Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

US: Canon PIXMA PRO-100 w/paper, free ship, $59 after rebate
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:16 pm    Post subject: US: Canon PIXMA PRO-100 w/paper, free ship, $59 after rebate Reply with quote

Grab the deal from Adorama through October 31.

Includes 50-pack of Pro Luster 13x17-inch paper, with free shipping.

Pretty much worth it, for the half-price cost of a full set of ink tanks. Wink



I'll probably get another this time around; it's a far cheaper way to get just a new printhead,
or complete ink set, or the paper.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As of October 3, the deal is over.

You can still get printer with paper and free shipping,
plus a $250 rebate, but final cost will now be $119.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The shipping would kill me.... Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I got the $100 deal via B&H before I saw this one. Damn they give them away just to sell a couple of pints of ink.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
The shipping would kill me.... Rolling Eyes


I know it.

Really, I don't understand why similar offers can't be offered in Europe
and other continents across the globe. Gets me mad, really.
If the rest of the world's buyers were to be offered such bargains,
Canon would likely increase their ink sales a thousandfold.

For anyone interested, look to Octoinkjet(UK/EU) or PrecisionColors(US)
for extremely low-cost ways to refill ink tanks
for these printers. My MG5320 is on refills with no troubles
from PrecisionColors inks, and I have two backups for the PRO-100.
My chip resetter comes from Octo for the PRO-100, with the resetter
for the MG 5320 from Precision Colors.

Also check out the PrinterKnowledge forum for more information.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I was already mad from expensive original inks and destroyed printers due to the use of cheap inks I've recently upgraded to an Epson ET-7750.
Considering it's by far lowest running costs (with original ink at least 90% cheaper than any other comparable printer) the relatively high price is still a bargain and the photo printing quality on special paper up to A3 is really excellent; i.e. by far more than good enough for me.
Definitely the best printer I've ever owned.

Curios to see whether other printer manufacturers like Canon will follow this new concept or if they continue to make their profit with inks.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At $650 Epson ET-7750 with only cmyk cannot possibly compete with Pixma 100 8-ink output. Ink savings using inks suggested by Craig -- there is inexpensive ink and there is cheap ink; of course cheap ink will destroy a good printer.

Epson refurbished Web site has cmyk printer/scanner/fax for $49!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
At $650 Epson ET-7750 with only cmyk cannot possibly compete with Pixma 100 8-ink output. Ink savings using inks suggested by Craig -- there is inexpensive ink and there is cheap ink; of course cheap ink will destroy a good printer.

Epson refurbished Web site has cmyk printer/scanner/fax for $49!


That's a myth. My last Epson had 7-ink output with very expensive ink and the result was in direct comparison by no means better than the ET-7750. Did you ever compare it yourself? In the end it's the quality of the printer and not the number of cartridges. Finally there is only RGB, isn't it?

BTW, all my Epsons (I had many, also expensive ones) collapsed by using 3rd party ink.

The unique feature of the ET-7750 is that it comes already with original ink for at least 2 years usage (based on my requirements) and the original refill in small bottles is very reasonable. The original refill for my last printer for just a couple of prints was more than 100 EUR/USD. The original refill for the ET-7750 is much cheaper and lasts for apprx. 3.400 photos.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
At $650 Epson ET-7750 with only cmyk cannot possibly compete with Pixma 100 8-ink output. Ink savings using inks suggested by Craig -- there is inexpensive ink and there is cheap ink; of course cheap ink will destroy a good printer.

Epson refurbished Web site has cmyk printer/scanner/fax for $49!


That's a myth. My last Epson had 7-ink output with very expensive ink and the result was in direct comparison by no means better than the ET-7750. Did you ever compare it yourself? In the end it's the quality of the printer and not the number of cartridges. Finally there is only RGB, isn't it?

BTW, all my Epsons (I had many, also expensive ones) collapsed by using 3rd party ink.

The unique feature of the ET-7750 is that it comes already with original ink for at least 2 years usage (based on my requirements) and the original refill in small bottles is very reasonable. The original refill for my last printer for just a couple of prints was more than 100 EUR/USD. The original refill for the ET-7750 is much cheaper and lasts for apprx. 3.400 photos.


Not a myth. Well documented online. Yes, I compared output from Epson Photo Stylus 1400 with Epson WF-2750. Differences are subtle, of course more apparent where those differences exist. I looked at test pages. I looked at real world results. To my eyes, the 4-color printer output is a little harsher colors in areas better defined using more colors. Perfectly acceptable for me, however I would use the printer with more colors for commercial or archival use. A 4-color print hanging at at friend's would drive me nuts knowing the difference.

