Cheapo Pronters

[Aphodius]

Hi,

I need to buy an inexpensive printer and have had three recommended to me.
The Canon i250 Inkjet printer, the Epson Stylus C42 UX and HP Deskjet 3550.
I already have an Epson Stylus Color 460 that, after only three years of not
being flogged to death , is on its last legs. It will now only print in
black and red! I would have thought that just three years of an easy life
for my Epson is a bit rich, therefore I am put of buying another Epson. A
friend has recommended the Canon for its running costs and printing speeds.
The running costs for the HP seem rather on the high side, the quote I have
for cartridge replacement alone is £35. Given that the cartridges don't last
as long as many of the other makes, rather puts me off HP. Which one should
I buy? Any recommendations and thoughts from owners would be most welcome.

Thanks.
Aphodius

 

[Alien Zord]

I need to buy an inexpensive printer and have had three recommended to me.
The Canon i250 Inkjet printer, the Epson Stylus C42 UX and HP Deskjet 3550.
I already have an Epson Stylus Color 460 that, after only three years of not
being flogged to death , is on its last legs. It will now only print in
black and red! I would have thought that just three years of an easy life
for my Epson is a bit rich, therefore I am put of buying another Epson. A
friend has recommended the Canon for its running costs and printing speeds.
The running costs for the HP seem rather on the high side, the quote I have
for cartridge replacement alone is £35. Given that the cartridges don't last
as long as many of the other makes, rather puts me off HP. Which one should
I buy? Any recommendations and thoughts from owners would be most welcome.

According to Tomshardware.com the running cost of a Canon is typically a
third of HP and half of Epson with printing quality being near identical
(equivalent models). We now have Canon i550s here and love them. Had Epsons
before but they dried up and as its very difficult to remove their heads for
cleaning we had no choice but to dump them. Canon's heads can be removed
(and replaced if necessary) very easily and this is where Epson should
learn. I won't buy an Epson ever again because of that.

 

[John]

According to Tomshardware.com the running cost of a Canon is typically a
third of HP and half of Epson with printing quality being near identical
(equivalent models). We now have Canon i550s here and love them. Had Epsons
before but they dried up and as its very difficult to remove their heads for
cleaning we had no choice but to dump them. Canon's heads can be removed
(and replaced if necessary) very easily and this is where Epson should
learn. I won't buy an Epson ever again because of that.

Im buying a canon too. PC world has canons in 1 to 5 spots for their
best printers top 10.

In the US they sell the better i350 and i450 for around the same price
if you look around $49 and I noticed after seething about trying to
avoid buying cartridges for my HP 940c and a HP 3550 by filling them
up which works OKsometimes but other times it doesnt, that the canon
cartridges are easier to fill and have really really cheap refilled
cartridges and even the official cartridges were cheaper.

 

[-= Ratz O. Fratzo =-]

According to Tomshardware.com the running cost of a Canon is typically a
third of HP and half of Epson with printing quality being near identical
(equivalent models). We now have Canon i550s here and love them. Had Epsons
before but they dried up and as its very difficult to remove their heads for
cleaning we had no choice but to dump them. Canon's heads can be removed
(and replaced if necessary) very easily and this is where Epson should
learn. I won't buy an Epson ever again because of that.

If you don't leave your Epson powered on when you're not using it, and
you print something with it once a week or so, you won't have to worry
about the head drying up. The six color Epsons are superior to
anything else out there for the same price IMO so the added care is
not an issue for me. I wouldn't give up my 1280 for anything except a
better Epson.



______________________

-= Ratz O. Fratzo =-

 

[Phrederick]

According to Tomshardware.com the running cost of a Canon is typically a

If you don't leave your Epson powered on when you're not using it, and
you print something with it once a week or so, you won't have to worry
about the head drying up. The six color Epsons are superior to
anything else out there for the same price IMO so the added care is
not an issue for me. I wouldn't give up my 1280 for anything except a
better Epson.

I've had my Epson Photo 700 since they first went on the shelfs. It sits ON
all the time on an HP JetDirect ethernet print server. It FINALLY started
giving me a few streaks in my printer a month or so back, so I did what I
could to soak the jets in ammonia (Windex). Works fine again. I definately
don't have problems with the Epson printheads!

 

[Aphodius]

I've had my Epson Photo 700 since they first went on the shelfs. It sits
ON all the time on an HP JetDirect ethernet print server. It FINALLY
started giving me a few streaks in my printer a month or so back, so I
did what I could to soak the jets in ammonia (Windex). Works fine
again. I definately don't have problems with the Epson printheads!
---

When my Epson Stylus stopped printing in yellow and cyan, I first did a
nozzle check then tried cleaning the print head without success. I next
contacted Epson and was advised to try using a cleaning cartridge, this I
did. Still no luck. A sales person in a computer shop has told me that most
Epsons are made using fairly cheap material and are therefore not expected
to last much longer than three years, as mine has done. Do I smell a
rip-off? I'll buy a Canon tomorrow even if the ink cartridges cost more to
replace.

