http://members.lycos.nl/dmjbijzboek/...8-inklevel.jpg
Top: CLI-8 cartridge with light guide cut away
Bottom: checking the ink level is easy now

--
Have fun, Bert

Thanks, Bert. That's a great tip. I found that a small, fine pair of
snips, or clippers, will snip the piece of plastic off most of the way
down too--certainly enough to see when the cartridge needs refilling.

Canon sure as heck went to a lot of trouble to hide the ink level
while the cartridges were in the printer, didn't they? And probably
that tapered piece of plastic plus the metal clip that holds it at the
top were both causes for Canon to increase the cost of their
cartridges over the old series of cartridges. We pay for it every time
we buy one!

When is someone going to come out with a reliable CFS (continuous flow
system) for the Canon pixma line of printers so we don't have to put
up with such foolishness?

I'll bet Canon engineers are already trying to figure a better way to
substitute something else for the tapered plastic piece & its metal
clip to make absolutely sure they can screw us into buying their
overpriced cartridges. What a great way to engender brand goodwill and
loyalty!





On Dec 1, 12:07 pm, OpaPiloot <me@forget._it> wrote:

william.pease@verizon.net <william.pease@verizon.net> wrote:

Completely agree with your sentiments. I have half a dozen catridges of
third party ink which worked perfectly well in a Pixma 3000 that are
just a fraction different in shape from the 4300.

And their ink is ridiculously overpriced. I use one for printing labels
on DVDs - does anyone use another printer that does that job but with
more sensibly priced cartridges?

Rifty
--
riftynet - put a dot after rifty

Rifty wrote:
We have several non-chipped Canon inkjet printers that will be used
until total failure. I'll even replace the ink purging systems should
they need it and if the parts are available before buying a new printer
using chipped cartridges. I save almost $50 for every set of compatible
cartridges I use over OEM ink. At this rate of savings it pays to do
the repairs when and if they are ever needed. At least with the new
Canons you can refill if you can live without ink level monitoring.

Michael Johnson wrote:
course hot dogs are cheaper than steak but if you spend $10.00 less on a
meal you did not save it but just spent less for less.

measekite wrote:


....his usual unbelievably stupid bullshit lies.
Frank

On Feb 7, 7:48*am, Michael Johnson <c...@erols.com> wrote:
Ink savings can indeed be substantial:

http://www.geocities.com/phineaspaine/ip5000.jpg

If you look at my EEPROM info sheet example, you read correctly. At
the date of printing (Oct. 12/2006), this iP5000, my first, had 8,294
pages on it. I generated this particular page to document the stats
when it's first printhead wore out. On close inspection /
magnification, the pigment black (BCI-3eBK) nozzles were flattened and
worn from use, so a new printhead was required. If you look at the
cartridge count (CT= in the first paragraph), you'll see it used 13 x
BCI-3eBk pigment blacks, 4 x BCI-6 black, 9 x BCI-6 cyan, 10 x BCI-6
magenta, and 10 BCI-6 yellow. Only the initial, factory-supplied set
were Canon OEM. After that I used nothing but CoralJet non-OEM
cartridges, and I've used enough of them over a long enough period of
time to be completely satisfied that they're functionally equivalent
to OEM for my purposes (mainly plain paper colour printing).
Regardless, that's a total of 41 cartridges at $1.80 each, or $84.87
including sales taxes, or about a penny a page. If I had purchased
Canon OEM inks, the total cost would have been $943.00, or almost 11.5
cents a page! That's a HUGE savings of $858.13.

I have a 2nd iP5000 on which I do most of my personal photo printing.
It now has 1246 pages printed, of which 133 are photos, and 45 are
CDs. So far, I've only had to replace each of the factory OEM
cartridges twice. That's 10 cartridges at $1.80, or $20.70 including
tax, or about 1.6 cents average per page. If I had purchased Canon
OEM inks, the total cost would have been $230.00, or 18.5 cents
average per page. Savings: $209.30.

That's over a thousand dollars just between these two printers!

