Starting with PRO-200

[mikling]

It's NOT a leap of faith it's math and you can't refute it. I am telling the truth and nothing else. Read it again and see where I am selling something. If you lack technical and math skills then you would say it is a leap of faith. That lays bare the facts of the situation.

 

[The Hat]

The huge disadvantage that the OEM situation has is that nobody throws out a partially used tank. As a result, they run each tank till it is empty and this causes a lot of waste ink as a result. When you refill and top off ALL the tanks at the same time, it is HUUGE leap in saving ink and that works in the favor of refilling. As a result, refillers will need to learn to top off ALL tanks at the same time and this can easily create LESS ink that if you were using a resetter and refilling one at a time when empty or even using Canon OEM tanks and replacing one at a time,

Whom are we talking about, the Maths only work in your favour, but hey wait a minute you’re not selling anything here are you ! your just suggesting to refillers to purchase your inks and maybe into the bargain bugger up their print heads at their own expense..

Maths my arse… We all know that disabling ink monitoring is a recipe for disaster and only an ink retailer could come up with such a stupid suggestion, so why not wait on a resetter and then provide them with quality inks.. Don’t put the Cart before the Horse..

 

[stratman]

the Maths only work in your favour

Hold on now, Mr. Moderator. I've done the Maths. The money saved on refilling a disabled printer will pay for the new print head.

 

[The Hat]

Hold on now, Mr. Moderator. I've done the Maths. The money saved on refilling a disabled printer will pay for the new print head.

Yes it probably will and there’s no denying that, But we’re supposed to be a refiller forum that give out sound advice and not the practice of wilful destruction of print heads...

P.S. I post as "The Hat" not as the moderator..

 

[stratman]

P.S. I post as "The Hat" not as the moderator..

Like Tom Cruise forever typecast as the cocky hero, you will always be our fearless Moderator.

 

[Artur5]

Hold on now, Mr. Moderator. I've done the Maths. The money saved on refilling a disabled printer will pay for the new print head.

The money saved on refilling a printer with resetable OEM chips will pay for a new print head, that you can keep as a spare because, in all likelihood, the original printhead will live much longer if you don't disable ink monitoring.

 

[palombian]

After receiving my 7 Year Anniversary trophy perhaps I may say something.

Without any discussion refilling with resetting the chip is the solution most close to buying OEM carts.
Even better, since it saves on ink by top up all carts at once.
I am persuaded - for pigment printers - this way considerable savings can be made even with OEM ink (from larger capacity cartridges costing less per ml too).
I don't believe 3th party ink reduces the life of the printhead, user stupidity does this, also with OEM ink.

It was known and warned for that the resetter era would come to an end. Whether hoarding printers was a good idea or not the future will show, but it pays time.

New buyers do not have a choice and will have to set aside some dogmas, accept what is available and be creative.

The fear disabling ink monitoring would cause more ink purges doesn't seem to realise on many recent printers. And just in case, chances the service tools for the PRO-200/300 can be hacked (as for the PRO-100/10 against some beliefs) are much greater than for the chips. This in any case will increase the lifetime of the printers.

I guess many refillers already keep notes about ink consumption, it should not be too difficult to predict when the ink must be filled up. It will be less economic than with a resetter since you must stay on the safe side, but if my only choice was a PRO-300 I wouldn't hesitate to use this approach.

 

[Artur5]

Sorry @palombian I can't agree with you on this matter.
If my only choice was a Pro-300 and no resetter was available ever, I wouldn't purchase this printer. I'd search a seconhand Pro10, even with a defective printhead. New printheads for the old printer are still available and they will be for some years, as the Pro300 uses the same model.

Refilling has saved me a lot of money during the last 15-20 years, but I'm also convinced that if I had used only OEM carts, some of my deceased printheads would be still working and I wouldn't have had to purchase a dozen or so of Canon printers, but possibly four or five. So, in the end, I didn't save as much as it seems when you consider the cost of additional printers/printheads.
Sure, sometimes the problems were due to my own mistakes but sometimes it was suboptimal third party ink.
If you insert a fresh OEM cart and replace it with another OEM when it's empty, there's very little room for user error and still less room for a defective OEM cart.

 

[palombian]

I agree I lost printheads by refilling, but most of them were for consumer dye printers.
Since I bought them used for much less than the price of a printhead I didn't know the history.
Never felt at my ease refilling those sponge carts either.
I never could find a proof the problems were caused by the ink or by my incorrect refilling procedure.
Since the inks faded fast I abandoned dye inks.

With pigment printers my average number of pages per printhead is about 10 times higher.
I did stupid things too but over time was able to discern my errors from "suboptimal ink" causes.
Instead of crying wolf too fast, I accept some quality differences of 3th party ink because of the much lower price.

I never summed up my expenses on printers, ink and paper, but probably most of the gains were made by buying used printers and bargains on paper.

It is a hobby...

 

[The Hat]

If my only choice was a Pro-300 and no resetter was available ever, I wouldn't purchase this printer. I'd search a seconhand Pro10,

If you were only using OEM inks then you wouldn’t have purchased to many printers over the years, and you would have made that 1 printer last due to lack of use, because of inks costs, so that’s a huge saving in itself.

But on the other hand using 3rd party inks are not a huge saving either, yes they are considerably cheaper and that’s the trap we all happily fall into, plus we don’t count the cost of Photo papers either. It’s catch 22…

But if we don’t support the 3rd party ink suppliers then the future for the Printaholic is bleak, we need them as much as they need us, we just can’t stop printing, it’s like been in printer heaven, where the Devil can’t get your soul.. Or can he…