If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A caution on Canon printers
I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace. When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently replaceable. Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black, and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure. I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer wholesaler, at least in London. (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty much the price of the printer. As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon. In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels. There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so, the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5, which is clearly ridiculous. I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000 page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000 pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the printer in the first place. I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products, makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to foster this 'throw away' culture. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Although I have no reason to doubt what you have written, I sincerely
hope your information is somehow inaccurate. It was appearing that Canon was one of the only companies showing some real leadership in getting away from the "throw away" printer which was basically a box to sell ink out of. They have reasonably easy to refill cartridges, which are also relatively cheap even as OEM, they have a replaceable and user serviceable head, and they are rumored to be coming out with a one picolitre dot printer which will allow for the removal of the wasteful light cyan and magenta inks. Ever since Canon reintroduced their inkjets with their completely redesigned head, I have been worried about the possibility of head failure and either difficulty in locating them, or of, the head price being inflated to make the printer cheaper to replace than repair. Like yourself, I find the idea of tossing out an otherwise fully functional printer abhorrent, wasteful, and environmentally unacceptable and I do hope Canon is not falling into the same business model that every other printer manufacturer seems to have followed. I was just beginning to appreciate Canon for what appeared to be high ethical standards in this market. If anyone can offer contrary information to that which Andrew has ascertained about head replacement on current Canon printers, I would like to hear about it. Art Andrew Mayo wrote: I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace. When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently replaceable. Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black, and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure. I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer wholesaler, at least in London. (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty much the price of the printer. As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon. In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels. There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so, the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5, which is clearly ridiculous. I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000 page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000 pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the printer in the first place. I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products, makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to foster this 'throw away' culture. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
My S600 printhead failed a couple of weeks ago. Since I paid the grand sum
of $5.00 for this unit on EBay a few years ago, I wasn't really worried about it and got a brand new i560 for $49.95. The S range of Canon printers is discontinued and a new print head for the S600 would have been about $90. They are not easily available as the OP stated, whichever country you are in. I guess the cost of the printhead is offset by the cartridges which are so cheap. The S600 is sitting in the garage, along with an old BJC-8200 and an S800.... all of which suffered the same fate as regards the printhead. There's also an ancient BJC-4450 in there.... which still works but it's a little slow for me nowadays! Anyone want them for the cost of shipping? I call them my 'retired' units! -- Cari (MS-MVP Printing, Imaging & Hardware) www.coribright.com "Arthur Entlich" wrote in message news:i_S5d.120859$KU5.81567@edtnps89... Although I have no reason to doubt what you have written, I sincerely hope your information is somehow inaccurate. It was appearing that Canon was one of the only companies showing some real leadership in getting away from the "throw away" printer which was basically a box to sell ink out of. They have reasonably easy to refill cartridges, which are also relatively cheap even as OEM, they have a replaceable and user serviceable head, and they are rumored to be coming out with a one picolitre dot printer which will allow for the removal of the wasteful light cyan and magenta inks. Ever since Canon reintroduced their inkjets with their completely redesigned head, I have been worried about the possibility of head failure and either difficulty in locating them, or of, the head price being inflated to make the printer cheaper to replace than repair. Like yourself, I find the idea of tossing out an otherwise fully functional printer abhorrent, wasteful, and environmentally unacceptable and I do hope Canon is not falling into the same business model that every other printer manufacturer seems to have followed. I was just beginning to appreciate Canon for what appeared to be high ethical standards in this market. If anyone can offer contrary information to that which Andrew has ascertained about head replacement on current Canon printers, I would like to hear about it. Art |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Mayo" wrote in message om... I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace. When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently replaceable. Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black, and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure. I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer wholesaler, at least in London. (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty much the price of the printer. As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon. In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels. There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so, the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5, which is clearly ridiculous. I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000 page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000 pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the printer in the first place. I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products, makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to foster this 'throw away' culture. Agree with all you say, Andrew, except the bit about buying an Epson. (Phrases like "shooting self in foot" come to mind). I'm in the same situation with my S520 showing first signs of head problems, have found just http://www.systeminsight.co.uk/acata...ssemblies.html for £77 which is indeed a silly price. Maybe they are very expensive because they don't sell many because ...oh well. The 520 has been an excellent printer while it lasted, and more than covered what I used to spend on film and photographic prints - wonder how long a Pixma IP4000 would last? Laurence |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Cari" wrote in message nk.net... My S600 printhead failed a couple of weeks ago. Since I paid the grand sum of $5.00 for this unit on EBay a few years ago, I wasn't really worried about it and got a brand new i560 for $49.95. The S range of Canon printers is discontinued and a new print head for the S600 would have been about $90. They are not easily available as the OP stated, whichever country you are in. I guess the cost of the printhead is offset by the cartridges which are so cheap. The S600 is sitting in the garage, along with an old BJC-8200 and an S800.... all of which suffered the same fate as regards the printhead. There's also an ancient BJC-4450 in there.... which still works but it's a little slow for me nowadays! Anyone want them for the cost of shipping? I call them my 'retired' units! -- Hmmm, you do realize that Canon has a Customer Loyalty Program. This enables owners of Canon products which are no longer under warranty to receive a discount towards the purchase of a new product. It is also shipped (free) to your door. