Is Your Printer Ripping You Off?

An anonymous reader writes "Are original inkjet cartridges really worth the high cost? Do third party refill inks do as good a job? This article looks at printers from Epson, HP, Canon and Lexmark, with a combination of original inks and the top selling third-party options, using a whole host of different papers. A panel of printer users judged the output in a blind test — the printer manufacturers may not be happy with the results!"

QA is not as stringent on 3rd party refills

[arghileh]

I've had to service printers where people had used non-OEM ink and it can get ugly, at best just the printhead clogs up and needs to be replaced, at other times ink is just everywhere and inkjet ink stains everything.

For Lasers it is not as bad, but i've found the refilled cartridges to be more leaky and I had to clean out the printers on a regular basis. Also about 1/10 refills was DoA or otherwise defective.

On the other hand what HP charges for ink you would think they had to mine in on the moon. Canon printers with seperate printheads from ink resevoirs bring down the price of ink considerably.

Known Quantity

[Anonymous Coward]

I've tried third-party ink and paper in my HP printer and I've had very poor results. The prints look fine at first but then fade over about a year or so. I know in the article they claimed to have tested for fade & there was none. They may have been lucky and selected paper that matched to the ink, or maybe simply sticking prints in the window for awhile isn't the whole story. Maybe other factors such as ozone and humidity come into play, who knows. But the point is, even though I pay a bit more buying from the manufacturer at least I know what I'm getting and I know my prints will hold up over time. Even at five cents a photo, if that photo can't hold up a year it's like throwing money out the door.

Re:Reliability

[SpeedyDX]

Parent is on to something.

The mechanisms in ink cartridges are a lot more complicated nowadays than they used to be. HP, for example, has the print heads built into the ink cartridges. There are also other features built into their ink cartridges that help prolong the life of their printers. You know when you start up your printer and it takes a while to clean the print heads? Almost all inkjets just spray ink out and wipe the print heads to get rid of any solid/dried debris. HP designed their ink cartridges to use up less ink when they clean the print heads (it takes noticably less time to start up an HP printer than another printer).

My concern with third party ink is that, if I wanted to top of my HP cartridges with it, will it mess up the mechanisms in the print cartridge? Will that cause further damage to the printer itself? And as the parent mentioned, the first few pages might be fine, but what about later on? Will the ink clean the print heads well enough to keep them from clogging (incidentally, this has a larger impact on printers with print heads that are built in to the printer rather than the cartridges)?

If you have a $70 printer, I guess you're not too worried about these questions. But personally, I have a relatively good quality printer that I wouldn't want to jeopardize with third party ink (cartridges).

Contradicted here...

[tkrotchko]

Consumer Reports doesn't come to quite the same conclusion.

First off, they've received a lot of unusable 3rd party cartridges:
    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-com puters/printers/printer-inks-7-06/off-brand-inks/0 607_printer-inks_off-brand-inks.htm?resultPageInde x=1&resultIndex=2&searchTerm=printer%20cartridge [consumerreports.org]

And here, their recommendation is that the replacement inks are not quite as thrifty as they appear:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-com puters/printers/printer-inks-7-06/overview/0607_pr inter-inks_ov.htm [consumerreports.org]

My experience is that I bought cheap replacement ink for a Canon printer, and it clogged the print heads, didn't last as long, and produced poor quality color. I ended up throwing them out. Instead, I shop at the warehouse clubs where you can typically save 33-50% on name brand inks.

I prefer Canon because it allows you to replace individual ink tanks (which can be slightly thrifter). HP tends to do all-in-ones, which is bad if they mix Black, since you'll go through black 2-3x as fast. Overall, HP's tend to be expensive to run for that reason. In fact, with HP's your best bet is to wait until the computer stores sell new HP printers for $15 after rebate, use up the ink and then throw away the printer. It feels terribly wasteful to do that, but the ink is so expensive for HP's that it's really the most economical way to own them.

Epson is worse, mainly because the ones I've owned tended to clog their print heads if you let them sit for more than a week or two. Then you run 2-3 cleaning cycles which used up the ink even faster. Back in the day of tractor feeds and impact printers, the joke was "Epson" was a Japanese word that meant "Paper Jam". I hope they've fixed that.

you didn't look closely

[way2trivial]

they said they WILL be fade testing, checking back 3 months and six months from now.

not that they HAD tested, but that it was now underway

really, they were quite clear on that point.

