Annual Replacement of iPF5000 Printheads?

[John Hollenberg]

There is a disturbing report by a poster on Outback Photo that he has asked different people at Canon Support on four different occasions about the life of the iPF5000 printheads.  On each occasion, he was told that it is recommended to replace them annually for optimal image quality.  This is the same recommendation that is in the field service manual.  There was no specification re: how much use they had during the year.  Does this mean there is a previously undisclosed additional annual cost of $1200 to run this printer?  As usual, there is no official word from Canon on this matter.  Pretty sad.

PS For those who missed it, Canon has now released Wilhelm results showing approximately 95 years for the Lucia inks on several papers.  About the same as Epson, not nearly as good as HP.  See the Wiki for the link.

--John

[JPrimgaard]

Spoke with Jim at Shades of Paper.  He stated that he is aware of the larger format Canons that have been in production use for a year now without any head issues.  He stated that the heads are the same.

I personally ordered an ipf5000 today from Jim (great guy by the way), and I don't think that anyone should have any issues with the heads.  Jim has sold a lot of Canon printers and has had no printhead issues to date.

Granted, if you have a bad head outside of the short warranty, you may have a problem if you haven't purchased from a reputable dealer who is willing to go to bat with Canon on your behalf.  But I feel that the heads are not going to be an issue.  My money is now where my mouth is, it's shipping today.

I feel that this printhead issue may be getting blown out of proportion.  If I have problems with mine, well...... guess I'll feel differently.  Time will tell.  But so far the track record (to my knowledge) on the printheads is good.

Jake

[John Hollenberg]

Jake,

I don't disagree with anything you have said, but why would Canon support be telling people this?  Just another example of Canon shooting themselves in the foot?  Do they know less about their own printer than anyone else (a distinct possibility)?  It seems to me that Canon would want to be reassuring people that this (annual replacement) would only be needed with the heaviest of commercial use if that is the case.

--John

[Sal Baker]

This is very discouraging for someone like me in the market for a printer.  The manufacturer does not have a warranty on crucial parts of a new printer and then warns that the same parts should be replaced annually.  Does not instill a great amount of consumer confidence.

[JPrimgaard]

Both of you are right.

In the end you have to buy what you feel good about and what you can live with.

Jake

[John Hollenberg]

Both of you are right.

In the end you have to buy what you feel good about and what you can live with.

Jake

I bought the iPF5000 a long time ago, and after the initial problems got solved am not having any problems with it.  It just amazes me that every time things are looking up for the iPF5000 Canon does something to undercut its success.  I am wondering if they decided they don't want to go after the photographers market, and will concentrate on those who print signs and banners.

--John

[JPrimgaard]

I am wondering if they decided they don't want to go after the photographers market, and will concentrate on those who print signs and banners.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a possibity for sure, in light of their actions.  But then looking at their outstanding line of cameras and lenses it doesn't make sense.  Truly a company that's so big that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

I am looking forward to a smooth running ipf5000, but realize that it may be a bumpy road to that final destination.

Thanks so much for the wiki John, I am sure it will be of great help.

Jake

[Jim_H_WY]

Nobody has reported any head problems at all on the Wiki.  Not even a clog!

So for now, the heads and the way the iPF5000 maintains them (which is a real marvel in itself) seems to be fantastic.  I bought the iPF5000 as my first "photo" printer and I was worried about head clogs since I live in a very dry area.  But darn it, I wanted a photo printer   And I have NOT been disappointed in this regard at all.  It's been fantastic.

But the service manual says:

"Generally, it is recommended that the printhead be replaced about 12 months after you have opened the package."

And now it appears that Canon Tech support is repeating that to customers who call and ask.

The wording of this implies that the heads begin to deteriorate as soon as they're opened.  Nothing is said (or has been said) by Canon about head life related to amount of usage.  So the logical conclusion based on the information we have is that the heads simply begin rotting away as soon as they're exposed to the atmosphere.  The clock starts when you open the package according to Canon.

It has been suggested that this is just a "cover your behind" kind of statement so that if someone does have a head fail in about that time period, then Canon can point to that and not have any liability.

