Best brand for home office printer?

[jflan]

What is "duplex" printing?

With duplex capability you can print both sides of a sheet automatically, that way you can create a professional-looking manual if you "bind" it.
See yuor local office supply store for details on types of bindings.

Edit:
MP610 $77.99 shipped Costco
If you're in the US, this is likely this great printer's swan song :
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Produc...&cm_mmc=BCEmail_364-_-FOCUS-_-40-_-CanonMP610
Looks like Canon wants these gone to make room for their more profitable next generation

 

[IGExpandingPanda]

What is "duplex" printing?

Printing on both sides.

Auto duplex is where the printer flips the page and prints on the otherside for you. Most canons support this out of the box. The ip3600 does not but other ip3xxx models do.

Manual duplex is when you flip the paper. You can do this your self by printing odd pages
1,3,5...1000
and even
2,4,6...1000
(note I ended the odd sequence by 1000, I do this because I'm lazy and the print manager doesn't care).

Sometimes the print driver handles this for you.

But needless to say this is a feature you get on Canons on their sub $100 models. But, on canons print quality is affected when you use duplex mode. It mixes pigment black with dye black which not only extends how many pages you can print, but makes the ink less likely to bleed though the page. Printing takes a huge performance hit when you print this way.

On lasers, there is no wait time for the ink to dry, and duplex printing is a much more handy feature, but is it +$100 handy?

Again, the alternative is to flip your paper manually. This is what I do on my Canon since there is a quality and speed difference.

 

[mrelmo]

does the mp610 fax

 

[IGExpandingPanda]

does the mp610 fax

Nope. The mp530, mp830, mx700, mx800 fax and have sheet feeders.

 

[panos]

http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel.php?ID=2353&seite=6&t=test_hp_photosmart_d5460
This is a review of the latest HP printing system. There is an AIO version of their D5460.

I'd like to say something about these new HP-Canon printers which is relevant to the thread.

While HP is now using (probably under some kind of deal) Canon's technology, they added their own invention which is:

1) "low volume" cartridges with ink on the sponge only instead of the entire cartridge (more profit for HP and more waste for the environment) and

2) made of an opaque plastic which does not allow you to see the ink level while refilling.

and ~nothing~ else.

So, HP gets access to better Canon technology and while they could, for example, enlarge the cartridges or remove the photo black and formulate their ink so that the black mixes with the colors and then add a photo gray instead...

...instead all they have "invented" (did you notice the "HP Invent" logo on the Canon licensed printhead ?) is their own little, silly, miserable tricks they have been doing all those years to make profit out of ink.

Sure, Canon has added smartchips as well (though many years after HP and Epson) but they _still_ look like an angel when compared to HP.

So, don't buy an HP. Their technology is inferior and they use Canon's printhead and cartridge designs, but they still use their own way of making big money out of a few drops of ink.

 

[IGExpandingPanda]

http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel.php?ID=2353&seite=6&t=test_hp_photosmart_d5460
This is a review of the latest HP printing system. There is an AIO version of their D5460.

I'd like to say something about these new HP-Canon printers which is relevant to the thread.

While HP is now using (probably under some kind of deal) Canon's technology, they added their own invention which is:

1) "low volume" cartridges with ink on the sponge only instead of the entire cartridge (more profit for HP and more waste for the environment) and

2) made of an opaque plastic which does not allow you to see the ink level while refilling.

(1) technically speaking it's canon that's guilty of continuing to offer a water down cartridge. The last time I looked Canon grams per page is the highest in the market.

The new ip4600 I believe offers a 19ml tank, and several 9ml tanks, this is down from 26ml and 13ml. Ink efficiency is not up.

The HP D5400 series, well I can't quite quote the volume of the cartridges at the moment. But the yield, technically speaking, are far better than Canon. We're talking 800page big black, 750 page little cartridges. Canon at the best of times offered about 20pages/ml, or about 500-525 pages per 26ml.

(2) The Cartridges on the HP are not clear. This is true. They do offer an inspection window on their XL cartridges. They do this, well, I imagine to help prevent people refilling the cheap ones but there is no point. You have the "regular" size and you have the "XL" size. The "regular size" don't have the reservoir size filled, so there is no reason to have an inspection window.

It's hard to tell from the photograph. It may be that HP offers a large. It's hard to be sure. Canon I know is like 20% sponge 80% reservoir. HP could be 33% 65%. The actual size is rather moot since they clearly don't use "all foam" and their end page yield are a fair bit higher than canon.

