Canon CLI-8 cartridges from 3rd party (e.g. iP4200)

[Martin Trautmann]

Hi all,

are there any third party cartridges, replacing the CLI-8 types with
chips for newer Canon Pixmas, such as the iP4200?

I've seen some announcements for end of november, delayed til today.

However, I doubt that there will be any legal 3rd party cartridges!?

The originals are above 10 EUR in Europe (which is about $10, due to
exchange rate + tax).

The former ones where slightly cheaper. Good 3rd party was around
3-4 EUR, while cheap ones were at 1 EUR.

A current refill with cartridges is about half the printer's price.
Good luck that I own the iP4000 myself. However, I'd like to know about
iP4200, too.

Refilling the original cartridges ist yet another option. This will tell
the printer about refilling. Probably, a warranty will be destroyed this
way. Refilling will prevent to show the empty cartridge status, possibly
destroying the print head while running dry. I don't know which ink is
suited especially for the 1 pl print head of iP4200, offering similar
quality (matching color, UV stability, print head life time, water
proof).

- Martin

 

[measekite]

Hi all,

are there any third party cartridges, replacing the CLI-8 types with
chips for newer Canon Pixmas, such as the iP4200?

I HOPE NOT

I've seen some announcements for end of november, delayed til today.

However, I doubt that there will be any legal 3rd party cartridges!?

THAT IS GREAT

The originals are above 10 EUR in Europe (which is about $10, due to
exchange rate + tax).

The former ones where slightly cheaper. Good 3rd party was around
3-4 EUR, while cheap ones were at 1 EUR.

THERE ARE NONE AND NEVER WILL BE

A current refill with cartridges is about half the printer's price.
Good luck that I own the iP4000 myself. However, I'd like to know about
iP4200, too.

NO IT IS NOT LUCK.

Refilling the original cartridges ist yet another option. This will tell
the printer about refilling. Probably, a warranty will be destroyed this
way.
GOOD

Refilling will prevent to show the empty cartridge status, possibly
destroying the print head while running dry. I don't know which ink is
suited especially for the 1 pl print head of iP4200, offering similar
quality (matching color, UV stability, print head life time, water
proof).

THERE IS NONE

 

[ray]

Hi all,

are there any third party cartridges, replacing the CLI-8 types with
chips for newer Canon Pixmas, such as the iP4200?

I've seen some announcements for end of november, delayed til today.

However, I doubt that there will be any legal 3rd party cartridges!?

The originals are above 10 EUR in Europe (which is about $10, due to
exchange rate + tax).

The former ones where slightly cheaper. Good 3rd party was around
3-4 EUR, while cheap ones were at 1 EUR.

A current refill with cartridges is about half the printer's price.
Good luck that I own the iP4000 myself. However, I'd like to know about
iP4200, too.

Refilling the original cartridges ist yet another option. This will tell
the printer about refilling. Probably, a warranty will be destroyed this
way. Refilling will prevent to show the empty cartridge status, possibly
destroying the print head while running dry. I don't know which ink is
suited especially for the 1 pl print head of iP4200, offering similar
quality (matching color, UV stability, print head life time, water
proof).

- Martin

Office Max has the IP4200 on special for $80, which is $10 more
than a set of cartridges. On other forums people say they have
successfully refilled with BCI-6 inks. The printer stores the fact
that you have refilled. Canon may try you void the warrantee. Even
if they do you are money well ahead if you successfully refill twice.
I have a i850 that I have refilled 20 times before the printhead
partly burned out. I don't think the burnout was caused by my
choice of ink.

Some reviews say the IP4200 does better photo printing than the
IP4000. Any other opinions?

 

[Gary Tait]

Some reviews say the IP4200 does better photo printing than the
IP4000. Any other opinions?

It has twice the resolution - Same specs as the 5000, except has more RAM
(the 5000 is peculiar, in it has 34K, most of the rest have 42K)
The 4200 also suppoedly has the front tray roller assembly for the CD tray.
If refilling is your bag, I'd try to get a 4000 or 5000.

