Printer replacement suggestion?

[Basil]

The print head in my Canon Pixma iP8500 has packed in and I have to decide whether to replace it or buy a new printer.

Replacement print head: About £95

Looked at: Canon Pixma iP7250 (£60 or £70) & Epson WorkForce Pro WP-4535 DWF (£170)

Bought the Epson but didn't like the photo print quality cf my old iP8500 and returned it. It has pigmented ink so perhaps not a great idea. (Probably lucky to get a refund having used it. Thank you Curry's).

I'm not sure whether to have a punt on the Canon Pixma iP7250 which uses pigment-based black ink for text on plain paper, and dye-based inks for photo printing or buy a print head costing more than a new printer.

Has anyone a suggestion for a printer which will print as well as the Canon Pixma iP8500?

[mixture]

Bought the Epson but didn't like the photo print quality

Cheap Epsons are not that good.

Also Epsons in general don't print that well if you don't have the paper profiles setup correctly.

[Background Noise]

This doesn't answer your question but I ended up separating the two functions. I have a Canon which only gets used now for photos (and copying/scanning) and a cheap B&W laser (which was cheaper than the price of its own toner cartridge) for the black and white/text/documents. All you need is twice the space!

[Basil]

Thank you both.
Noted advice re paper profiles setup. I was wondering about that and whether using my usual papers which I use for dye based ink may have unfairly detracted from the pigment based Epson performance.

[P.Pilcher]

Be advised that I thought I would be clever when my Canon iP4700 print head packed up. It was either buy another head or, for the same price a new Canon iP4900 printer. Although my old printer was little worn otherwise, I purchased a new printer. But then I discovered that my refillable cartridges wouldn't work so I had to buy another set which set m back another £15 or so and then decided that I had better stock up on more ink so that cost me another 20 odd quid. Still with this system a cartridge refill costs me about 50p so I have saved a fortune over the years so I can't really complain - but I still should have bought a new head!

P.P.

[Sunnyjohn]

I had the same problem - at least I thought I did, but managed to fix the Canon head using an excellent website which tells you how. However, I bought cheaper replacement cartridges after several people suggested this and then it was pointed out to me that these do not produce archive quality prints. We print family photos for our children and grandchildren and we want them to be archive quality. So I have decided to buy a Canon bottom of the range printer but with the same head as the one I have and use archive inks in that, then use the other Canon for all our other colour printing. We also have a little Brother B/W printer to keep costs down. If you think you might be able to renovate your existing print head, which I managed to do and it's now working perfectly, send me a private email and I'll give you all the info. You don't need to be an engineer, by the way!

[airship]

YESSIREEEE...?!

Another valuable opportunity for airship to castigate HP printers...

NEVER, EVER AGAIN BUY A HP "all in 1" printer. Spent EUR 500 on a HP "SOHO" back in 2003 bought through DELL. Literally just 2 years later (and just out of the extended 24 month guarantee...), it suffered a "carriage-return" failure and became a very heavy "paper-weight". At "the office" we've had a few HP "all in 1"s too. Whilst never suffering from the "carriage-return" failure of my own, they never lasted in an office environment and required replacement within 2 years or less, with lots of stuff "breaking-off" etc. (we used duct-tape on 1 to keep the access door to the ink-jet cartridges closed).

Replaced my own with a CANON MP780 "all in 1" (with good fax facility, though hardly use the fax anymore in 2014) in 2005. Replaced the CANON print-head (not difficult) for EUR 65.00 in 2011. It's a "work-horse", always reliable and still going strong today.

Can't really comment on printing efficiency or performance, but on cost of cartridges etc. my MP780 appears to have been quite economical and certainly CANON do not appear to "gouge" their customer (ie. sell the printer cheap, and make up for that in exorbitant prices on replacement cartridges) compared to certain mfrs. including HP.

In 2014, it would make absolute sense to have 2 separate printers. 1 dedicated to photo-quality printing. Another, dedicated to everything else. We have a couple of tiny SAMSUNG SCX-3205W B&W (also scan in colour) laser printers in "the office". It never ceases to amaze me at how fast they are at making an old-fashioned photocopy: scan and printout in 3-4 seconds "start to finish"...?!

DON'T BUY HP! BUY CANON (or SAMSUNG) instead!

[mixture]

Another valuable opportunity for airship to castigate HP printers...