So, HP gets access to better Canon technology and while they could, for example, enlarge the cartridges or remove the photo black and formulate their ink so that the black mixes with the colors and then add a photo gray instead...

It's hard to say whether they gained access to "Canon Technology". Keep in mind that patents only last for about 20 years, 14 years for design patents.

...instead all they have "invented" (did you notice the "HP Invent" logo on the Canon licensed printhead ?) is their own little, silly, miserable tricks they have been doing all those years to make profit out of ink.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that HP licensed Canon's printhead? It's true, HP wants to profit from ink, but so does Canon. Canon yields have actually dropped as on the new ip4600 they downsized their cartridges. It's like 350p on their new big black, vs HP's 800p. They are both about 3.5c/page now. Canon was a really good deal.

Kodak uses a similar design on their printheads, but I highly doubt it's licensed from Canon. I think that design is at least 20 years old.

HP does get points for the #02 series of cartridges. Their closed loop head cleaning system did much to actually not waste any ink. But they have abandoned that approach in favor of this "new" design. The fact of the matter is, it's just ink, and it's simply more cost effective to waste it than recycle it. Unfortunate but true.

Sure, Canon has added smartchips as well (though many years after HP and Epson) but they _still_ look like an angel when compared to HP.

So, don't buy an HP. Their technology is inferior and they use Canon's printhead and cartridge designs, but they still use their own way of making big money out of a few drops of ink.

You understand the foam filled cartridge wasn't exactly a "canon" design. That was the NORMAL design. Until like 10 years ago it was the ONLY way to really put ink in a cartridge and prevent it from falling out.

You can accuse HP of copying canon's patented prism detector, that would be reasonable. Perhaps the simple printhead and using chip lithography rather than bonding to make their printheads. That too would be reasonable.

 

[panos]

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that HP licensed Canon's printhead?

Yes, this and that and common sense

It's true, HP wants to profit from ink, but so does Canon

"How much" is the difference. HP came out with the smart chip since the HP2000C professional, since 1999. Canon introduced their first chipped cartridges many years later. HP introduced the idea of disposable printers with their "Apollo" models, while Canon is still responsibly refusing to produce such models.

You understand the foam filled cartridge wasn't exactly a "canon" design.

Canon cartridges are not "foam filled". They also have an ink compartment. No other company did this.

You can accuse HP of copying canon's patented prism detector, that would be reasonable. Perhaps the simple printhead and using chip lithography rather than bonding to make their printheads. That too would be reasonable.

I am afraid I am out of "reasonable" points then. Or perhaps you miss my point. I don't care if HP copies Canon design. My point is that HP finally gets superior technology in their hands and instead of adding some ideas of their own, they just water it down with anti-refilling silliness.

 

[IGExpandingPanda]

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that HP licensed Canon's printhead?

Yes, this and that and common sense

The page you site says
"It seems to us HP borrowed the ink system (five ink tanks) and the permanent print head from Canons Pixma series. HPs ink tanks look similar to Canons."

Seems to doesn't mean it's a fact. HP's takes do look similar to canons. Kodak's look similar as well. Epsons also look rather similar. They are rectangular

It's true, HP wants to profit from ink, but so does Canon

"How much" is the difference. HP came out with the smart chip since the HP2000C professional, since 1999. Canon introduced their first chipped cartridges many years later. HP introduced the idea of disposable printers with their "Apollo" models, while Canon is still responsibly refusing to produce such models.

You understand the HP2000C took the #10 cartridges? It's like a 69ml cartridge for black. IIRC 2200 page yield for $35. That's like 1.5c/page.

Color is 28ml IIRC. I'll give them negative points for employing a smartchip. But the yield on those is like 1430p @ 5% coverage. Again like 2.5c/page each color.

Canon hasn't refused to offer "Apollo" versions of their printers. They have the ip3600 and just about anything below mp500/mx500 takes the PG/CL head on the cartridge. I crunched the numbers once, but basically based on ink volume it was more cost effective to spend $150 on a printer since in ip2600 terms they contained like $200 worth of ink.

IIRC the Apollo p-2200 took the HP C6614A cartridge (#20) which had a 500p yield for about $20 or 4c/page. Now this was a good deal higher than the #45 cartridge or the canon BC-02 cartridge, but by today's standards it's not all that horrid. The current thimble class is somewhere in the 8-11c/page range IIRC.

