John P
|
| posted on 1/6/09 at 03:51 PM |
|
|
Kodak Printers - Any Good?
I'm fed up with the cost of running my Lexmark All In One printer and have spent more on cartridges over the last month than the printer
cost.
Kodak are promoting their range on the basis that they are significantly less expensive to run but I notice they use a 6-ink but two cartridge system
whilst I had assumed seperate cartridges for each colour would be better.
Does anyone have any experience of the current Kodak range or any other suggestions?
John.
|
|
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 1/6/09 at 04:16 PM |
|
|
I don't know about Kodak, but Epsons can be very cheap to run if you don't care about using Epson inks - my local computer market usually
has conversion kits that replace the ink reservoirs with very flexible silicone tubes and a set of remote reservoirs that hold half a litre or so of
each colour. The ink is very cheap in litre bottles. I have no experience of these though, as I have an HP printer.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 1/6/09 at 04:18 PM |
|
|
Classic!
I've just finished a promotion selling these things... and was talking to my boss on the phone when I refreshed and spotted your post!
Check this link about ink prices.
http://www.printandprosper.com
Will write more once off the phone! ;-)
Cheers,
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 1/6/09 at 05:08 PM |
|
|
I have a 3-in-1, but last year bought a HP laserjet 1018, £65 with demo cartridge.
BRILLIANT.
I use it for all my documents, and the cartridge (£36 Cartridge world) last for 2000 sheets.
|
|
|
Guinness
|
| posted on 1/6/09 at 05:43 PM |
|
|
I have an HP C6180, which is an all in one fax, printer, scanner, photo printer.
It has 6 individual ink cartridges.
It's dead easy to use and prints nice photos.
Mike
|
|
|
Keith Weiland
|
| posted on 1/6/09 at 06:24 PM |
|
|
The kodaks are fairly new but I think they mioght be worth a punt if the fit your requirements as far as colour reporduction and resolution is
concerned. The seem to offer very good value.
|
|
|
fov
|
| posted on 1/6/09 at 07:02 PM |
|
|
HP would get my money any day of the week for long term running costs.
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 1/6/09 at 08:45 PM |
|
|
Lexmark - I have been told are the most expensive printers to run. Reason, they do not print the capacity of the ink tanks!
I used to run Epson's but IMO they are expensive too - I've now gone to Canon and consider those to be the cheapest - though the Epson did
give slightly superior photo-prints. If I want photo's now I get them printed commercially.
Steve
|
|
|
RoadkillUK
|
| posted on 1/6/09 at 09:23 PM |
|
|
My experience with Epsons is using more ink during 'cleaning' than printing.
Roadkill - Lee
www.bradford7.co.uk
Latest Picture (14 Sept 2014)
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 4/6/09 at 05:26 PM |
|
|
HP --- no other inkjet is worth having.
To save ink leave the printer switched on 24/7
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