But the fact is that this information was NOT public when I bought my iPF5000.  And had I known that the manufacturer recommended annual head replacements, that the heads cost $600 apiece, and that they came with NO warranty whatsoever, I probably would have bought a different printer.

The fact that this information was known (published by Canon in the service manual) yet not disclosed to the buyers prior to their purchase is the opposite of a "cover your behind" sort of thing.  I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that this situation actually exposes Canon far more by providing a strong foundation for anyone who has a head failure and wants to pursue a legal remedy.

I don't believe that the typical buyer would reasonably expect that a $1400 printer would require annual replacements of $1200 worth of vital parts unless they're told that fact.

If the upper management at Canon bought a car and only after they paid for it found out that the engine and drive train had NO warranty, and further, the manufacturer recommends annual replacement of same at a cost equal to 85% of the original purchase price of said car - I suspect they'd feel as though they'd been blindsided.

So it seems to me that Canon would do well to officially publish something about this.

I sincerely hope that this is something of a misunderstanding or that it's a case of a bad or incomplete translation.  I'd like to believe - in my dream world - that my beloved iPF5000 will still be printing with the same heads several years from now because I don't print very much.

HP specifies an amount of ink dispensed by the head as well as giving a time-based "expiration".  I'd love to find out that as long as I'm not printing too much with my iPF5000, I can expect to get, say, three years of life from the heads.

But Canon has said nothing to make me feel any better.

These printers make wonderful prints.  The heads have shown NO tendency to clog or otherwise fail in use.  But based on what Canon has published and stated, I find this to be the single most worrisome aspect of owning this machine.

It may be "overblown" and I surely hope that I've got it all wrong, but what else do we have to go on?

Please, Canon:  Throw us a bone here!

This may well be the best photo printer ever designed and built.  But Canon seems bent on doing all it can to NOT sell them.

Shall I mention again how much I love this printer?  The price was right, the prints are great, and the paper handling has been flawless.  I love using it and every time I make a print, the results put a smile on my face.  It really is just what I had hoped home-printing would be!  And I LOVE not having head clogs.  But if the heads do turn to dust at 12 Months and 1 Day, I'll be disappointed to say the least.

Jim H.

[Ernst Dinkla]

On each occasion, he was told that it is recommended to replace them annually for optimal image quality.  This is the same recommendation that is in the field service manual.  There was no specification re: how much use they had during the year.  Does this mean there is a previously undisclosed additional annual cost of $1200 to run this printer?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Looks like an arbitrary period. More related to warranties/extended warranties than actual wear on the heads. The only technical logic I can see is some chemical process on the heads in contact with the ink but that would also happen faster with a working head. I wonder what an extended warranty will cover when a head goes down after 13 months.

The heads are quite expensive compared with the HP heads on the Z3100. The last has half the nozzles and the Z3100 isn't as fast but 300 $ replaces all 6 heads / 12 inks. If you ever have to replace them together. Even the Epson 9800 head is cheaper than Canon's thought Epson says the user can not replace them.

Ernst Dinkla

try:  [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]

[John Hollenberg]

I wonder what an extended warranty will cover when a head goes down after 13 months.

Extended warranty is exactly the same as the original warranty (someone on the Wiki checked on this specifically), which means that heads are not covered.  They are a "consumable".

--John

[colinm]

Out of curiosity, has anyone checked to see what the replacement policy is outside of the US?

I'd be curious to see if this is a decision specific to Canon USA or if this carries over to their other markets as well. I tried a cursory search of a couple other Canon sites yesterday, but couldn't find a mention of warranty for any of the imagePROGRAF line, much less individual parts.

[John Hollenberg]

Out of curiosity, has anyone checked to see what the replacement policy is outside of the US?

Here are a couple of quotes from a Wiki thread that shed a little light on this:

1) "UK users might like to know that the situation re ink cartridges might be better here than in the US. The person I spoke to at Canon UK support said that they are considering each claim "case by case", which probably means they are aware of the looming PR disaster if they dig their heels in. In fact, Canon's position is irrelevant, as any claim would be against the reseller, which would come under the Sale of Goods and Services Act. The Act makes no distinction between consumables and any other kind of goods, but any claim under it would have to be reasonable in terms of the normal life expectancy for the type of product. Also, for the first 6 months after purchase, the onus is on the seller to prove that the product wasn't defective at the time of sale."

