OEM Inks vs. Marrutt (or others?)

[spclark]

Venerable StylusPhoto 2200 about to be replaced with a P600. Fed it $$$ on OEM cartridges in its 13 year lifespan.

I don't print anything like high volume but don't want to waste $$$ fussing with third-party ink issues - maintenance time, color-wise or reliability - once the transition's been effected.

Looking for user input on Marrutt's (or others?) products for 'casual' user.

[mearussi]

The new Epsons are successfully blocking the use of all 3rd party inks (in the U.S.) so you're pretty much stuck with OEM. If you do want to use 3rd party inks then you need to buy a used/older model printer.

[GrahamBy]

I'm not sure what you mean by "blocking," but they are certainly being sold by reputable people in Germany:
http://www.farbenwerk.com/ink-for-surecolor-sc-p600
I have no experience of them, so I can't respond to the OP's question, sorry.

[Kumsa]

Well, I've done a lot of investigation (and even purchased one 3rd party ink system) for a P800. No 3rd party, refillable, ink tank has been able to reset a USA P800.

[spclark]

Word from Marrutt customer support indicates no third-party inks for P800.

The P600 I've ordered though CAN and does use them.

[mearussi]

I'm not sure what you mean by "blocking," but they are certainly being sold by reputable people in Germany:
http://www.farbenwerk.com/ink-for-surecolor-sc-p600
I have no experience of them, so I can't respond to the OP's question, sorry.

Europe yes, USA no.

[mearussi]

Word from Marrutt customer support indicates no third-party inks for P800.

The P600 I've ordered though CAN and does use them.

Good, then when someone successfully uses them (more than once) we'll know that's true.

[donbga]

Good, then when someone successfully uses them (more than once) we'll know that's true.

I've read that Epson is closing the door on third party inks world wide on all printers with the possible exception of products sold in Japan. Initially the N. American market did receive some early copies of the new P series printers that would work with non-OEM refillable inks. Non-OEM cart manufacturers rushed refillable carts into the market that will now not work with new printers. This has been verified by Precision Color and Inkjet Mall and may not be solvable now or in the future.

IMO, if this is Epson approach going forward they should produce printers with refillable tanks like Canon and sell less expensive ink when purchased in volume. However that would open the door for third party ink resellers so the consumer is probably screwed.

OEM inks do produce the best quality, and the OEM carts are better quality than their second party replacements so one can assume that OEM products are more expensive to produce, support and market than the small refillers. However the retail expense for OEM products seem to be overly bloated an unfairly marketed.

[mearussi]

I've read that Epson is closing the door on third party inks world wide on all printers with the possible exception of products sold in Japan. Initially the N. American market did receive some early copies of the new P series printers that would work with non-OEM refillable inks. Non-OEM cart manufacturers rushed refillable carts into the market that will now not work with new printers. This has been verified by Precision Color and Inkjet Mall and may not be solvable now or in the future.

IMO, if this is Epson approach going forward they should produce printers with refillable tanks like Canon and sell less expensive ink when purchased in volume. However that would open the door for third party ink resellers so the consumer is probably screwed.

OEM inks do produce the best quality, and the OEM carts are better quality than their second party replacements so one can assume that OEM products are more expensive to produce, support and market than the small refillers. However the retail expense for OEM products seem to be overly bloated an unfairly marketed.

I have yet to figure out why photographers will spend $1,000+ on the latest printer and then put 3rd party inks in them just to save money. If you're trying to get by on the cheap why not buy a much cheaper used printer for your 3rd party inks instead? To me the primary purpose of buying the latest printers is to get the 200 year life expectancy of the latest inks.

[jpegman]

Mearussi said "I have yet to figure out why photographers will spend $1,000+ on the latest printer and then put 3rd party inks in them just to save money. If you're trying to get by on the cheap why not buy a much cheaper used printer for your 3rd party inks instead? To me the primary purpose of buying the latest printers is to get the 200 year life expectancy of the latest inks. "

This assumes that you support over paying 5x-10x for OEM inks, but, that is not an answer for everyone.
When one is a prolific printer and does it for personal use (i.e. not reselling), and wants great results with colors that need to be side-by-side comparison to tell them apart from OEM inks.
And not every one of my photos needs to be archival for 200 years - personally ~50 years would suit me fine!
Buying that $1000 printer is in some ways similar to the fracas over subscription software - many would have preferred to own their Photoshop/LR to renting it for $120/year and many would pay the $1000 for the printer, and prefer buying their inks for $100-$200 instead of the OEM inks for much, MUCH more over and OVER again.
There are no current equivalents for PS or LR, but, their certainly is alternatives for inks.
Some 3rd parties (e.g. Jon Cone) make inks that Epson doesn't even offer (can you retrofit PhotoBlack HD inks into your 3800-3880, no Epson requires you to buy a new printer that locks one out of even the possibility of refilling (US only now - who knows if they eventually implement it worldwide).
The fact is that Epson thinks the 3rd party inks are good enough that they have chosen to limit any refilling via firmware design - they could make a cheaper ink for prolific personal printers, but choose not to since they would lose MONEY.
You can spend your money however you want, but, don't try to make others looking for "good enough" alternatives using the most modern printers as someone missing something - we're not!
Jpegman

[GrahamBy]

Morally, it seems to me that if I buy a product, I should have unencumbered use of it.