 

[measekite]

It has twice the resolution - Same specs as the 5000, except has more RAM
(the 5000 is peculiar, in it has 34K, most of the rest have 42K)
The 4200 also suppoedly has the front tray roller assembly for the CD tray.
If refilling is your bag, I'd try to get a 4000 or 5000.

ALWAYS BUY THE LATEST TO GET EVEN THE SMALL IMPROVEMENTS. I HAVE A 4000
AND THINK IT IS GREAT BUT IF I BOUGHT ONE TODAY I WOULD PROBABLY BUY A
IP5200 BECAUSE IT IS FASTER.

 

[measekite]

Office Max has the IP4200 on special for $80, which is $10 more
than a set of cartridges. On other forums people say they have
successfully refilled with BCI-6 inks. The printer stores the fact
that you have refilled. Canon may try you void the warrantee.

IF YOU USE THE WRONG INK SPEFICIATIONS THEY DO NOT HAVE TO HONOR THE
WARRANTY IF THE INK MESSED UP THE PRINTER. IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY
DIFFERENCE IF IT IS AFTERMARKET OR THEIR OWN IF THE INK IS THE WRONG CART.

 

[Stan Birch]

Some reviews say the IP4200 does better photo printing than the
IP4000. Any other opinions?

The IP4200 does at least as well, if not a tad better than by old 6
colour S900.

 

[Frank]

Office Max has the IP4200 on special for $80, which is $10 more
than a set of cartridges. On other forums people say they have
successfully refilled with BCI-6 inks. The printer stores the fact
that you have refilled. Canon may try you void the warrantee. Even
if they do you are money well ahead if you successfully refill twice.
I have a i850 that I have refilled 20 times before the printhead
partly burned out. I don't think the burnout was caused by my
choice of ink.

Some reviews say the IP4200 does better photo printing than the
IP4000. Any other opinions?

Canon cannot void your warranty because of the type of ink you use.
Anybody who says different is lying so don't believe them.
Frank

 

[Martin Trautmann]

Some reviews say the IP4200 does better photo printing than the
IP4000. Any other opinions?

slightly better, significantly slower,
Martin

 

[zakezuke]

measkite said: Snipped per request

wait... just last month you said the ip5200, and it was I who was
arguing that according to the specs the ip5200 was faster in most
things. Are you now admiting you were wrong are are you just making up
stuff to make canon look good? Please make up your mind... thank you
kindly.

 

[Martin Trautmann]

Canon cannot void your warranty because of the type of ink you use.
Anybody who says different is lying so don't believe them.

Hm - is there any prove for your claim?

Here in Europe who have two options:

1) legal warranty, ensuring that the product had no failures when
delivered to you. 24 months, while within the first 6 months the dealer
had to prove that a failure was because of the customer's abuse

2) manufacturers warranty: this can be anything that the manufacturer
will add as an optional bonus. The manufacturer or the dealer cannnot
negotiate the legal warranty. But he may limit his own, free warranty to
anything that he claims as limitations (such as no refill; resend in
original box on your own cost; plug in on wednesdays only; purchased
in this country only, ...)

3) delivery waranty: you may return anything that was ordered via phone
or internet within 14 days of delivery.

I guess, comp.periphs.printers is not us.comp.periphs.printers.

Which warranty do you speak about?
Where's the warrany located on the web sites?

I found
<http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/co...ct&keycode=2113&fcategoryid=257&modelid=11641>:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/CUSA_Limited_Warranty.pdf

1 year for:

+++
This warranty does not cover any accessories, or any consumables, such as paper or ink cartridges, as to which there shall be no warranty or replacement.

This limited warranty shall only apply if the Product is used in conjunction with compatible computers, peripheral equipment and software. Canon USA shall have no responsibility for such items except for compatible Canon brand peripheral equipment covered by a separate warranty ("Separate Warranty").

[...]
This limited warranty [...] does not apply in the following cases:
[...]
(b) Use of parts or supplies (other than those sold by Canon USA) that cause damage to the Product or cause abnormally frequent service calls or service problems.


