Is _any_ of the printers not a ripoff?

I have an Epson C61, and my Old Man had an HP. The HP was giving him a
lot of trouble with paper feeds, and finally started to behave badly
enough to get rid of. I had had similar troubles with HP, and having
just bought my Epson, suggetsed he try one of those. But the ink is
costing me about a dollar a page! It uses about 1/8th of a cartridge
to do a "clean". I believbe the HPs are now not that much better.

Canon? Lexmark? I don't mind refilling, but Epson at least seem to
have that sewn up.
******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

The Canon IP4000 does NOT behave like the Epsons. The cost of the ink
is about 25% less and the result are somewhat better for a photo and
substantially better than the comparable Epson R3000. The Canon also
has twin paper feeds and prints full duplex.

Old Nick wrote:

>Is _any_ of the printers not a ripoff?
>
>I have an Epson C61, and my Old Man had an HP. The HP was giving him a
>lot of trouble with paper feeds, and finally started to behave badly
>enough to get rid of. I had had similar troubles with HP, and having
>just bought my Epson, suggetsed he try one of those. But the ink is
>costing me about a dollar a page! It uses about 1/8th of a cartridge
>to do a "clean". I believbe the HPs are now not that much better.
>
>Canon? Lexmark? I don't mind refilling, but Epson at least seem to
>have that sewn up.
>******************************************************************************************
>Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
>not something, you probably are.
>
>Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
>
>remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> !!
> <")
> _/ )
> ( )
> _//- \__/
>
>

A Canon Pixma ip3000 or ip4000 would be an excellent choice. There are
no smart chips, the printer actually detects the the physical presence
of ink using optical sensors and their are a wide variety of 3rd party
solutions for the printers.

The ip3000 offers standard 4 cartridge system of tanks with a user
replaceable print head.
The ip4000 offers much the same as the ip3000 but is equipped with two
black inks, one for text printing (using pigment inks) and a high
contrast dye based black for photo prints.

Information about ip3000 (These sell for about $80.00 at most Office
Supply Stores)
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...&modelid=10238

Information about ip4000 (These sell for between $100-$129 at most
office supply stores)
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...&modelid=10239

Information about 3rd party solutions
http://www.weink.com/ecom/products/canon.htm

On 2 Apr 2005 19:37:30 -0800, "WeInk_TechSupport"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

Thanks for the input. I remember from a little while back people aying
that Canon were better from the ink point of view.

My problem is that I have a use now and then for a printer, but not
every day, and clogs simply chew ink. I have been told that making
sure I turn off every time I am nit using it helps, but I have still
used about 5 times as much ink head cleaning as I have printing!

>A Canon Pixma ip3000 or ip4000 would be an excellent choice. There are
>no smart chips, the printer actually detects the the physical presence
>of ink using optical sensors and their are a wide variety of 3rd party
>solutions for the printers.
>
>The ip3000 offers standard 4 cartridge system of tanks with a user

******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

On 2 Apr 2005 19:37:30 -0800, "WeInk_TechSupport"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

Sorry, but I live in Oz. The prionters you mention run at about
AuD$300+ !!

What about the pixma 1000 and 1500? Are they of the the same inking
family. I don't need top quality by any means, but don't want to end
up coughing out for ink all the time, when I am hardly printing.

>A Canon Pixma ip3000 or ip4000 would be an excellent choice. There are
>no smart chips, the printer actually detects the the physical presence
>of ink using optical sensors and their are a wide variety of 3rd party
>solutions for the printers.
>

******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

measekite wrote:

> The Canon IP4000 does NOT behave like the Epsons. The cost of the ink
> is about 25% less and the result are somewhat better for a photo and
> substantially better than the comparable Epson R3000. The Canon also
> has twin paper feeds and prints full duplex.

Have you seen any photos from R300?

--
#£ukasz Ledóchowski
#GG:503647 (E-Mail Removed)

Yes, my friend has an R300. As a matter of fact his third in the past 9
months. They were replaced by Epson under warranty. The model has some
problems with the CD tray feeding mechanism. He had the same problem on
2 of the 3.

As far as results, we printed the same picture using Epson OEM ink on
the Epson and Canon OEM ink on the Canon. The results were as I send.
The photo was better on the Canon and business documents were
substantially better.

£ukasz Ledóchowski wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>The Canon IP4000 does NOT behave like the Epsons. The cost of the ink
>>is about 25% less and the result are somewhat better for a photo and
>>substantially better than the comparable Epson R3000. The Canon also
>>has twin paper feeds and prints full duplex.
>>
>>
>
>Have you seen any photos from R300?
>
>
>

measekite wrote:

> As far as results, we printed the
> same picture using Epson OEM ink on the Epson and Canon OEM ink on
> the Canon. The results were as I send. The photo was better on the
> Canon and business documents were substantially better.

What settings did you use?


--
# £ukasz Ledóchowski
# GG: 503647 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.allegro.pl/show_user_auctions.php?uid=10223

£ukasz Ledóchowski wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>As far as results, we printed the
>>same picture using Epson OEM ink on the Epson and Canon OEM ink on
>>the Canon. The results were as I send. The photo was better on the
>>Canon and business documents were substantially better.
>>
>>
>
>What settings did you use?
>
>

Not sure what my friend used on the Epson. I used Canon Photo Paper Pro
andthe High setting.

>
>
>

measekite wrote:

> Not sure what my friend used on the Epson. I used Canon Photo Paper
> Pro andthe High setting.

You should check it if you say that Canon produces better photos. How
did you compare photos? Did you scan them and compare to original or
just looked and liked Canon prints more?


--
# £ukasz Ledóchowski
# GG: 503647 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.allegro.pl/show_user_auctions.php?uid=10223