Re:Reliability

[Embolism]

Yup. I was using 3rd party inks for about a year on my old hp 990. One day I noticed no color on output. I looked inside the printer and the color ink was smeared everywhere. Printer trashed. I now have a HP 6180 (which I cannot say enough good things about). This uses 6 ink and they are (subjectively speaking) lower cost and relatively log lasting. No more 3rd part inks for me.

Re:Ink? What ink?

[cheebie]

Then they should be using Snapfish [snapfish.com] or one of the other photo printing services. Why pay for expensive ink, a temperamental printer, and sub-par quality photo prints when you can get real photos for $0.12 each.

Disclaimer: I am not a Snapfish or HP employee, just a happy customer.

Re:Reliability

[Fred_A]

OTOH the HP cartridges I used with one of the early B&W deskjets (DJ500 I think, was a long time ago) most certainly clogged it.

Now I only use a B&W laser at home since I have no real need for colour and have the few photos I want on paper printed by a lab (almost always cheaper than printing them yourself anyway). All in all I've always found the laser to be cheaper (despite the higher initial investment), more reliable and less hassle than ink jets. For B&W of course. If you actually need colour then YMMV.

Oh and Linux compatibility is an issue for me as well. And sadly laser is often better supported nowadays.

Re:Reliability

[gumbi west]

I use a cannon IP 3000 with duplex. I pay under $10/ cartridge and they last for about 1.5 reams (1500 page sides). Thats 2/3 cent/page side plus the paper (I'm picky and like my paper to be bright) which adds 2/3 cent per page side. Plus, the text looks great. Only problem is that it isn't water proof. Not sure I'm getting ripped off though.

If there was a cheap laser that was small and had duplex, I'd consider it. But last time I had one I found that the current it drew when it started was outrageous (my monitor and all my CFL's dimmed) and that it's sleep current was significantly higher than my ink jet. So, I returned it.

Canon ?

[RogerWilco]

I have a Canon Pixma 3000, and prices for ink are very reasonable (4-5 euro, 2-3 afer market). It's an awesome printer in general, if it was still on the market I would recommned it to anyone.
- Nice colour photo printer
- full duplexer for double sided printing
- Can print CD's and other unfoldable items.
- separate ink tanks for each colour.
- Quite small, about the size of 4 stacks of paper, or 3 flat-bed scanners. I often take it woth me.
- new price was about 100 euro, 2 years ago.

Cheap ink and general good experience with Canon products is what made me buy this printer. But i am especially happy with the double sided printing and great colour prints.

Re:Reliability and Looks aren't the only issues

[Zebai]

that's because ink is stored in a vacuum and the OEM seals to contain that vacuum are always the best, because they are the first (not necessarily because they are better designed, if you use tape to hold something up, and you keep replacing that tape in the exact same spot, the additional tape will never hold as good as the first one) Reman cartridges (which most off brands are) will usually leak either air or ink, mostly air, either way it wont last as long as the original usage of it.

Re:Only pure heroin is more expensive.

[Breakfast Pants]

And that article was totally wrong. Anti-matter generated from a particle collider is by far the most expensive substance known.

Sounds like me

[Kadin2048]

I had a similar issue, back when I had a POS (and I don't mean "point of sale," either) Lexmark inkjet. I only really used it about once every few months, and about one in three times I'd go to use it, it would be clogged. I ended up using most of my ink printing "de-clogging" test pages, and I was burning through ink -- both OEM and remans -- at a rate that could have bought me a pile of new printers.

Eventually I got myself an inexpensive laser (Samsung ML-1740, but there are better/cheaper ones out there now) and I've never, ever looked back. For occasional or low-volume printing it's just no contest. The toner doesn't go bad, it doesn't draw much power at idle, and it's at least as fast as my old Lexmark (feels much faster, particularly on multipage documents). It even does envelopes and sheet labels just fine (it has a "through and through" mode where it doesn't spit out on top, so it doesn't bend the labels and make them peel off).