Thanks for all your replies, they are much appreciated.
Aphodius

 

[Lane Lewis]

When my Epson Stylus stopped printing in yellow and cyan, I first did a
nozzle check then tried cleaning the print head without success. I next
contacted Epson and was advised to try using a cleaning cartridge, this I
did. Still no luck. A sales person in a computer shop has told me that most
Epsons are made using fairly cheap material and are therefore not expected
to last much longer than three years, as mine has done. Do I smell a
rip-off? I'll buy a Canon tomorrow even if the ink cartridges cost more to
replace.

Thanks for all your replies, they are much appreciated.
Aphodius

You can't always trust a salesperson.

Epsons are great for photography and home use but if your not interested in
photography go for a Canon. My four year old $100 USD Epson still produces
outstanding pictures and documents. One caveat is the price of the ink.

Lane

 

[John]

You can't always trust a salesperson.

Epsons are great for photography and home use but if your not interested in
photography go for a Canon. My four year old $100 USD Epson still produces
outstanding pictures and documents. One caveat is the price of the ink.

Lane

Yeah thats the main reason. Canons are rated highly and the cost of
ink which can equal or exceed the cost of the inexpensive printer ,
its like buy a new printer every few months if you printed alot , is
the main thing.

The point he is making about getting printer because it broke after 3
years and it was an inexpensive printer at that - eventhough I did
have cheapo printers that seem to last forever , 3 years is a long
time actually for a $30-60 printer or under $100 printer.

And the heads clogging - that can happen anytime even after a few
weeks. In fact PC world has a thing on generic inks - non-printer
manufactured inks and they say generally the cheaper inks are inferior
- they dont last, dont work well when printing photos and can clog
your printers easily. Add to that the fact there were articles
recently on the crisis of counterfeit ink cartridges flooding the mkt
and the clogged head reason isnt a very good reason to get pissed at
Epson.

The main reason to get a Canon is because as I said its a good deal.

If I was buying a photo printer over $100 then anyone of the brands
HP, Epson and Canon are good but CAnon might still have a ink
advantage there too cause of the separate ink tanks. However I wouldnt
print out pics alot anyway - it costs too much per print. Id do it
once in a while and have Wal Mart or somebody do it instead.

Under $100 Hps stink ! They print OK but printers are really flimsy
looking and there have been some reviews where consumers say several
of their low end HPs broke after a few months. And they shrink the
tiny cartridges down even smaller to make the whole thing a ridiculous
deal. It costs about the same as buying a new HP on sale sometimes
cheaper than buying the replacement cartridges. Lexmarks have always
been cited for really high ink costs too.

Epsons - not quite as bad as HPs with ink but not that much cheaper
either . Id buy a Canon hands down under $100 and as I said you can
find them for $49 no rebates i350 and i450.

 

[persona non grata]

You can't always trust a salesperson.

Epsons are great for photography and home use but if your not
interested in photography go for a Canon. My four year old $100 USD
Epson still produces outstanding pictures and documents. One caveat
is the price of the ink.

Lane

If you're not interested in photography go for a Canon?! You've obviously
not seen the output from the i950/i9100. Digital Photography Magazine, here
in the UK, awarded both (as the i9100 is just the larger format model) their
Editor's Platinum Award as being the best photo printers currently
available, in terms of print quality, output, ink costs, print longevity (in
terms of lightfastness).

I am currently saving for a i9100 to replace a (nearly) defunct ESC900 which
has served me well for about seven years and, IMNSHO, the best printer Epson
ever produced. Yes, I was nearly seduced by the 950/2100 but, after my 985
lasted only six months, I am never purchasing another Epson as long as there
is breath in my carcass.

 

[Lane Lewis]

If you're not interested in photography go for a Canon?! You've obviously
not seen the output from the i950/i9100. Digital Photography Magazine, here
in the UK, awarded both (as the i9100 is just the larger format model) their
Editor's Platinum Award as being the best photo printers currently
available, in terms of print quality, output, ink costs, print longevity (in
terms of lightfastness).

I am currently saving for a i9100 to replace a (nearly) defunct ESC900 which
has served me well for about seven years and, IMNSHO, the best printer Epson
ever produced. Yes, I was nearly seduced by the 950/2100 but, after my 985
lasted only six months, I am never purchasing another Epson as long as there
is breath in my carcass.
persona non grata

You obviously can't follow a thread or a subject line.
Were talking about inexpensive business printers. Of course all printer
manufactures offer photo printers. And I can find an Editors choice on just
about all of them.

Lane