I've used CIS Inks with Epson 1400 for years without problems. I think storage and usage rate very much affect whether any ink will break a print head. Good luck getting your printer's big ink tanks to be problem free for 2 years. Those Epson printers are designed for high usage, not for long-term ink storage.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
tb_a wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
At $650 Epson ET-7750 with only cmyk cannot possibly compete with Pixma 100 8-ink output. Ink savings using inks suggested by Craig -- there is inexpensive ink and there is cheap ink; of course cheap ink will destroy a good printer.

Epson refurbished Web site has cmyk printer/scanner/fax for $49!


That's a myth. My last Epson had 7-ink output with very expensive ink and the result was in direct comparison by no means better than the ET-7750. Did you ever compare it yourself? In the end it's the quality of the printer and not the number of cartridges. Finally there is only RGB, isn't it?

BTW, all my Epsons (I had many, also expensive ones) collapsed by using 3rd party ink.

The unique feature of the ET-7750 is that it comes already with original ink for at least 2 years usage (based on my requirements) and the original refill in small bottles is very reasonable. The original refill for my last printer for just a couple of prints was more than 100 EUR/USD. The original refill for the ET-7750 is much cheaper and lasts for apprx. 3.400 photos.


Not a myth. Well documented online. Yes, I compared output from Epson Photo Stylus 1400 with Epson WF-2750. Differences are subtle, of course more apparent where those differences exist. I looked at test pages. I looked at real world results. To my eyes, the 4-color printer output is a little harsher colors in areas better defined using more colors. Perfectly acceptable for me, however I would use the printer with more colors for commercial or archival use. A 4-color print hanging at at friend's would drive me nuts knowing the difference.

I've used CIS Inks with Epson 1400 for years without problems. I think storage and usage rate very much affect whether any ink will break a print head. Good luck getting your printer's big ink tanks to be problem free for 2 years. Those Epson printers are designed for high usage, not for long-term ink storage.


Anyway, I'm really happy with my new printer and as already stated, print quality is more than fine for me on Epson premium photo paper. Quality may be worse if other papers are used. Therefore I stick to original products. No more (expensive) experiments. Wink

Luckily the printer came with a 3-years guarantee. Obviously Epson is really confident that even within 3 years it will operate free of troubles, irrespective of usage level. I will see anyway if I have to send it to repair. At least it will be free of charge.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Curios to see whether other printer manufacturers like Canon will follow this new concept or if they continue to make their profit with inks.

Canon already has such printers, with their MegaTank series.
I don't know how long they have been available, but I believe it's been a year or more.
They are all CMYK 4-color systems so far, with dye for CMY and pigment for black.

At USD $11.99-$17.99 for ink bottles directly from Canon, they're very cost-effective,
and less expensive than most of their individual cartridges for other printers.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SkedAddled wrote:
tb_a wrote:
Curios to see whether other printer manufacturers like Canon will follow this new concept or if they continue to make their profit with inks.

Canon already has such printers, with their MegaTank series.
I don't know how long they have been available, but I believe it's been a year or more.
They are all CMYK 4-color systems so far, with dye for CMY and pigment for black.

At USD $11.99-$17.99 for ink bottles directly from Canon, they're very cost-effective,
and less expensive than most of their individual cartridges for other printers.


Obviously nothing really comparable to the Epson ET-7750 from Canon. Only up to A4 and according various test reports rather mediocre for photo printing; also lesser resolution. More or less typical office printers.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Ink savings using inks suggested by Craig -- there is inexpensive ink and there is cheap ink; of course cheap ink will destroy a good printer.


The same can be said for those "compatible" cartridges out there, too.
Most are filled with far more generic, all-purpose inks than the ones from OctoInkjet
and PrecisionColors(and some others). Octo and PC both are actively involved in
tweaking and refining their inks & dyes to be as close to OEM as they are able to,
and the process is continually ongoing in order to improve fade resistance,
color match, drying times, etc.
The third-party cartridges themselves can also be physically inferior to OEM,
and usually are, as well as the chips on them, which both contribute to problems.
Third-party carts wrecked my MG5320's printhead, much to my dismay.
Probably because of the ink formulations, not providing proper cooling to
the printhead's heat-operated function of delivering ink to paper.

In fact, founders of both abovementioned vendors, who are also actively
involved in ink/dye formulations, are active members of the PrinterKnowledge
forums I've mentioned, which is why I know of their ongoing development.
It's worth noting that Mike, of PrecisionColors, was the one to accidentally
discover how the problem of the "Yellow Jell-O" occurred in Canon's CLI-42
cart for the PRO-100 yellow, and went on to find out how to eliminate that
clogging issue with refilled cartridges, successfully.

The unanimous concensus is to use OEM cartridges, thoroughly flushed/cleaned,
and a chip resetter, for reliable refilling & reuse of cartridges.
Using quality inks from an established vendor, following their advice,
and plenty of people have successfully refilled and reused OEM cartridges
for many years across dozens and hundreds of refills.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:

Obviously nothing really comparable to the Epson ET-7750 from Canon. Only up to A4 and according various test reports rather mediocre for photo printing; also lesser resolution. More or less typical office printers.


