all in one printer prices.
noise747
Posts: 30,841 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Not that I am in the market for one as I only just recently got myself a a canon IP7250 and my old HP stand alone scanner is still better than any scanner on the lower cost and even some higher cost printers.
But it is the loer cost all in one I was looking at in Rymans, just for a nose realyl as I was in there for something else.
i saw a canon all in one for £30, ok it is not wi-fi, but how on earth can a all in one be produced and sold for that price, something must be missingm, my canon stand alone printer, cost me over £40, sure it have wi-fi and and seprate inks.
i know that they hope to make the money on the ink as a pack of in for this printer is as much as the printer, may as well chuck the printer away after you used the ink and buy a new one.
There was even a Hp one in there for £90, that had a auto paper feed on the scanner and fax and this is fromRymans, whihc is not the chepest place. I know once again coulour inks are all in one and no doubt there must be somethintg lost in print and scan quality, but still for £90.
amazing how cheap these printers are
the Hp one would be nice as a second printer downstairs, i think, not that I am going to get one.
But it is the loer cost all in one I was looking at in Rymans, just for a nose realyl as I was in there for something else.
i saw a canon all in one for £30, ok it is not wi-fi, but how on earth can a all in one be produced and sold for that price, something must be missingm, my canon stand alone printer, cost me over £40, sure it have wi-fi and and seprate inks.
i know that they hope to make the money on the ink as a pack of in for this printer is as much as the printer, may as well chuck the printer away after you used the ink and buy a new one.
There was even a Hp one in there for £90, that had a auto paper feed on the scanner and fax and this is fromRymans, whihc is not the chepest place. I know once again coulour inks are all in one and no doubt there must be somethintg lost in print and scan quality, but still for £90.
amazing how cheap these printers are
the Hp one would be nice as a second printer downstairs, i think, not that I am going to get one.
0
Comments
Of course, there may be exceptions. If you see a device for sale at a good price and it has a few reviews saying something like "I bought one of these a year ago. I use it daily and it still works OK." then I'd be reassured enough to give it a go but, generally, my experience of cheap printers has been like this:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/printers
I have what I call a proper all in one printer that includes negative and transparency scanning. 6 ink set from Epson costs £80. Although this printer still works (no wifi though) I have now replaced it minus film scanning with HP all in one ink costs £30 a set compared to epsons £80 a set.
Yep its the terrible price of a few fluid oz of coloured liquid that makes complex pieces of technology cheap to buy.
http://www.scan.co.uk/shop/computer-hardware/all/printers-scanners/ink-cartridges
Except they are compatibles not actual Epson inks
Except for price, there's no difference.
Somebody like
http://www.scan.co.uk/shop/computer-hardware/all/printers-scanners/ink-cartridges
Aren't going to sell them if they are rubbish.
Lets face it, you're only sticking them in a £30 home printer so you're not looking for print shop quality even with original epson in.
I use compatible ink and have super results printing A4 photo's. To be honest I only print photo's of the grand children to send to my mother in law but I got 30 cartridges for about £11 delivered (Epsom)
Do people use printers much these days? Digital camera's = digital pictures you can view on your phone/tablet/laptop/PC/TV. We used to scan and print a lot of photo's pre the emergence of digital camera's but these days its sometimes weeks before I need a 'hard copy' of anything.
There will be a difference. It's part of the reason they are so much cheaper.
More expensive inks are usually a lot more fade resistant as well.
I've always used original cartridges, bought a black cartidge a couple of weeks ago in Argos for
£13.99 after returning the same item to W H Smith that my wife had bought for £28.99.
My last printer was an Epson and I used compatibles but what I found was the nozzles drying up quickly after a week or two. This doesn't happen on the HP, it can be left for a month and works perfectly.
Whether its the printer or the ink I'm not sure.
One thing I will say about Epson is their colour durability. Pictures on wall for years and not a hint of fading or colour change. I would never trust important prints to cheap imitation inks...
If something is overly cheap then there is a reason. A penalty lies somewhere down the line.
I use mine a fair bit, which is why I had to get another one. I could not be without my printer.
CD/DVD labels, printing letters, doing copies of forms, by scanning them and then printing them. Now printing pictures, which I never really bothered with before.
I use compatibles and have have very few problems, in fact I only had a problem with one yellow ink where it would not work. I have originals at the moment as they came witht he printer, but I have also got some compatibles ready to go in.
Well epson aren't going to make any money if its a competitor are they
If you actually choose epson on that very link you posted the carts are £10, over 5 times the non branded ones.
I also agree that printers are cheap sold as loss leaders making money back on the cartridges, but obviously ones sold by them, not competitors. Surely thats obvious?
yes you're
I thought my post was perfectly clear. Have you followed the whole thread?
except for the price, there's no difference between epson and compatible inks.
The link i posted was to show the OP you can get cheap compatible inks, that link shows that.
A retailer like scan would not sell crap.
I've followed fine. You originally replied to
Which is talk about loss leaders. Epson making money on the cartridges rather than the printer. Then you posted a link about cheap nonbranded cartridges which is irrelevant to loss leader discussion.
Yes, there is a difference. The compatible will have lower quality ink which is likely to fade quicker especially if left out inn the light.
Fine for general printing however would not use them for prints that I care about.
In the past I have used Epson compatibles and the difference in print quality was
glaringly obvious. If you want prints that wont fade anytime soon then with compatables your into the unknown. you could be lucky 10 years down the road or you could finish up with deteriorating images.
I have had good results buying third party laser toner (black and colour) and good results on third party black inkjet ink. For colour inkjet ink I find it a bit more hit and miss but generally OK so long as you buy from a well established company who know what they are doing,
I tried the thing where you refill the cartridges yourself with a syringe once. That did not work well and was not worth the effort.
Sorry to disappoint you, but most ink jet inks prints will fade within five years. Saying that I have a print from a old Epson 800 and it is over 15 years old, but the main reason it have not faded is because it is in a box.
The best way to print photos that do not fade is either use a service that prints them for you like in Boots or to buy a proper phto printer, like the Selphy, which seals the image.
Yes, it can be a lower quality, you got to watch what you buy. the ones i have now are from a different company than i normally use, so we will see when I try them out.
One day I may get myself a little selphy printer, They are fine for the odd phto you want to keep, expensive if you do a load with them mind you.
My brother got a Epson version, but we can not get it working with Windows 7, that is the problem with Epson, they seem to drop support too quickly,