Practically, the cost per print of the OEM ink should be pretty small.

Otoh, I'm a bit browned off to see my Canon pro-1000 displaying low ink warnings on all 12 inks, when I have only printed a handful of colour prints. Printing 95% B&W on gloss or lustre, I'm fine with the consumption of the PBK, two greys and the chroma optimiser, but certainly not happy if it turns out I have to replace the full set due to them being emptied into the maintenance cartridge. If that turns out to be the case, the cost/print is much higher than supposed and I'd be tempted to put 3rd party inks into the 8 tanks I barely use.

[donbga]

I have yet to figure out why photographers will spend $1,000+ on the latest printer and then put 3rd party inks in them just to save money. If you're trying to get by on the cheap why not buy a much cheaper used printer for your 3rd party inks instead? To me the primary purpose of buying the latest printers is to get the 200 year life expectancy of the latest inks.

Simply put their is a difference between cheap and inexpensive. The cost of consumables can easily out pace the cost of fixed assets like an expensive printer.

Also keep in mind some non OEM inks are high quality products available for a large percentage less than OEM inks.

Individuals with limited disposable income don't want to produce crap but they do wish to control their expenses.

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

Morally, it seems to me that if I buy a product, I should have unencumbered use of it.

I understand how you feel, but unfortunately it's more complicated than that. First, you are not completely and entirely buying the product. Neither Epson nor Canon will completely sell it to you. They will sell you the plastic and metal but only license you the computer code that makes it work. And the terms of that license have certain limits. If you don't agree to those terms, then they don't agree to license you the firmware and/or software.

Second--and however--this whole licensing model has legal issues and problems that may require legislative solutions. In the traditional model, you have agreed on and made the contract before you pay your money. In the case of the printers, did you truly and meaningfully agree to the license contract that came with the printer firmware and software? I have no problem saying that if you download Microsoft Word and it makes you read the license and agree to it before it installs, then Microsoft it totally within its rights to expect / make you abide by the license--at least as long as you can easily enough get your money back if you refuse to agree. On the other hand, if you've not only spent your money but spent a substantial part of it having a 100-pound (45 kg) printer delivered to your home or business--without having first agreed to the license--then it's not as simple as declining the license agreement, having the installation stop, and filling out a form online for a refund.

Third, at least in some parts of the world, laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (U.S.) impose additional restrictions on what you can do with what you see as yours. You might think those restrictions can be abusive in some circumstances. And I might agree with you. But the law is the law.

Back to morally right and wrong: the distinction between malum in se (inherently / morally wrong, like murder, rape, and robbery) and malum prohibitum (wrong just because a law makes it so, like running a red light) is old and important. On the other hand, it can be argued that there is a moral duty to follow laws, at least except those that force to do something immoral (which DMCA etc. do not do).

To be clear, I'm not saying I have a good answer!

[donbga]

I understand how you feel, but unfortunately it's more complicated than that. First, you are not completely and entirely buying the product. Neither Epson nor Canon will completely sell it to you. They will sell you the plastic and metal but only license you the computer code that makes it work. And the terms of that license have certain limits. If you don't agree to those terms, then they don't agree to license you the firmware and/or software.

Second--and however--this whole licensing model has legal issues and problems that may require legislative solutions. In the traditional model, you have agreed on and made the contract before you pay your money. In the case of the printers, did you truly and meaningfully agree to the license contract that came with the printer firmware and software? I have no problem saying that if you download Microsoft Word and it makes you read the license and agree to it before it installs, then Microsoft it totally within its rights to expect / make you abide by the license--at least as long as you can easily enough get your money back if you refuse to agree. On the other hand, if you've not only spent your money but spent a substantial part of it having a 100-pound (45 kg) printer delivered to your home or business--without having first agreed to the license--then it's not as simple as declining the license agreement, having the installation stop, and filling out a form online for a refund.

Third, at least in some parts of the world, laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (U.S.) impose additional restrictions on what you can do with what you see as yours. You might think those restrictions can be abusive in some circumstances. And I might agree with you. But the law is the law.

Back to morally right and wrong: the distinction between malum in se (inherently / morally wrong, like murder, rape, and robbery) and malum prohibitum (wrong just because a law makes it so, like running a red light) is old and important. On the other hand, it can be argued that there is a moral duty to follow laws, at least except those that force to do something immoral (which DMCA etc. do not do).

To be clear, I'm not saying I have a good answer!

My father once told me, never try being a latrine house lawyer. I have found that was good advice, particularly after reading your post.

[DeanChriss]

Another thing to consider is that printer companies sell printers at low profit margins and count on continued ink sales for the bulk of the profits. Without the ink sales the price of the printers would have to increase dramatically or it wouldn't be worth selling them.

