity ink design as though you're being paid to do so by HP.
tyranix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2005, 12:34 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

tyranix

MY intent was never to justify anything. I'm just a consumer looking to make an informed decision.

My original and primary point was more about ink consumtion andthe amount used by various vendors in the cleaning and start up cycles.I thought that consideration very much altered the standard reasoning for the individual carts.

You may be correct in the overall cost of operation because HP is higher on papers etc. My main concern was to get around the Epson fussyness and clogging problems which are well documented. As I've said I was ready to purchase the Epson because I thought it was the ONLY choice. When HP came out with the 8750 it looked to fulfill all of my needs without the concerns I had about the Epson.

As I've stated in other posts, if Canon had an archival A3 printer available I'd probably own a Canon now instead of an HP. I've been using Canon camera's for over 30 years.

I think if HP had individual carts that would be much betterBUT given the amount of ink waste in competing products I don'tthink I'll beterribly hurtwith the tri ink carts.

At this point I've done as much research as I'm going to do. It has taken approx. 8 weeks out of my life and since I've already purchased the 8750 it's a little late for second guessing anyway. I made my choice based on all the considerations I thought were important relative to my needs. I'm hoping I made the right decision.

Now I'm going to start printing pictures instead of posts.

tony
tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:01 PM.