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Mayo" wrote in message om... I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace. When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently replaceable. Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black, and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure. I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer wholesaler, at least in London. (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty much the price of the printer. As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon. In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels. There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so, the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5, which is clearly ridiculous. I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000 page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000 pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the printer in the first place. I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products, makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to foster this 'throw away' culture. First I am not sure who quoted the printhead life to you, but I'd say they were off. I currently own 3 Canon printers and have had 4 others in the past. All have lasted 3 or more years and seen moderate to heavy use (6 kids in the house) and never a printhead issue. In fact, I have only had problems twice in nearly 8 years and both times had a replacement at my door the next day. As for cost of the replacement printhead, the original quote was actually a little conservative, but not by much. The current price you were quoted I would agree is way out of line and is about twice the actual cost (here in the states at least). They are only available here from Canon Parts or a service center and the service center can tack on what ever they want for the cost of an out of warranty part. Even at the $60 cost though this could be a good reason to go for Canon's Extended Service Plan. Unlike other manufactures, they actually cover the printhead under their warranty and the two year extension continues this coverage. So for about $50 you get 3 years of coverage and basically have to worry about nothing but ink! Recently upgraded under their Customer Loyalty Program to move up from an old printer that was finally starting to give out on me after nearly 4 years. With the discount they offered under the plan and a extended service plan, cost is still much less than originally paid for the old printer, got a better printer and shipped right to my door for free. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Laurence Wilmer" wrote in message ... "Andrew Mayo" wrote in message om... I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace. When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently replaceable. Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black, and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure. I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer wholesaler, at least in London. (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty much the price of the printer. As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon. In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels. There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so, the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5, which is clearly ridiculous. I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000 page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000 pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the printer in the first place. I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products, makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to foster this 'throw away' culture. Agree with all you say, Andrew, except the bit about buying an Epson. (Phrases like "shooting self in foot" come to mind). I'm in the same situation with my S520 showing first signs of head problems, have found just http://www.systeminsight.co.uk/acata...ssemblies.html for £77 which is indeed a silly price. Maybe they are very expensive because they don't sell many because ...oh well. The 520 has been an excellent printer while it lasted, and more than covered what I used to spend on film and photographic prints - wonder how long a Pixma IP4000 would last? I just got the iP4000 and love it. Had an old S520 (4 years old) that started grinding about 1 in 10 times I would use it after kids yanked a paper jam out of it. After calling to see if cost effective to get repaired Canon offered me 10% off the iP4000 and shipped it next day to my door free of charge. Not a bad printer for $137 !! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article PC Medic says...
Unlike other manufactures, they actually cover the printhead under their warranty Canon are very generous in the US market. In other areas the printhead is regarded as a consumable like ink. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
PC Medic wrote: "Cari" wrote in message nk.net... My S600 printhead failed a couple of weeks ago. Since I paid the grand sum of $5.00 for this unit on EBay a few years ago, I wasn't really worried about it and got a brand new i560 for $49.95. The S range of Canon printers is discontinued and a new print head for the S600 would have been about $90. They are not easily available as the OP stated, whichever country you are in. I guess the cost of the printhead is offset by the cartridges which are so cheap. The S600 is sitting in the garage, along with an old BJC-8200 and an S800.... all of which suffered the same fate as regards the printhead. There's also an ancient BJC-4450 in there.... which still works but it's a little slow for me nowadays! Anyone want them for the cost of shipping? I call them my 'retired' units! -- Hmmm, you do realize that Canon has a Customer Loyalty Program. This enables owners of Canon products which are no longer under warranty to receive a discount towards the purchase of a new product. It is also shipped (free) to your door. Do they also pay to ship the OLD printer back to them? If printer companies are going to obsolesce their product by making replacement parts impossible to come by or horribly overpriced, then they should be stuck with the old hulk of a printer than has no use to the end user any longer. Art |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon multifunction printers and SP2 | John Latter | Printers | 11 | October 9th 04 04:08 PM |
new Canon printers - iP3000 | lew@csus_abcdefg.edu | Printers | 2 | July 26th 04 10:09 PM |
HP everyday photo paper with canon printers | gigi | Printers | 1 | May 8th 04 04:37 PM |
Lyson quad inks for Canon printers | Jim Youngmeyer | Printers | 0 | January 30th 04 05:25 PM |