On the 1st iP5000, I've since replaced the waste ink pads, reset the
waste ink counter, and now, with 9,878 pages on it, 1,874 of those on
it's 2nd printhead, it is still going strong, and it still prints
perfectly, even photos! I also have 2 more iP5000's in my family,
plus 2 iP5200's and 1 iP5300's. The 2nd and 3rd generation iP's also
use CoralJET cartridges, with the factory chips transferred, and ink
monitoring disabled for now...whoop-dee-do! I can re-enable it if a
chip resetter ever comes along - service mode rocks!

Great idea of trimming that plastic away to see the ink levels. I'll
have to try that. Thanks!

Also, all 7 of our "North American" Pixmas can also print on printable
CD/DVDs, and all do an excellent job of it. Great printers...

Cheers!
Phineas

phineaspaine@yahoo.com wrote:
I couldn't begin to guess at how much I have saved using compatible ink
in five Canon inkjet printers. I have gone through at least 200-250
cartridges over the years.

Michael Johnson wrote:
spends less they did not save anything. You only save when you get the
same exact product for less money at some vendor and only if you need it
not because you bought something that you just did not need because it
cost less. Look at the real truth.

measekite wrote:
Lying idiot!
Frank

Frank wrote:
He really is an idiot. What the hell was he trying to say?!?!? I spend
$1.59 per cartridges verses $11+ per cartridge for OEM ink. Somehow he
thinks I did not save anything? Is that fuzzy math he is using? My
prints don't fade, the print head doesn't clog and the print quality is
excellent so where am I getting less than if I used grossly over priced
OEM ink? He is a waste of human flesh and proves it on a daily basis by
his contributions to this newsgroup.

Michael Johnson wrote:

Look...this brain dead moron has one small printer, and an old Nikon
camera. He thinks he is an expert on paper, printers, ink and cameras.
I've seen his pics...they are horrible...he is not even a good
"snapper'...he must be blind...cause only a blind person could ever take
any pics as bad as his.
He is an idiot!
Frank

On Feb 11, 8:46*am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
You don't know what you are talking about! I have used after-market
ink for years for professional photography use and there is NO
DIFFERENCE in the prints. I understand when Canon, Epson and other
printer makers sell low end printers really cheap, even giving them
away with cameras, expecting you to buy their expensive ink. When I
pay $500 for a printer I expect to get ink at a reasonable price.
After-market inks produce quality results, so you need to do a bit of
research before spouting off. "You saved nothing. You may have spent
less." Are you related to the president?

Michael Johnson wrote:
3 apples or instead you spend $2.00 for 4 oranges do you think you saved
money? Only an idiot would think so. Now if you spend $1.59 for
generic ink instead of spending $11.00 for Canon ink do you think you
saved money. You do the math. You cannot subtract numbers unless they
are like for like. Most people learned that in the 3rd grade.

Carroll Hanks wrote:

On Feb 11, 8:46&nbsp;am, measekite &lt;inkysti...@oem.com&gt; wrote:



Michael Johnson wrote:



snip



I couldn't begin to guess at how much I have saved using compatible inkin fiveCanoninkjet printers. &nbsp;I have gone through at least 200-250cartridgesover the years.



You saved nothing. &nbsp;You may have spent less. &nbsp;When one gets less and spends less they did not save anything. &nbsp;You only save when you get the same exact product for less money at some vendor and only if you need it not because you bought something that you just did not need because it cost less. &nbsp;Look at the real truth.



You don't know what you are talking about! I have used after-market ink for years for professional photography use and there is NO DIFFERENCE in the prints.

Professional Photographers will use OEM ink or maybe Pantone.&nbsp; Not the crap so I doubt you are a professional photographer.&nbsp; Maybe you are a professional ink seller.


I understand when Canon, Epson and other printer makers sell low end printers really cheap, even giving them away with cameras, expecting you to buy their expensive ink. When I pay $500 for a printer

Professional photographers do not buy $500 printers.&nbsp; The very cheapest is the Epson 3800 and that is around 3 times the price.


I expect to get ink at a reasonable price. After-market inks produce quality results, so you need to do a bit of research before spouting off. "You saved nothing. You may have spent less." Are you related to the president?