I recouped the cost of the laser printer and the toner cartridge (factor in a toner cart with the printer purchase since they give you underloaded "starter" carts when you buy it new) probably within a year to 18 months, certainly under two years.

Re:Reliability

[pvera]

My last HP printer was on sale for less than $40. If the ink runs out before it is 90 days old, I'll exchange the whole printer. If it is more than 90 days old and the cartridge costs within 5% of the cost of a new printer, I will probably grab the new printer and hand off the used printer to somebody else and tell them "here's a free printer, try to use generic ink first, which costs half as much." If the printer breaks, it was free so my friend is only losing $20 instead of $40.

I print so little nowadays that my main concern is that the printer will simply stop working due to lack of use.

Re:Ripoff? No me...

[Anonymous Coward]

I appreciate most of your post. But the color option doesn't have to appear as expensive either. Okidata has several color laser printers in the 300-600 dollar price range. The starter toners are normally 3000 pages so the cost per page is still 10-20 cents each (considering the cost of the entire printer, not just the toner) and this is STILL less than a lot of the cheap/freebee inkjets that float around in most homes. Sure, the initial cost is high but if your kid just printed out 15 pictures of sponge bob you're not going to have to run to staples to throw down a few more bills. Not to mention that these printers are all of much better quality, both in design and printing quality, than any common inkjet.
 
  Inkjets are the best option in certain circumstances
 
Name one. Just one. OK, so my fancy color laser is cost prohibitive to a small section of the community that is well off enough to afford a PC but too poor to shell out a few bucks. They're going to be just as bad off buying ink, if not worse. Like I said, I'm printing at 10-20 cents a page (make it 11-21 if you want to include paper). By the time you buy enough consumables to print 500 pages on an inkjet you're going to be spending just as much.
 
If they need to go B&W to get a laser on the cheap that's fine but still Kinko's is a much better route at getting your odd color print done economically (and quality wise).

Re:Single parent of a 15 Year Old Daughter

[Anonymous Coward]

do not click the above link- it will hiijack your browser with multiple sound clips, video clips, and... a lot of other unpleasantness. My firefox crashed before It finished loading.

Re:Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was a cheap laser that was small and had duplex, I'd consider it. But last time I had one I found that the current it drew when it started was outrageous (my monitor and all my CFL's dimmed) and that it's sleep current was significantly higher than my ink jet. So, I returned it.

You might like the Lexmark e250d. I don't how much current draw you consider outrageous. It is rated at 6A. I have the networking model and really like it. Newegg has it for about $180 and $215 for the network model.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16828106378 [newegg.com]
Networking model: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16828106379 [newegg.com]

Re:Reliability

[arth1]

That depends on the manufacturer, and possibly model. While it appears to be true for HP, it doesn't appear to be true for Epson, who appears to deliver standard full cartridges with their new printers.
On the other hand, Epson cartridges are much smaller to begin with, and you need head cleaning more often (because the print heads aren't changed with the cartridges?), so the ink runs out fast anyhow.

Re:Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure there are no unpleasant surprises.

I worked in two different photo labs for over 5 years including a cheap one and an upscale one in the United States. I can with certainty that 50-75% of all parents take pictures of their young children naked at some point. This case was a true travesty.

Re:Reliability

[Hadlock]

I'm still using a laserjet II printer that we picked up (used) from boeing surplus in 1992. It's giant and ugly as sin, but I've been printing off school reports with it since 3rd grade and I've only had to replace the toner cartridge twice in 15 years. Refurb'd cartridges are about $80 at Office Depot. Color is way overrated. The only time I've NEEDED color was for printing photos... which I have done online and mailed to me.

Re:Reliability

[zakezuke]

I use a cannon IP 3000 with duplex. I pay under $10/ cartridge and they last for about 1.5 reams (1500 page sides). Thats 2/3 cent/page side plus the paper (I'm picky and like my paper to be bright) which adds 2/3 cent per page side. Plus, the text looks great. Only problem is that it isn't water proof. Not sure I'm getting ripped off though.

If there was a cheap laser that was small and had duplex, I'd consider it. But last time I had one I found that the current it drew when it started was outrageous (my monitor and all my CFL's dimmed) and that it's sleep current was significantly higher than my ink jet. So, I returned it.