[jpegman]

Another thing to consider is that printer companies sell printers at low profit margins and count on continued ink sales for the bulk of the profits. Without the ink sales the price of the printers would have to increase dramatically or it wouldn't be worth selling them.

This is the printer manufacturers argument/justification for the absurdly ridiculous prices they charge for ink. I personally would be willing to pay 2-3x more for the printer if the refills were reasonable.
It's interesting that Epson with their Eco-Tank printers have done exactly that - and I for one was immediately interested until I found out it was a lower grade dye only ink printer (No GO!).
But, even compared to their other dye printers, the ink Eco-Tank OEM ink cost is very close to 3rd party inks!
Jpegman

[GrahamBy]

I understand how you feel, but unfortunately it's more complicated than that.

Indeed. Thanks for the clear explanation of the situation... somehow I doubt that it is unlikely to be modified in favour of the consumer in either the US or the EU in the near future 

Anyway, this morning my pro-1000 refused to proceed until I changed the maintenance tank. It weighed in at 298g heavier than the replacement, so around 200€ of ink into the bin (or worse, depending on evaporation). I've also just ordered spares for the 8 inks I didn't already have in stock, since they are all showing low ink warnings: including the MBK, Red and Blue, of which my on-paper usage has been essentially zero. Not happy.

[DeanChriss]

This is the printer manufacturers argument/justification for the absurdly ridiculous prices they charge for ink. I personally would be willing to pay 2-3x more for the printer if the refills were reasonable.
It's interesting that Epson with their Eco-Tank printers have done exactly that - and I for one was immediately interested until I found out it was a lower grade dye only ink printer (No GO!).
But, even compared to their other dye printers, the ink Eco-Tank OEM ink cost is very close to 3rd party inks!
Jpegman

I wish ink cost less too, but IMO it's really not worth getting too excited about. I'm using a P7000. The area of a 20x30 inch print is 4.17 square feet and takes about 5.42 ml of ink. The typical price for a 350 ml ink Epson ink cartridge for my printer is $0.40 per ml, so the price of ink is about $2.17 for the print. If I save 65% using third party ink it means I'll save $1.41 on each 20x30 inch print. Likewise I'll save $0.58 on a 16x20 inch print and $0.27 on an 11x14.

If you are running a high volume production shop the savings could add up and be worthwhile. Such shops usually work on small margins and the 3rd party inks could make a difference in the bottom line. For a low volume print maker like me there is not enough to be saved to justify the effort and potential unforeseen problems with unknown inks. For instance, if your printer is under warranty using 3rd party ink will void the warranty. No manufacturer will stand behind a product made by someone else. In my case a 6% savings on frame moldings would save me more money than than getting free ink. A 3% savings on frame moldings would save more money than using the 3rd party inks. Efforts to save money are better spent on the high cost items where saving a couple percent means a lot. OEM ink cost amounts to only a few tenths of a percent of the price of a finished framed and matted print.

[hogloff]

I wish ink cost less too, but IMO it's really not worth getting too excited about. I'm using a P7000. The area of a 20x30 inch print is 4.17 square feet and takes about 5.42 ml of ink. The typical price for a 350 ml ink Epson ink cartridge for my printer is $0.40 per ml, so the price of ink is about $2.17 for the print. If I save 65% using third party ink it means I'll save $1.41 on each 20x30 inch print. Likewise I'll save $0.58 on a 16x20 inch print and $0.27 on an 11x14.

If you are running a high volume production shop the savings could add up and be worthwhile. Such shops usually work on small margins and the 3rd party inks could make a difference in the bottom line. For a low volume print maker like me there is not enough to be saved to justify the effort and potential unforeseen problems with unknown inks. For instance, if your printer is under warranty using 3rd party ink will void the warranty. No manufacturer will stand behind a product made by someone else. In my case a 6% savings on frame moldings would save me more money than than getting free ink. A 3% savings on frame moldings would save more money than using the 3rd party inks. Efforts to save money are better spent on the high cost items where saving a couple percent means a lot. OEM ink cost amounts to only a few tenths of a percent of the price of a finished framed and matted print.

You need to also take into account the wasted inks for automated purging and doing nozzle checks etc... That can easily double your ink costs.

[spclark]

You need to also take into account the wasted inks for automated purging and doing nozzle checks etc... That can easily double your ink costs.

And if, as in my case, your printing needs are infrequent, the doubling you suggest might be quadrupled or greater.

That's the rub with these things that leads me to want a less-costly ink source: every time I start the printer it uses a percentage of every cartridge merely to get things going rather than actually provide output.

Clearly the more one prints the more likely it is printer manufacturers are inclined to 'lock out' third-party ink use. With print-for-pay, cost of supplies will be passed on to their customers where with more modest needs an individual or hobbyist bears the full expense.

Anyone know offhand what the volume is on StylusPhoto2200 cartridges? I looked around last night, came up clueless. @ 26ml the P600's cost more than double so I'd hazard a guess the 2200's are something in the 10-13ml range?