[...]

DO NOT INCLUDE ANY OTHER ITEMS WITH THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT IN THE RETURN SHIPPING CARTON, AND BE SURE TO RETAIN YOUR PRINTHEAD AND INK CARTRIDGE(S) AND TANK(S).

+++


This states rather clearly that Canon may refuse any warranty for
damages that may be caused by refilled or 3rd party cartridges.

- Martin

 

[Martin Trautmann]

Are you now admiting you were wrong are are you just making up
stuff to make canon look good? Please make up your mind... thank you
kindly.

It's not worth to read his comments - I don't expect any grain of truth
in his weird comments.

Seems to be some kind of deseased mind, filling his boring days by
trolling around.

 

[Frank]

Canon cannot void your warranty because of the type of ink you use.
Anybody who says different is lying so don't believe them.

Hm - is there any prove for your claim?

Here in Europe who have two options:

1) legal warranty, ensuring that the product had no failures when
delivered to you. 24 months, while within the first 6 months the dealer
had to prove that a failure was because of the customer's abuse

2) manufacturers warranty: this can be anything that the manufacturer
will add as an optional bonus. The manufacturer or the dealer cannnot
negotiate the legal warranty. But he may limit his own, free warranty to
anything that he claims as limitations (such as no refill; resend in
original box on your own cost; plug in on wednesdays only; purchased
in this country only, ...)

3) delivery waranty: you may return anything that was ordered via phone
or internet within 14 days of delivery.

I guess, comp.periphs.printers is not us.comp.periphs.printers.

Which warranty do you speak about?
Where's the warrany located on the web sites?

I found
<http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/co...ct&keycode=2113&fcategoryid=257&modelid=11641>:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/CUSA_Limited_Warranty.pdf

1 year for:

+++
This warranty does not cover any accessories, or any consumables, such as paper or ink cartridges, as to which there shall be no warranty or replacement.

This limited warranty shall only apply if the Product is used in conjunction with compatible computers, peripheral equipment and software. Canon USA shall have no responsibility for such items except for compatible Canon brand peripheral equipment covered by a separate warranty ("Separate Warranty").

[...]
This limited warranty [...] does not apply in the following cases:
[...]
(b) Use of parts or supplies (other than those sold by Canon USA) that cause damage to the Product or cause abnormally frequent service calls or service problems.


[...]

DO NOT INCLUDE ANY OTHER ITEMS WITH THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT IN THE RETURN SHIPPING CARTON, AND BE SURE TO RETAIN YOUR PRINTHEAD AND INK CARTRIDGE(S) AND TANK(S).

+++


This states rather clearly that Canon may refuse any warranty for
damages that may be caused by refilled or 3rd party cartridges.

- Martin

Not really. You seem to be reading that into the warranty which is
exactly what they want you (the consumers) to do. It is nothing more
than a veiled attempt at using fear to get you to not use after market
inks. It's really a gray area legally speaking because they (the major
printer manufacturers) don't ever want to go to court over the issue.
They are afraid (as they should be) of the outcome and the legal
precedent it would set.
Frank

 

[Martin Trautmann]

Not really. You seem to be reading that into the warranty which is
exactly what they want you (the consumers) to do. It is nothing more
than a veiled attempt at using fear to get you to not use after market
inks. It's really a gray area legally speaking because they (the major
printer manufacturers) don't ever want to go to court over the issue.
They are afraid (as they should be) of the outcome and the legal
precedent it would set.

What's your argument why they should be afraid of losing that case?

 

[Frank]

What's your argument why they should be afraid of losing that case?

