Tom Hardware review 12/8/05

[Osage]

In the past I have found printer reviews by Tom's hardware guide very informative.
12/8/05 post date is a new review---comparing the HP8250 and HP8050 to the Canon
ip 4250 and 5250.

What I found surprising is how close the HP 8250 came to edging out the two Canons on economy using OEM cartridges. What came as no surprise is that the HP8050 was a distant last place finisher.

What was really disappointing was that the reviewer, Vincent Verhaeghe, said not word one about the chips in the reviewed Canon's.

I wonder if any one else has read this review and what comments they care to make on the review.

 

[KnightCrawler]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/08/canon_hp_xmas_ink_jet_printer_fleet/

The IP5200 is on sale at CompUSA for $129: http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=333953&pfp=srch1

Makes it the best bang for your buck printer !!!

 

[KnightCrawler]

I read the review and it's OK but the Author leaves out the fact that Canon has the IP6600 which has:

1. LCD screen
2. Card Slots
3. 3000 nozzles
4. photo magenta and photo cyan
5. cd dvd printing
6. 1 picoliter droplet

 

[Nifty]

I keep seeing good deals on the new Canon's but don't want to support the whole chipped cart idea.

On a bit of a side note... I don't really see the need for the LCD and card slots on a printer. Do very many people print directly from their cameras / cards?

 

[KnightCrawler]

I keep seeing good deals on the new Canon's but don't want to support the whole chipped cart idea.

On a bit of a side note... I don't really see the need for the LCD and card slots on a printer. Do very many people print directly from their cameras / cards?

I'm pretty sure these types sell to less tech minded people.

I wonder what has taken so long for a chip resetter to hit the market for the Canon's. Be nice to refill the tanks and use a chip reseter to set it back to zero.

 

[Osage]

I agree with the comments about the Canon chips--they suck and its sad to see any workaround thus far come to market.

But what I don't understand is how the HP8250 using Oem cartridges can give even the chipped Canon's a run for their money on economy. After all, the HP8250's ink capacity is far smaller--as low as 3.5 ml in one color and the cartridges are more expensive than the Canon's.----across the board far less ink for more money in the HP8250 (probably by a factor of two or more)-----yet its only barely edged out by the chipped Canon's on per page printing costs?

 

[KnightCrawler]

6 HP ink cartridges:
HP 02 Black, 16 ml,
HP 02 Cyan, 4.5 ml,
HP 02 Magenta, 4.5 ml,
HP 02 Yellow, 4.5 ml,
HP 02 Light Cyan, 4.5 ml,
HP 02 Light Magenta, 4.5ml

They probably based it on the black ink and text pages. Tom's Hardware always has misleading specs.

 

[KnightCrawler]

My reply to the review:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/ftopicp-914073.html#914073

 

[Osage]

6 HP ink cartridges:
HP 02 Black, 16 ml,
HP 02 Cyan, 4.5 ml,
HP 02 Magenta, 4.5 ml,
HP 02 Yellow, 4.5 ml,
HP 02 Light Cyan, 4.5 ml,
HP 02 Light Magenta, 4.5ml

They probably based it on the black ink and text pages. Tom's Hardware always has misleading specs.

As I recall, some past Tom Hardware guide reviews by Vincent Verhaeghe were apple to apple comparisons rather than just accepting manufacturers claims for how many pages one can get at say 5% coverage.

In fact anyone can establish an apple to apple comparison by adopting any given text page. And then starting with fresh cartridges--cause printer A to print the same page over an over again until the cartridge runs dry. Then the same page can be used in printer B with fresh cartridges until it too runs dry after printing the same page over and over again.

Then one can use street prices of OEM cartridges to compute a per page ink consumable cost------maybe not an industry accepted 5% coverage but valid across the test of multiple printers.----by the same token one could compare mixed text and color or a given color photograph of any size. ------and that in fact is what Tom's has been reporting in in recent reviews--per page costs under a variety of conditions.

But this dec 8/05 review made no such apple to apple comparison claim-----and certainly strains any credability.

I can accept that one printer might use ink more efficently than another------but given street prices------that efficency would have to be at least three times better in the HP8250 compared to the two tested Canons with 1 pico liter drops to get the costs they posted.

I have written Toms expressing my doubts and will post if they have the courage to respond with anything more than BS.

 

[websnail]

Then one can use street prices of OEM cartridges to compute a per page ink consumable cost-

I'd actually be curious to see whether or not the actual capabilities (ie: pages printed) would actually differ if aftermarket carts were used just as a comparion.

Certainly I've seen a lot of aftermarket carts for Canon claiming they're putting more ink in theirs, compared to OEMs..

For Epsons obviously you have the chip (and some newer Canons) so it'd worth seeing if they're cramming more ink into the carts AND fixing the chip (if applicable) so it reports more capacity... Not sure at all if that is possible with say an Epson, but it'd be interesting none the less as obviously it'd swing the figures considerably if there was a difference.