2) "A quick run down from my lawyer friend would indicate that Canon has a "disclaimer of warranty" on the print heads and ink carts, however they do have a implied warranty of fitness for use. In other words the carts must do what they say they will or they are not fit for the use that they were sold for."

3) "In so far as the 30 day warranty colleagues are experiencing in the US, on questioning CANON in Australia I could not get an answer BUT our Trade Practices Act would prevent this type of happening occuring under a 'fit for purpose' clause."


--John

[mkress65]

...and here in the good old US of A they are attempting to disclaim all implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for particular use.  

I say attempting, b/c I think that the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) would over ride this (for consumers at least) since they are providing a warranty in writing.  According to the MMWA section 2308(a)

"No supplier may disclaim or modify... any implied warranty to a consumer with respect to such consumer product if... supplier makes any written warranty to the consumer with respect to such consumer product..."

Now I'm not a lawyer and maybe one would like to chime in, but it seems to me that the implied warranty of merchantability (that the goods should actually work) would apply.

But at the end of the day, how many of us would be willing to take Canon to court over this issue?

Matt

[John Hollenberg]

Matt,

The written warranty is only for the printer itself, there is "no warranty" for the "consumables" (cartridges and printheads), so perhaps they can disclaim any implied warranty since they have no written warranty for the "consumables".

--John

[mkress65]

Matt,

The written warranty is only for the printer itself, there is "no warranty" for the "consumables" (cartridges and printheads), so perhaps they can disclaim any implied warranty since they have no written warranty for the "consumables".

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you are correct John.  I guess I should read what I post more carefully :-)  (or do it w/ less haste...)

Matt

[John Hollenberg]

I think you are correct John.  I guess I should read what I post more carefully :-)  (or do it w/ less haste...)

Of course, what the CAN do and what makes good sense for their business may be completely different things.

--John

[Sal Baker]

It could be that the technology used for Canon's clog-free print heads creates a long-term problem.  It's possible that the system, which is fine-tuned to remap a clogged nozzle to another clear nozzle, is meant to be transparent to the user--for a while.  But as the "dead" nozzles accumulate, at some point there are not enough left for acceptable resolution.  This would eventually require replacement of the print heads to maintain quality.

Annual (expensive) head maintenance may be the price of clog-free printing.  If so, one would need to compare the ink cost (and time) savings from not needing to clean the heads to the $1200 annual print head replacement costs.

I guess we won't know for a year or so.

[NikosR]

It could be that the technology used for Canon's clog-free print heads creates a long-term problem.  It's possible that the system, which is fine-tuned to remap a clogged nozzle to another clear nozzle, is meant to be transparent to the user--for a while.  But as the "dead" nozzles accumulate, at some point there are not enough left for acceptable resolution.  This would eventually require replacement of the print heads to maintain quality.

Annual (expensive) head maintenance may be the price of clog-free printing.  If so, one would need to compare the ink cost (and time) savings from not needing to clean the heads to the $1200 annual print head replacement costs.

I guess we won't know for a year or so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114275\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that Sal has hit the nail on the head here.

There's too much discussion going on acomparing Epson heads perceived clog problem with Canon and HP. I am the last to be able to compare the two technologies but people should understand that there are 2 distinct technologies involved.

Epson is using piezo-electric head nozzles while Canon (and I believe HP) use thermal technology. The way I understand it is that both head technologies get nozzle clogs but the way Canon and HP handle it is by deploying spare nozzles designed in their printheads. Epson nozzles get clogged and usually get unclogged by the ink wasting cleaning process.

The effect of all this would be that Canon (and HP?) appear not to suffer any clogs while Epson do. In the long term though Canon and HP heads are bound to fail when not enough spare nozzles remain (hence they are considered as consumables) while Epson heads are (theoretically?) designed to last the lifetime of the printer.