The legal precedent a court decision might set. If they win, meaning
only printers that use their oem carts are covered, could have a
dramatic effect on sales because other manufacturers may not go along
with the idea of only oem carts and thus be more attractive to consumers
which is a real marketing advantage. But the really big problem is with
consumer watch groups that would bring class action law suits against
them to force them to supply oem ink (free or at greatly reduced
cost)for the life of the warranty.
If they lose,(which theoretically they already have),they would not have
a leg to stand on in their on-going war with after market ink suppliers.
So any court decision means...game over!
Let sleeping dogs lie seems to be the best legal strategy at this time.
Frank

 

[measekite]

WHILE MANY CLAIM THAT THE IP4200 IS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE IP4000 THAT IS
NOT REALLY TRUE. IT APPEARS THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THE MODEL NUMBERING BUT
WHEN YOU LOOK AT PRICE POINTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INITIAL PRICE POINT
OF THE IP4000 AND THE IP5200 ARE ABOUT THE SAME AND THE PRICE POINTS OF
THE IP3000 AND THE IP4200 ARE ABOUT THE SAME.

WHEN YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION THEN IT LOOKS LIKE THE IP4200 IS A
DRAMATIC UPGRADE OF THE IP3000 FOR THE SAME MONEY AND THE IP5200 IS AN
UPGRADE FOR THE IP4000 AND A REPLACEMENT FOR THE IP5000.

 

[zakezuke]

What's your argument why they should be afraid of losing that case?

I should take this....

In America, another country using a variation of British Common law...
prior precident and law was passed in 1975. This is the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

" Title 15 Commerce and Trade
Chapter 50 Consumer Product Warranties 15 Section 2302 "
{parton my lack of double Ss and such

"(c)No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or
implied warranty of such product on a consumer's using, in connection
with such product, any article or service (other than article or
service provided without charge under terms of the warranty) which is
identified by brand, trade or corporate name; except that prohibition
of this subsection may be waived by the commission if:

1) Warrantor satisfies Commission that warranted product will function
properly only if the article or service so identified is used in
connection with warranted product, and

2) Commission finds that such a waiver is in public's interest." "

There is other stuff too I can't find at the moment, but this is enough
to illistrate my point. Basicly use OEM consummables can not be a
condition of warranty service. That's federal law for Americans and
i'm sure something similar exists in your respective countries. Use of
third party consummables does not void the warranty in it self. It is
possible that if the consummable... let's say peanut butter... was
used.... and it can be established that the peanut butter caused the
damage... then they would have every reason not to honor the warranty.
But they would have to establish it was the peanut butter that was at
fault. Even with peanutbutter it would have to be established that
the offical desinated product, i.e. the OEM ink would not have the same
effect. And as we all know printers have a limited life span.

What's your argument why they should be afraid of losing that case?

British common law... sometimes it can be a pain in the tookus... there
really isn't so far as I'm aware any case where a company refused to
honor a warranty based on the use of thirdparty products. I would
submit that doing so... without adquate proof that the product in
question caused the damage would result in precident that can be cited
in defence of using third party products. Seriously... it's documented
that printheads have a limited life span... and it would be easy to
find OEM users who have had head failures. A head failure on third
party ink may or may not be associated with the medium and the burden
of proof would be on the company, not the user, as to why they didn't
honor the warranty. To test this in court is not a good idea in
America, UK, or other respective countries also using British Common
Law because this would establish precident.


Sorry if I repeated my self a bit, but I think I made a valid point
none the less.

 

[Martin Trautmann]

I should take this....

Thanks for those details.

In America, another country using a variation of British Common law...
prior precident and law was passed in 1975. This is the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

Hm - do you understand what they say?

"(c)No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or
implied warranty of such product on a consumer's using, in connection
with such product, any article or service (other than article or
service provided without charge under terms of the warranty) which is
identified by brand, trade or corporate name; except that prohibition
of this subsection may be waived by the commission if:

There is other stuff too I can't find at the moment, but this is enough
to illistrate my point. Basicly use OEM consummables can not be a
condition of warranty service. That's federal law for Americans and
i'm sure something similar exists in your respective countries. Use of
third party consummables does not void the warranty in it self. It is
possible that if the consummable... let's say peanut butter... was
used.... and it can be established that the peanut butter caused the
damage... then they would have every reason not to honor the warranty.

