May 13th, 2000, 03:51 PM
Your Epson printer experiences?
I'm about to send an e-mail to Epson UK regarding my 18-month old Stylus Photo printer, and I wondered if anyone else had the same experience with theirs:
I use the thing virtually every day: I bought it because of the excellent photo quality print, and the literature that Epson supplied on their website at the time stated that the print head should last "the life of the printer". This has turned out not to be true - though it depends on what you define as the life of the printer.
18 months down the line, my printheads are shot. All I'm printing are blue and pink stripes. Got advice from the Epson UK website, got their local service centre. Got a quote for repair. £190 + VAT! Now, this is crazy, I didn't pay that much for the printer. On questioning the service centre, I found out that the print heads are only supposed to last on average 1 year to 18 months, so I got lucky. Apparently the life of an Epson printer does not exceed the length of the guarantee.
I'm off to buy an HP Deskjet, and send that sharp e-mail to Epson, with a recommendation that they clarify their literature (though we all know they're not going to!). In the meantime, has anyone else had the same experience?
May 13th, 2000, 06:26 PM
I am not siding with Epson nor am I disputing your problems with them, and I certainly think paying more than the cost of a printer for a new print head is rediculous.
That said, I want to inject my 2 cents concerning the life of a printer, or any other peripheral. You can't really measure it by the number of months or years of use, but rather by the AMOUNT of use. If you use it every day, for many hours, naturally it will have a shorter lifespan than one used ocassionaly. When someone says their printer or whatever has served them flawlessly for years, it means little if they do not state the frequency of use. Some of us really push our equipment, and can't expect the same life-span (as measured in time). Epson should not have expressed the head life in terms of months or years.
My point? Consider the amount of service you received and the quality of the output, not the length of time it lasted. If you STILL feel the same way , then GIVE THEM HELL! Hope your new HP servers you well!
May 14th, 2000, 02:38 AM
Buy LASER printer. InkJet is cheap, it has very good printout, but LASER printer is for you.
BTW HP is same "crap" like EPSON it only menages colours lite better (the right thing to say would be different way not the better) so sometimes printout looks better on the HP, and is still only InkJet.
I have EPSON PHOTO Staylus 700 and is good for me but I don`t use the thing evry day.
May 14th, 2000, 04:21 AM
I'm an Epson man, but that's mainly due to the amount of photo realistic print outs I do. In my opinion, the Epson quality is unsurpassed by any competitors in that range.
However, I do have to admit that Hewlet Packard printers often have much crisper text printouts (due to the differnt style of inks). The printer cartridges have the print heads on them, so every time you buy a new cartridge, you're also buying a new set of print heads. This makes them a little more expensive then Epson cartridges, but will usually give the printer a longer life as a result.
A few things you need to keep in mind with printers, is that you have to keep them dust free.
This means covering them up when not using them.
Not leaving paper loaded in the printer for a long time, then using it (because it would have built up dust). The print heads would collect all this dust and choke up.
Clean on a fairly regular basis (using the software), especially if you haven't used it in a while. Cartridges to have an expirery date, and you should keep the ink in use. If an opened cartridge has been left unused in the printer for months, test it before using it, and perhaps just replace it with a new one. It's not uncommon that the ink dries up.
Oh, and only ever use Epson brand ink. Don't use refills, or generic brand ink. They may claim to be as good, but the truth is they're trash. They introduce foreign bodies into your printers systems such as dust and dirt, and can permenantly damage the printer. Not to mention that actual quality of those inks is lacking.
May 14th, 2000, 07:15 AM
Thanks for your replies )
I guess my main point with Epson is that, timespan or page-wise, I don't consider to have got reasonable use from a printer that originally cost £300 (even if I did get it in a sale, it was still brand new). Yes, I know how to treat a printer, and the do's and dont's - I'm an IT Tutor - and followed them scrupulously, but it didn't help prolong the life of the printer at all. I don't consider a few pages a day for 18 months to be reasonable use, and will tell Epson so (don't worry, I'll be nice!). Mostly I've only used it for printing out originals for the next day's class, and the occasional photo reproduction. Quality WAS great, compared to HP. But.
Oh, if anyone wants to make a donation so I can buy a colour laser printer, I can tell you where to send your cheques and postal orders!
Have a good Sunday....
May 14th, 2000, 09:56 PM
I'm with Bink on this one. Epson is for me and for the same reason. Photos. But my 740 refuses to work with USB. I've done everything to no avail. Epson USB just plain sux!!!!!!!!!!Period. Parallel works great.
May 15th, 2000, 11:25 AM
I have no experience with EPSON printers.
I'm an HP printer addict--collecting new inkjet printers since 1995!
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
May 16th, 2000, 07:53 AM
thought i'd chime in here with a bit of a skewed gaze on this matter....
epson sucks no more or less than hp, or lexmark, or any other printer makers out there.
the disadvantage to most epson printers, vis`a`vis HP, is that most epson's have fixed, permanent printheads, while most hp's have printheads built in to the ink cartridges themselves.
there is little reason to buy an epson, therefore, with its fixed 'heads, when you can get fresh bits with each new hp cartridge, unless......
YOU'RE PRINTING PHOTOS OR PROOFS.
fixed heads are absolutely vital on a professional colour-matched system, and here the epson has an advantage. plus epson's photo 850 & 1200 were the best, by far, consumer-level inkjet printers available for photo & proof output. this was further evidenced by the splendid, numerous 3rd-party inksets and papers developed specifically for these printers for photographic use.
for further proof on how epson bites: their latest printers, the photo 870 & 1270, have ink cartridges with embedded, patented microchips....meaning, NO 3RD PARTY will be able to develop their own inksets for these printers. thank you, epson, greedy buggers that you are, for chaining me to whichever inksets you feel like developing...FOREVER.
problem is, the 1270 output is, y'know, basically INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PROFESSIONAL LIGHTJET PHOTOGRAPHIC ARCHIVE PRINTS. it's a great year for digital-platform photographers everywhere; we'll just have to get used to these shackles, I suppose.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)