For the purposes of balance, I think you should limit the extent of that comment to inkjets. HP lasers are perfectly good (although Xerox colour lasers are better than HP colour lasers, you can't beat HP black & white lasers.... they're real solid workhorses and will take years of abuse before they need an overhaul).

I can however extend your comment in another direction... don't buy Kodak ink jets.

[Saab Dastard]

I won't hear a word against HP lasers - my current HP laser is still chugging away happily after 10 years. I was given it for nothing as a result of a corporate technology refresh, and it had already done 3 years service as a networked office printer prior to my ownership.

You may well have a point about HP inkjets and all-in-ones - one relation of mine had a HP all-in-one and it was not a happy experience.

SD

[llondel]

I have an HP LJ4MP and a 5SiMX, both dating back to the 90s and both still working. If you're going to bash HP printers, I hope it's aimed at the newer plastic ones, because on the old workhorses you're more likely to break your hammer.

Current printer here (temp place, many miles and an ocean from the two HPs) is a Canon MX922, mainly because the sales guy at Fry's talked me into it. Only $50 (£30) so even if it ends up as a scanner I haven't lost much.

[mixture]

I have an HP LJ4MP and a 5SiMX, both dating back to the 90s and both still working.

Aah yes... the era when there was nothing better then the smell of ozone emanating from a laser printer in the morning.

[Mac the Knife]

"....the era when there was nothing better then the smell of ozone emanating from a l@ser printer in the morning."



I have an ancient HP Deskjet that still works nicely on the few occasions when I bring it out of retirement - I had a recent HP l@ser that I junked because it was crap. No more HP for me until they pull their socks up.

Brother all-in-one l@ser has worked perfectly for years without a hitch, and a recent Samsung l@ser on the network just does it's thing well, quietly and reliably.

Mac

[Mike-Bracknell]

The BIG culprit in all of this is Lexmark, with their loss-leading hardware and overpriced consumables. That was a game-changer in the printing market, and led to the bottom falling out of the printer hardware side and the associated alpha-beta-ship occurring which meant horrendous quality slips not only on the hardware side but worse still on the software and drivers side.

Incidentally, whilst SD won't hear a bad thing about HP laserjets, i'd agree with two caveats:

1) We don't include GDI printers into that
2) We don't include software/drivers into that

As regards #1, it's a horrible cheapskate way to print that gives nasty incompatibilities
As regards #2, HP make some of the worst software installers in the business, and they never recognise that their desktop printers might actually need to be spooled through servers. I've lost count of the times i've needed to start the driver installs, wait until the setup process complains about an "incompatible operating system" (despite it being the same subsystem between client and server), and delving in the temporary files for the unpacked drivers before the setup program deletes them again.

I'll stop now before this becomes an extended rant into the commoditisation of IT and how marketing departments should never be allowed in the same room as anyone doing IT.

/Pining for the days of the £3500 HP Laserjet 3Si MX - now that was a beast of a printer.

[vulcanised]

My experience of HP inkjets has been mostly good.

Experience of HP software is that it is to be avoided at all costs.

[jimtherev]

When I lived in Bracknell, back in the day, Mike, I knew a couple of guys who claimed to write software for HP.
My opinion of HP's drivers just about matches my opinion of those blokes.

[mixture]

I'll stop now before this becomes an extended rant into the commoditisation of IT and how marketing departments should never be allowed in the same room as anyone doing IT.

Hear hear !

[cattletruck]

I had a second hand Gestetner laser printer that did 5 years hard labour in a government bureaucracy before I got it. Built like a brick sh!thouse and weighed a fair bit too. Served me well until the 'fad' of colour inkjets saw me foolishly retire it before its time. Pulled it to tiny bits just for the fun of it , geez they were built very well.

Can't say nuthin good about the new ones except they're all fragile rubbish made out of plastic that feels like it's about to decompose anytime soon and have annoying operational idiosyncrasies.

[Basil]

Thanks for all the comment and advice.
Finally went for Canon iP7250 printer (already have an Epson Perfection 4870 scanner which can also scan slides and negatives).
Seems OK. Don't like the bundled software which runs very slowly but my iP8500 'Easy Photoprint' works with the iP7250.
I preferred the iP8500 top rear feed for photos/labels/scrap paper etc but the iP7250 has both trays at the front which would suit a user who has the printer stowed in a rack; talking about which:

[jimtherev]

Oooh. Did she come bundled with your printer?

[middlesbrough]

canon mg5550

Very pleased with the Canon MG5550, individual 5ink.. £79-99