Who will have to prove that peanut butter is not suited as ink?
Maybe for Canon it's as obvious that another 3rd party ink does not
satisfy Canons specs (e.g. pigment size, addons for cleaning, vapor
temperature for bubbles, remains, fungizids, ...). Since they do not lay
open those specs (I don't see any need for them), another manufacturer
hardly can ensure that his product is ok.

Instead, it would require a 3rd party warranty that the own ink will not
damage the print head. I doubt that there is any manufacturer that will
not only offer but satisfy such a warranty. Maybe the owner would have
to prove that no ink other than Canon and this OEM ever was used -
almost impossible.

But they would have to establish it was the peanut butter that was at
fault. Even with peanutbutter it would have to be established that
the offical desinated product, i.e. the OEM ink would not have the same
effect.

The question is: who will have to prove it? Peanut butter sounds
obvious. But I doubt that Canon would have to prove it, while another
one will be in the uncertain area where it's difficult to prove.

British common law... sometimes it can be a pain in the tookus... there
really isn't so far as I'm aware any case where a company refused to
honor a warranty based on the use of thirdparty products.

That's a surprise to me.

Sorry if I repeated my self a bit, but I think I made a valid point
none the less.

Yes, thanks. I don't believe yet that Canon would loose here, but you'll
never know.

- Martin

 

[zakezuke]

Who will have to prove that peanut butter is not suited as ink?

Maybe for Canon it's as obvious that another 3rd party ink does not
satisfy Canons specs (e.g. pigment size, addons for cleaning, vapor
temperature for bubbles, remains, fungizids, ...). Since they do not lay
open those specs (I don't see any need for them), another manufacturer
hardly can ensure that his product is ok.

Reference to canon and issues with fungus and bacteria.
http://www.canon.com./technology/interview/chroma/chroma_p1.html
it's mostly marketing but has some useful info.... esp on how they had
to deal with anti fungizids and anti-bactial elements that would result
in clogging.

I know in cases of slander and liable... the plaintif only need prove
what someone said caused damage... and it's up to the defendent to
prove the statements were in fact true. I'm not a lawyer but this is
my basic understanding of civil law. I could be wrong.

It's my belief that the mfg for example would have to prove the
alternative medium, i.e. the ink, caused the damage to deny warranty
service. I get this also with cases of cars... most recently I can
think of is Kia denying warranty service because of an aftermarket
radio... not able to prove that a radio could possibly cause damage to
power stering or some such.

The peanutbutter argument... easy enough to prove... you could put
peanut butter in a printer and odds are it won't print. Odds are even
if it did flow into the head, it would very likely (I've never tried
this) gum up the head. That can easily be proven. But third party
ink, esp that stuff actually designed for a specific printhead.. that
would be more difficult. Easy if as you say it was the fungus, or
alge, or bacteria. For the most part, esp from my limited experence
with 3rd party ink... it works... pretty well and for a good long time.
I infact have two printers one running on OEM and one running on 3rd
party. If talking canon the offical lifespan of the printhead is there
and abouts of 10 cartridge changes, a number I sorta extrated from the
service manual data which I can provide that info upon request. I
could if I so desired... setup two identical printers one on what I use
vs the OEM... and test to see if both the OEM and thirdparty stuff will
print to the offical designated life expectancy of the head. I've not
actually done this, my printing isn't so massive.. but odds are based
on what i've seen from others... 10 cartridge changes is possible with
non-oem.

Alge, fungus, bacteria is typicaly only an issue for external
inktanks... esp alge. You have your large volume of ink exposed to
light having out in an enviroment where the chemicals that prevent
growth are more likely to evaperate.

To put in more simple terms... as I can be a tad wordy... it's my
belief that the consumer only need prove warranty service was denied...
and it's up to the mfg to prove damage was caused by the product they
bought... esp since there is law that states use of a consumable (like
oil in a car) can be bought from anyone. I'm not a lawyer but it would
make sense.

