Consumer Reports Injet Ratings

[Pretty Cool]

Right now, Consumer Reports has their ratings for inkjet printers in the free section. Most likely, it will be moved to the paid section by the end of the month.

The Canon line does not necessarily represent the lowest cost per page. In fact, the low-end ip6200's costs are worse than the cheapo Lexmark Z735. Of course, the Lexmark is worse in other ways such as print quality. Another interesting note is that the HP Photosmark 8250 has lower operating costs despite having minuscule cartridges. HP's PR department has always stressed that the newer line is more efficient in its usage and thus prints that same number of pages with less ink. People like to bash Epson, but their costs are fairly reasonable and there are generics readily available, unlike the newer Canons.

I know some people will find fault in this rating. Problem is that finding cost-per-page calculations are not common anymore. PCMagazine used to have an annual roundup, but nowadays their pages look more like USAToday. PCWorld used to print vendor specs, but they do not even bother with that anymore. Nowadays, most people rely on word-of-mouth that is sometimes accurate, but just as often not-so-accurate.

Consumer Reports Rating of Inkjets Printers

 

[Zepper]

The 6220/6210 is a six color system with integrated heads (new this year, not all Canons use plain ink tanks any more - caveat emptor - integrated head carts bump ink costs up considerably) - if you compare apples to apples, Canon is still competitive. Bump up to the 6600 and you are back into separate tanks for six-color. And the CR reviews are based on OEM cartridges. No clone tanks yet for the new Pixmas, so you have to refill your own. If you do that, the price of expendables plummets. A few companies have come out with ink formulations specific for refilling the new Pixmas.

Apparently the six-color Canons don't equal the 4-color ones for photo printing quality either - I'll have to go back and see if the article in the magazine gives the criteria they used. Might as well scratch the entire new 6000 series off your list. Luckily some of the first Pixma 6 and 8 color models and the 9900 are still in the channel for lucky buyers.

I seldom find CR's reviews on anything much more complex than a toaster to be very useful to me. And their big-brother, run to gov't for every little thing attitude is DISGUSTING!!! Bunch of babies.

.bh.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree with Zepper-------Consumer reports USED TO BE DECENT----now they seem to be TOTALLY INEPT.

When their last issue rated the MP450 a best buy-----one can safely assume they have lost their minds.

And when CU is totally silent about the consumer ripoff so apparent in the inkjet printer market---or the cell phone market--you also know this magazine has lost its mission.

And has lost me as a subscriber.

And if anyone from CU reads this and wonders why I am pissed---just PM me and I will tell you.---in detail.

 

[Pretty Cool]

Funny, one vote for "run to gov't for every little thing" and another for "totally silent about the consumer ripoff so apparent". Is CR perfect? Of course not, but there is no other publication/website that even tries to be objective like CR. I guess people would rather here it from other users, though they do not realize that most folks are not objective and typically just repeat hearsay anyway.

 

[pkme2]

I totally agree with Pretty Cool. CR isn't swayed by hearsay, but sometimes they can be irritating when they go against popular opinion.
I always took their comments with a grain of salt, but nevertheless trusted their investigations on different products.
As for the periodicals who depend on advertisers for their mainstay, I definitely believe only in positive results.
CR may not be 'cool' with some but you can't buy their conclusions.
As I said before, I may not agree with all CRs recommendations, but I trust them more than anybody else.
I rank CR up with AT in trustworthiness.

 

[Lemon law]

I somewhat disagree with the go against the popular opinion hypothesis----while I do think CU is still unbaised---some of their reviewers are just totally clueless about the issues they should or could be
paying attention to---at least in Anand Tech---there is no shortage of opinionated people who will soon try to enlighten the clueless--and maybe thats the problem with CU--you look for addresses in the Mag to
address such issues--and short of a letter to the editor---they don't solicit opinion---leaving the reviewers still clueless aand unenlightened---or maybe inbred is a better word.

 

[pkme2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I somewhat disagree with the go against the popular opinion hypothesis----while I do think CU is still unbaised---some of their reviewers are just totally clueless about the issues they should or could be
paying attention to---at least in Anand Tech---there is no shortage of opinionated people who will soon try to enlighten the clueless--and maybe thats the problem with CU--you look for addresses in the Mag to
address such issues--and short of a letter to the editor---they don't solicit opinion---leaving the reviewers still clueless aand unenlightened---or maybe inbred is a better word.

Ah, they don't solicit opinion as you say. Terrific idea, never to be swayed by the masses. No outside contamination which keeps the system free and unencumbered. Consumer Reports will continue to survive or not. If they are doing something wrong in your words, then they won't survive, or will they?

 

[Zepper]

Lots of people need things like CR to make up their mind for them, much too difficult to do for themselves. Perhaps yet another negative effect of being dumbed down by the gov't juvenile detention system (aka public schools).

OTOH, I do seem to recall seeing letters from subscribers and others somewhere in most issues of the CR magazine.

.bh.

 

[Lemon law]

Its not an issue of CU survival---its not an issue of the existance of letters to the editor--which by necessity shortness can't even start to express complex issues.

Its simply a matter of their reviewers being inbred, on some other planet, and just not thinking about better ways. In short--their reviewers eyes are closed and their ears are plugged to user input. And if they opened up some other channel, more knowlegable people could clue them in and give them an earfull--even if it took a page or 2.

And CU refuses to open their eyes or unplug their ears---and they listen to the world in only one channel--supershort letters to the editor that can't begin to cover a complex issue.

The larger world may be dumbed down, but CU has dumbed themselves down--and robbed users like me who expect better.

Sorry, my mind is made up, you won't change it with excuses---and CU may be better than certain other oufits or a kick in the posterior---but I also made a standing offer for any CU staffer to PM me.
No takers yet-------and I rest my case--deaf, blind, and dumb seems to be the current legacy of a once decent organization.