Which technology is best or more economical to use remains to be proved by long term maintenance costs assesment.

[Jim_H_WY]

To me, the interesting comparison is between HP and Canon on this.

They both use thermal heads, and they both presumably re-rout ink to working nozzles until there are not enough spares at which point, the heads are deemed to be "bad" and must be replaced (by the user).

But the HPs have a projected lifetime related to the volume of ink dispensed and they have a marked expiration date which is far longer than 1 year.

In addition, they cost 1/4 of what the Canon heads cost.

And further, they're replaceable in groups of 2 colors while a six-color Canon head will need to be replaced if any one color has problems.

A $50 hit when a head goes bad is a lot easier to take than a $600 hit

So to me, the point is that Canon is not competitive for lower volume users if, indeed, their heads simply vaporize 12 months after opening the package.

The question is:  Will the Canon heads really need to be replaced "12 months after you open the package" as the service manual and the support people are recommending?

If so, then this is a serious drawback to these printers in comparison to the competition.  If Canon knows that the heads will usually last longer than this, they need to be telling us that.  Until then, I'd expect sales to suffer tremendously.

If it turns out that the average small-volume user can expect a much longer life from the Canon heads, then it may well be that the iPF5000 will be every bit as economical to operate as are the competing printers.

But based on what we officially have to go on, this does not appear to be the case.

Jim H.

[Ernst Dinkla]

To me, the interesting comparison is between HP and Canon on this.

They both use thermal heads, and they both presumably re-rout ink to working nozzles until there are not enough spares at which point, the heads are deemed to be "bad" and must be replaced (by the user).

But the HPs have a projected lifetime related to the volume of ink dispensed and they have a marked expiration date which is far longer than 1 year.

In addition, they cost 1/4 of what the Canon heads cost.

And further, they're replaceable in groups of 2 colors while a six-color Canon head will need to be replaced if any one color has problems.

A $50 hit when a head goes bad is a lot easier to take than a $600 hit

So to me, the point is that Canon is not competitive for lower volume users if, indeed, their heads simply vaporize 12 months after opening the package.

The question is:  Will the Canon heads really need to be replaced "12 months after you open the package" as the service manual and the support people are recommending?

If so, then this is a serious drawback to these printers in comparison to the competition.  If Canon knows that the heads will usually last longer than this, they need to be telling us that.  Until then, I'd expect sales to suffer tremendously.

If it turns out that the average small-volume user can expect a much longer life from the Canon heads, then it may well be that the iPF5000 will be every bit as economical to operate as are the competing printers.

But based on what we officially have to go on, this does not appear to be the case.

Jim H.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jim,

I agree with everything you write. The HP also has an indicator in what stage a head is so it shouldn't be a Monday morning surprise that the head is considered kaput. 6 heads in reserve isn't breaking the bank either and they are easier to get than ink carts right now. All in all a very gradual cost factor that eases the pain of getting a bad head. Added: the Easy Care also shows that the heads are in warranty so a consumable with warranty, same for the ink carts BTW, I remember some uproar on the non existing Canon ink warranty.

Even if the Canon heads last forever the customer must have a feeling that he is playing in a lottery. If you have to make the choice between the Epson 3800 that has the warranty on the head (and actually has a cheaper head if it is like the 9800 head, about 320 $) and the Canon iPF5000 with 1200 $ heads, with the knowledge that it isn't within any warranty + the advice to replace it every year then I would know what to select. Despite the fact that Epson doesn't encourage user replacement of the heads (they got even more restrictive with the K3 models, much more difficult to lay your hands on the service manuals) you are at least covered for a year on head replacements. It's a pity that HP hasn't a comparable model at that size. I think they could bring a competitive model in between the B9180 and the Z3100 24", one with the 12 inks but only integrated calibration and no profiling extras.

Let's not forget that HP developed from the "head as a consumable item" that should be replaced periodically (the head + ink packages for example) to the heads that should last long enough for the printer's lifetime but are easily replaced and affordable if that theory doesn't translate to practice. Best of both worlds.


Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]