But... should the OEM start denying warranties... assuming America...
this falls under the juristion of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).
With enough complaints... they will take the case on them selves, and
since there is Federal Law on the subject... they have the authority to
act. This is some bad mojo as Matel found out in the early 1980s when
they advertised a keyboard for their game machine but failed to deliver
due to design problems... they got their asses fined heavily for every
day they didn't honor purchace requests. I can hunt that info up if
your interested, i'm lazy at the moment. I'm sure othe respective
countries have similar provisions.. I just don't know the agencies off
the top of my head nor could I quote law on the subject.

That's a surprise to me.

That i'm not aware of any case? I've simply never heard of one... not
saying there isn't one... if there has i've never heard of it. I have
heard of warranty claims being denied before... but no court cases.

Yes, thanks. I don't believe yet that Canon would loose here, but you'll
never know.

No worries, i'd rather deal with someone who disagrees respectively
than a person who takes my opinions as fact on faith.

But the way I see it is this. Proof the third party ink caused the
damage would require much in the way of time bother and effort, esp
since printers have a limited lifespan to begin with. This is assuming
they take the time to test the ink residue in the first place. Some
universal inks you can spot with ease, the way it beads on plastic for
example, the size of the beads, even if it's mixed in a diaper. Color
is another dead giveaway, any flatbed scanner worth it's salt can spot
the differences between inks made by different people. Matched ink...
as in a close compatable would be harder as it's design to behave in a
similar way. They would have to evaluate the chemistry and actually
verify the ink caused the damage and this damage wouldn't happen using
the offical OEM product. And while you may not agree the OEM would
lose such a case... you gotta admit all of this... chemical analisis
and such would likely not be worth it for a $60 part on the consumer
level. Epson... well more like a $200 part. Not sure on HP.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Yes, Martin, that's what it says. What that means is that it is on
Canon's onus to prove that a third party ink or refill caused damage to
the printer, or increased the "frequency of repair". over their own
consumable or supply.

Secondly, since Canon suggests you NOT return either the ink cartridges
OR the head, that they do not consider the printhead covered under the
warranty, and probably consider it a consumable as well, and that is
regardless of what inks go into the printer, Canon OEM or 3rd party.

Art

Canon cannot void your warranty because of the type of ink you use.
Anybody who says different is lying so don't believe them.

Hm - is there any prove for your claim?

Here in Europe who have two options:

1) legal warranty, ensuring that the product had no failures when
delivered to you. 24 months, while within the first 6 months the dealer
had to prove that a failure was because of the customer's abuse

2) manufacturers warranty: this can be anything that the manufacturer
will add as an optional bonus. The manufacturer or the dealer cannnot
negotiate the legal warranty. But he may limit his own, free warranty to
anything that he claims as limitations (such as no refill; resend in
original box on your own cost; plug in on wednesdays only; purchased
in this country only, ...)

3) delivery waranty: you may return anything that was ordered via phone
or internet within 14 days of delivery.

I guess, comp.periphs.printers is not us.comp.periphs.printers.

Which warranty do you speak about?
Where's the warrany located on the web sites?

I found
<http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/co...ct&keycode=2113&fcategoryid=257&modelid=11641>:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/CUSA_Limited_Warranty.pdf

1 year for:

+++
This warranty does not cover any accessories, or any consumables, such as paper or ink cartridges, as to which there shall be no warranty or replacement.

This limited warranty shall only apply if the Product is used in conjunction with compatible computers, peripheral equipment and software. Canon USA shall have no responsibility for such items except for compatible Canon brand peripheral equipment covered by a separate warranty ("Separate Warranty").

[...]
This limited warranty [...] does not apply in the following cases:
[...]
(b) Use of parts or supplies (other than those sold by Canon USA) that cause damage to the Product or cause abnormally frequent service calls or service problems.


[...]

DO NOT INCLUDE ANY OTHER ITEMS WITH THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT IN THE RETURN SHIPPING CARTON, AND BE SURE TO RETAIN YOUR PRINTHEAD AND INK CARTRIDGE(S) AND TANK(S).

+++


This states rather clearly that Canon may refuse any warranty for
damages that may be caused by refilled or 3rd party cartridges.

- Martin