I have direct experence with the canon ip3000, which I upgraded to an ip5200 since as part of learning japanese I took it upon my self to label my anime discs with furigana {ruby text/pronunciation above}, and there was anotable difference between the two models. For text the ip3000 is a perfectly fine machine. I'd have to check the specs but i'm pretty sure text has not improved in at least 10 years on the canon.

At 5% yield the black cartridge should last about 500 pages. at 1500 characters per page the yield should be about 740 pages. Duplex mode mixes color with the big black, so your page yield would be extended. But the color tanks are higher per page than others, and as we are talking about a model without a dye black, it does in all fairness use cyan/magenta/yellow in duplex for black text. I believe the issue is the canon's big black tends to bleed cross the page, and going with a mix of dye and pigment increases the dry time, and decreases the bleed through.

Manual duplex is more cost effective, esp on the ip3000. It's also more time effective as putting the paper back in the printer the last page printed is the most dry, rather than having to wait moments for a single sheet to dry before processed and flipped.

Also, this and other canon models, doesn't print object oriented, it's document oriented. As in it will use the big black for plain paper, mix colors to make black for other types. You can easily observe this by printing on matte paper something with much black and note how soggy it is when you select plain paper or matte paper.

Whether you are getting ripped off or not is a relative matter. Going with OEM ink on this model, standard simplex printing, is about 2.5c/page in the US typicaly speaking not including the head which does eventually clog or burn out. Color is used in the cleaning cycles, not as much as an Epson which uses a pump attached to the pladen to suck clean, but more so than head on the cartridge based HP models. It is IMHO a good general purpose printer.

Re:Reliability

[TechnicalFool]

Most of the HP printers I sell come with either standard or low-capacity cartridges, but they are the same low-capacity cartridges that are sold separately (337 black, and 342 for colour). Some do come with high capacity carts though. It's worth noting that only the higher-end domestic models, such as the HP 2575, will take high-capacity cartridges (339 and 344 respectively) at all. Some of the printers will come with a "photo colour" rather than a black, which means if you're printing any amount of text you really should buy a black cart to go with it.

That said, if your printer does take 339 and 344 (or the old 56/57 combo), it'll last a long enough time. I've also not had any problems with the OfficeJet 5510 I bought the mother a couple of years ago, despite the cartridges being the target of many a drill-and-fill before they wear out. I think the built-in print heads help there, as if they clog, the worst that happens is you wreck a cartridge, and most times they can be unclogged with the appropriate application of "cartridge flush" (some kind of isopropyl I assume).

Cost isn't the only problem...

[Myrkridian42]

I'd say the biggest problem with most printers now is when one cartrige is out of ink, the printer won't print. Anything.

So when you're out of magenta, you can't print out that term paper that's due in 20 minutes, even though it's only in black.

Re:Appearance is only half the story

[dghcasp]

Epson sold a special ink that lasted 100 years

Actually, the higher end Epson inks, which are generally used in their printers that cost over $500, when used with certain Epson papers, are guaranteed for 100 years.

If you've ever sat down and leafed through your great-great granparent's photo albums from the early 1900's, you know what a timeless treasure it is. That's why I'd never skimp on paying for ink and paper.

For those who aren't familiar with the lifetimes of pictures, here's a brief overview, from best to worst:

1. Black and white platinum prints: hundreds of years
2. Traditional black and white (chemical) prints: 100+ years
3. Epson ultrachrome or K3 inks, certain epson papers: 100 years
4. Colour film (chemical, C41) prints: 30 years.
5. El cheapo Inkjet: Roll the dice, but probably less than 30 years; perhaps as low as five.

I get my ink cartridges from PrintPal.com

[Master of Transhuman]

They cost maybe $6 for Epson black and $7 for color. Never had a problem with them. Compare that to $30 or so for "real" Epson cartridges. And they aren't "refills" but originally manufactured cartridges, supposedly under ISO standards.

You'd have to be nuts to pay the kind of money for ink cartridges that the printer manufacturers want you to pay.

Given the crap software that HP wants to install on your systems now (750MB of crap for their OfficeJet 6310! plus drivers that port scan your system!), I'd say HP is going out of business at some point.