"Michael Johnson" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
news:gMednes_oqAdsSzanZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com ...
| Frank wrote:
| > measekite wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >> Michael Johnson wrote:
| >>
| >>> snip
| >>
| >>
| >>>
| >>> I couldn't begin to guess at how much I have saved using compatible
| >>> ink in five Canon inkjet printers. I have gone through at least
| >>> 200-250 cartridges over the years.
| >>
| >> You saved nothing. You may have spent less. When one gets less and
| >> spends less they did not save anything. You only save when you get
| >> the same exact product for less money at some vendor and only if you
| >> need it not because you bought something that you just did not need
| >> because it cost less. Look at the real truth.
| >
| > Lying idiot!
|
| He really is an idiot. What the hell was he trying to say?!?!? I spend
| $1.59 per cartridges verses $11+ per cartridge for OEM ink. Somehow he
| thinks I did not save anything? Is that fuzzy math he is using? My
| prints don't fade, the print head doesn't clog and the print quality is
| excellent so where am I getting less than if I used grossly over priced
| OEM ink? He is a waste of human flesh and proves it on a daily basis by
| his contributions to this newsgroup.

I'm an engineer with a minor in chemistry. I've run a qualitative analysis
of the aftermarket inks I've used as well as on the OEM equilivant.

Not unlike RX you can by the name brand or you can by generics. For the
most part there is scant difference in the chemistry and likely less in the
use/application

NotMe wrote:
My wife is into scapbooking and she has never complained about fading or
off color prints for the past several years we have used after market
ink. I have never experienced any problems either. Why on Earth would
I pay over $50 more for EVERY SET of cartridges that goes into our
printers?

They are comparing dollars for dollars, so the dollar savings in your
example is $9.41 more remaining in their pockets than in Canon's pocket.
Whether the generic ink quality is equal is the debate. Many here say the
quality of the generic inks has risen to the point that from their
perspective, there is no noticeable difference. As such, the price point of
the product now becomes the only difference to these buyers.



When is the last time you tried out a generic ink? Your continual concern
for others in this matter suggests you may have had a very bad past
experience using generic inks. Another possibility is you are on the
payroll of one of the printer manufacturers.

Boskey wrote:

It takes one to know one and you know them all. If you spend $5.00 for 3 apples or instead you spend $2.00 for 4 oranges do you think you saved money? Only an idiot would think so. Now if you spend $1.59 for generic ink instead of spending $11.00 for Canon ink do you think you saved money. You do the math. You cannot subtract numbers unless they are like for like. Most people learned that in the 3rd grade.



They are comparing dollars for dollars, so the dollar savings in your example is $9.41 more remaining in their pockets

You saved nothing.&nbsp; The products cannot be compared.&nbsp; You spent less which is the reason why you have more dollars left in your pocket.&nbsp; Saving is when you get the same exact product for less.

Here is another example.&nbsp; The Nikon D300 is about $2,000 in round figures.&nbsp; The Canon 40D is about $1500 in round figures.&nbsp; Both take nice photographs but have somewhat different features (many overlapping), take different lenses and feel different.&nbsp; There are many other differences as well.&nbsp; Both are fine cameras but people do have strong preferences.

If a person chooses to buy the Canon over the Nikon he did not save $500 but he spent $500 less.&nbsp; Now if that person found a vendor who would sell the camera for $1000 new then one could say he saved $500.&nbsp;


than in Canon's pocket. Whether the generic ink quality is equal is the debate. Many here say the quality of the generic inks has risen to the point that from their perspective, there is no noticeable difference.

I know for a fact that the ink vendors who lurk in this ng say that.


As such, the price point of the product now becomes the only difference to these buyers. When is the last time you tried out a generic ink? Your continual concern for others in this matter suggests you may have had a very bad past experience using generic inks. Another possibility is you are on the payroll of one of the printer manufacturers.

Boskey wrote:
He just provided proof that he is an idiot. First, he says I am buying
generic ink. This is wrong as I buy COMPATIBLE ink and there is a big
difference between the two. Second, his analogy is flawed. A proper
analogy is that I am buying less expensive unbranded oranges instead of
the more expensive ones with Sunkist stamped on them. For all practical
purposes they are both oranges and, to me, they taste the same. I like
that he buys OEM ink because it means I can continue to buy cheap
printers in the future. Kill file this waste of bandwidth and your
experience here will be much better.