True, that's what they are intended to be used for.
It may be a new direction for them for photo-quality printers in the future, however.
Time will tell...


PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many years ago someone commented about the cost if ink. As I don't print a huge volume (where do you keep them? How much display space do you have?) and am not into this commercially, my usage is not that large. My counterpoint is how much does it cost for a night out at a nice restaurant and bar?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nesster wrote:
Many years ago someone commented about the cost if ink. As I don't print a huge volume (where do you keep them? How much display space do you have?) and am not into this commercially, my usage is not that large. My counterpoint is how much does it cost for a night out at a nice restaurant and bar?


Cost is only one side of the coin. The other side is convenience and environment protection. Those tiny ink cartridges have to be changed quite often and finally they create a lot of problematic waste as well....

BTW, I'm printing also a lot of "traditional photos" as giveaway, not only for display on any wall.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nesster wrote:
Many years ago someone commented about the cost if ink.


It's outrageous. Rolling Eyes

I read an article on the 'net a few years back, discussing ink costs.
The article explained that on average, inks for printers cost several times more
per fluid ounce than the world's most expensive commercially-available perfume frangrances! Shocked


PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
...

BTW, I'm printing also a lot of "traditional photos" as giveaway, not only for display on any wall.


Yes! My Wf-2750 $49 does quite well for that! The T-7750 $650 price ttag just for 17 " wide prints I cannot justify. I would not give away many 17" prints unless printed on more than 4 color printer. I chose 2750 over high ink capacity model only a few dollars more because I was worried about length of time ink can last in reservoir. 2750 ink set is $25 from Epson.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not long time ago but actual: The cost of an original 7 ml cartridge for my last printer was 15 EUR (2.14 EUR per ml) and the cost of the original refill ink for my Eco-Tank printer is 13 EUR for a 70 ml bottle (0.18 EUR per ml); i.e. my old Epson printer was 12 times more expensive in operation. That's not nothing and I doubt that the ink for my last printer was really more expensive in production. Does the non-refillable cartridge explain the high price? I don't think so....

Therefore for me the 540.- EUR investment in the new A3 5-color Eco-Tank printer incl. 3-years guarantee and color for most probably at least 2 years usage makes more than just sense as it delivers exactly the same excellent quality like my old multi-color photo printer (which collapsed after 2 years usage) in direct comparison. What I've read in test reports, the smaller and cheaper A4 Eco-Tank versions with just 4 colors seem to deliver not as good photo print quality. I was looking only for A3 printers anyway and I didn't find anything comparable in a quality vs. cost consideration and I took a very close look into Canon printers as well.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laugh 1

Let's see...buy 5 Canon Pixma Pro 100 or 1 Epson -7750?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Laugh 1

Let's see...buy 5 Canon Pixma Pro 100 or 1 Epson -7750?


BTW, the price for the Canon Pixma Pro-100 is 450.- EUR in Europe, i.e. only 90.- EUR cheaper than the ET-7750 and the original ink is still apprx. 10 times more expensive and not included for 2 years usage, i.e. actually the Canon is the more expensive solution in a total cost consideration in my part of the world. The printing quality seems to be comparable (according "alaTest" both 89 points), the Epson has the higher resolution.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
Laugh 1

Let's see...buy 5 Canon Pixma Pro 100 or 1 Epson -7750?


BTW, the price for the Canon Pixma Pro-100 is 450.- EUR in Europe, i.e. only 90.- EUR cheaper than the ET-7750 and the original ink is still apprx. 10 times more expensive and not included for 2 years usage, i.e. actually the Canon is the more expensive solution in a total cost consideration in my part of the world. The printing quality seems to be comparable (according "alaTest" both 89 points), the Epson has the higher resolution.


Well in my part of the world...LOL

My $49 4 in 1 doesn't do 17" but I'm guessing photo output quality isn't much if any below the $650 US 4 in 1 printer. It'll take me about 7 years to spend the difference on ink.

$650 US is quite an initial outlay of cash for many folks.

I buy cheap refurbished printers from Epson Refurbished Store. I cold have spent $69 for the model with bulk tanks.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Epson Expression Premium XP-900 (almost 200,- EUR in Europe) would have been the direct comparable A3 normal cartridges 5 ink printer without ink and 12 times higher running cost. Obviously the only difference is the ink system.
Time will tell if the concept of high initial and almost no running cost will be the more economic one. Wink
For sure it's more environment friendly as already explained.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Digital Picture Frame
Tablet
Smartphone
Computer
TV

The near universal sharing of digital pictures and video makes wonder why anybody would print a hard copy. Saves on ink, and paqper.