You understand the foam filled cartridge wasn't exactly a "canon" design.

Canon cartridges are not "foam filled". They also have an ink compartment. No other company did this.

I own an epson 1280. It takes foam filled cartridges.

It's rather hard to site all the examples of foam I've seen throughout the years, but foam was the norm. Now HP has a choice between reservoir filled cartridges and reservoir empty cartridges. I'm not sure exactly the difference between the Canon PG40 and PG50, but it's the same deal. There were very few clear cartridges that I can remember, but I certainly remember many an IBM cartridge (lexmark) that were foam filled.

I forget the model numbers off the top of my head, but before the PG/CL cartridges Canon offered a series of thimble cartridges for their printers, like 10ml black and 5ml each color. THESE WERE FOAM FILLED.

But if your concern is waste plastic, well, HP offers much higher ml/page ratio, much much higher. The only exception to this was their earlier generation cartridges, the #45 series of cartridges was the same as Canon in terms of ml/page. In fact it still is.

You can accuse HP of copying canon's patented prism detector, that would be reasonable. Perhaps the simple printhead and using chip lithography rather than bonding to make their printheads. That too would be reasonable.

I am afraid I am out of "reasonable" points then. Or perhaps you miss my point. I don't care if HP copies Canon design. My point is that HP finally gets superior technology in their hands and instead of adding some ideas of their own, they just water it down with anti-refilling silliness.

You know, I've not seen their printer in action. As far as "hp ideas" they've been doing object oriented printing for years. Canon is still stuck on documented oriented printing. HPs are slightly better for mixed text and graphic documents. HP has made major changes to their ink as seen with their ml/page ratio as well as wilhelm tests. HP text has always been a hair better than Canon even back in the #45 days. The ultimate measure would be quality of photographs, and longevity of photographs, as well as text quality. Speed is a bonus.

As far as HP innovation, the #02 series of printers was pretty innovative. That closed loop ink recycle system, very handy! If it was a canon, you might save a set of cartridges/year if you print once every two weeks. But obviously it's a complex system and it makes more sense to make printers with a cheaper design that waste ink rather than recycle it.

But let's go through your points

1) HP cartridges are not clear
True for the most part, though the new ones offer a window on the XL editions on the D5400 series.
2) HP cartridges for the D5400 series are 100% foam filled.
Not true. They like canon have a reservoir.
3) HP licensed Canon's printhead and cartridge design
This could be true. HP now uses a prism to help meter their tanks. This is not evidence they licensed it, patents expire after 20 years.
4) HP wants to profit from their ink, more than Canon
Sure they want to profit from ink. But HP offers their businessjet series, huge honking cartridges and separate heads. Canon really doesn't offer the same thing, unless you count the ix4000/ix5000 printers, their basic a3+ models which take the same cartridges as the desktop counterparts. You don't get bigger cartridges unless you go with the imagePROGRAFF series, a2 and above. HP at least offers bigger cartridges for their a4/a3 printers.
HP does have a series of thimble class printers, but so does Canon. It's true that Canon's thimble class don't cost quite as much as HP thimble class, but we are talking a choice between 3c/page and 8c/page.
5) HP puts innovate on a very simple printhead that looks like a Canon.
I'll give you that. There doesn't seem to be anything "new" with this printhead. The black nozzle count is 720 @ 14pl. Canon's best model is 512 @ 30pl but current generations is 320 @30pl.

 

[jflan]

Could we please stop all the "one-upmanship" clutter and just exchange ideas in a positive way ??? :|

 

[websnail]

Can I just jump in briefly to note that a pretty experienced industry contact of mine got one of each of the HP/Canon models and did a side by side compare and couldn't find much of a difference at all.

Given that HP already get it's chip technology for some laser products from Canon it seems that HP have at bare minimum borrowed from a few of Canons ideas if not outright licenses or purchased some aspects from them.

Proof is going to be VERY hard to come by because they're going to want to be seen to be different but the common sense aspect does lean heavily in that direction.


Oh and as to point 4.. HP's printheads are getting considerably less reliable especially if you look at the pigment black in the HP88.. My experience of them has been appalling and indicates that the heads were never designed for the job/ink they now support... Yes, including OEM.. When a 30 printhead keeps clogging/banding at 10% of the rated output you have to wonder if they really did the testing properly.

Anyhoo... I'm with Panos and my industry contact... someone did a lot of plagerism somewhere..