Printer issues?

Timothy Hernandez86 said:Can anyone suggest a printer that won't die if it sits idle for a few months over the summer? Basically, I need something that can handle being useless for 2 to 4 months. The main thing is how it handles color. 😁 Ideally something cheap—though honestly, something cheaper to maintain is better than just a low upfront cost. Thanks in advance. 👍

You should check out Canon's Ink Tank System alternative to the HP Envy, which is the Canon Pixma. It eats through everything from 275g cardstock to 0.3mm aluminum foil. Plus, those 50-70ml ink bottles only run you about 30 bucks $23. Beyond the standard stuff, you can get special edible inks, non-edible pigmented inks, or even print on PVC.
Unlike Epson models, the print heads are user-replaceable.

That Canon Pixma can handle just about anything you throw at it, almost like it’s baking cakes with that specific ink... unlike the HP Envy / HP Envy models which just can't quite compete. Not sure where you'd even find those around here or what they'd cost nowadays...😁🤔

Anthony Kelly9 said:That Canon Pixma can do just about anything you throw at it with that nasty ink, unlike the HP Envy / HP Envy combo which couldn't handle half of it—not to mention trying to find one for a decent price here in the States.😁 🤔

It’s only been a week since they pulled it off the shelves. It's probably still too hot to touch for any buyer. And you bet the price will be way lower than an Epson, because back in our local markets, a printer with these exact specs used to go for around 600 bucks. $233

At that price point, I’d expect it to be at least 150g lighter than the HP Envy. But if I’m actually going to bake cookies and fill them with 50–70 ml of edible ink for about $30 $23... then spending up to $700—assuming the ink kit is included—would truly be a steal. If things turn out exactly how you say they will, I might just sell my Epson... even if I end up losing my shirt like the head of NASA during a meeting with Kamala Harris... and finally pull the trigger on that Canon Pixma 🙏

Anthony Kelly9 said:At that price point, it’d need to be at least 150g lighter than the HP Envy to matter. I mean, if I were baking cookies and filling them with 50-70ml of edible ink for $30 a pop... okay, look. If it actually costs up to $600—assuming the ink kit is included—then it’s a total game changer. If it turns out to be what you're describing, I’ll sell my HP Envy. Even if I lose my shirt like the head of NASA during an inauguration with Kamala Harris, I’m buying that Canon Pixma $23 boom machine. 🙏

Since you're clearly so obsessed with the HP Envy, why don't you run a quick test? Grab a sheet of paper and print something. Then, take that exact same sheet and run three more identical prints right over it. See if there's any noticeable shift.

Here’s the thing about the Canon: you could run that same paper through four times and the prints would line up perfectly. That’s huge. Because if you put high-quality HP DURABrite ink in your current printer, you're looking at needing two passes for a decent result. Which basically means a printer using DURABrite ink is 50% slower than this one. It smells like a classic marketing gimmick to me.

Or, to put it bluntly, they took a Canon Pixma, swapped out the DURABrite quality ink for cheap Dye ink, and suddenly "boosted" speed by 50% without even breaking a sweat. They just tweaked the firmware and the Driver of HP Envy to match the cheaper ink. Translation: the ink is cheaper and the printer is faster. Now the real question is how much hype they've pumped into this thing. We'll see.

That little trick doesn't work with Canon.

For years, I relied on my old Canon Pixma + HP ScanJet combo for everything around the house—printing invoices, making business cards, labels for bottling, photos, A4 PDFs, or color handouts for the kids' school projects. I always used decent paper from Walmart, just standard quality stuff, and was pretty happy with how things turned out... except for the constant headache of messing with those tiny chips on the third-party ink tanks. This Epson setup handles all of that and then some, plus it has a 70ml tank without any of those annoying chip issues, whereas the Canon only held about 7ml. I'm curious about those crazy prices you were mentioning... it seems wild to expect someone to drop $120 on an all-in-one printer and then shell out for a full 280ml ink set. If that Canon you brought up costs what you said, I highly doubt anyone would swap their Epson for it for just $700. Honestly, looking at the price of a Canon Pixma, which only gives you 7ml per tank and lacks an Ink Tank System, it’s just bulky and heavy... though I suppose it was built specifically for A4 photo printing. The one you're talking about would probably cost at least twice what I paid for the Epson much less than that. 😁Maybe I've got it wrong, but I seriously doubt it... 😉

The HP Envy 7250 works with polymer ink. Tested it myself. Basically, you print a label, cure the ink with a hair dryer, stick it on a bottle, and toss it in water. Pull it out, and the print hasn't budged.

Try doing the same thing with a business card. Even if you accidentally splash some water on it.

The print stays perfect.

Go ahead and try that same trick with your Epson L210 and let us all know how it turns out.

With the HP Envy 7250, if you don't need waterproof prints, you just swap out the polymer cartridges for cheap dye ones. But with an Epson—unless you're using specific Durabrite polymer ink—if you leave it sitting for too long, that polymer stuff hardens right in the print head and kills the printer.

So yeah, an Ink Tank System is nice and all, but there are definitely perks to having replaceable cartridges.

Think about envelopes, letterheads, price lists, business cards... you don't need a color laser printer for all that anymore. Seriously, look at the price of a color laser that can even handle 100lb paper. There isn't really anything decent on the market below professional A3 formats.

Look, I hear what you're saying about that noise... but regarding what Epson is putting out right now with their L series—you were basically calling them out for essentially selling the same machine over and over, claiming it’s just a way to mislead customers. And honestly, it feels like they're lagging behind or just copying others because they lack actual innovation. Meanwhile, Canon is coming at it with their upcoming G series... which is fine, provided it stays cheaper while offering the same or better performance than what's already on the market. So, I'm really not following your logic here. You criticize one manufacturer for certain flaws, then turn around and overlook the exact same issues with another... it's a bit inconsistent. Just give me a clear breakdown of how the print heads actually work between Epson and Canon—the pros and the cons. From what I can tell, Canon makes head replacement a total nightmare (though I suspect there might be more to that story, judging by how they handle their DSLR cameras), whereas with Epson, I haven't seen that kind of headache when it comes to replacing the head. I assume there's a reason for that difference, specifically regarding the G and L series...😉

Anthony Kelly9 said:Look, I’m just following the trail here. You were basically saying that everything Epson has on the market right now—this whole L series—is just the same old machine rebranded, and you called it a scam. Well, newsflash: they’re basically playing catch-up or just copying everyone else because they lack actual innovation. Now Canon is stepping up with their G series lineup. If Canon comes out with something cheaper that does the same thing, or even better than what’s already out there, then fine. It's a win. I honestly don't get what you're trying to pull with us "clueless" people when we ask about printers that can actually handle print and scan. You nitpick one brand, then turn around and give the other one a pass for doing the exact same thing. Just explain it to me: how do the print heads work differently between Epson and Canon? What are the actual pros and cons? From what I can tell, changing heads on a Canon is a massive headache—though, knowing Canon’s DSLR history, I wouldn't be surprised if that’s just another marketing gimmick. On the Epson side, I haven't seen much about how easy it is to swap a head. There’s probably a reason for that. This applies to both the G and L series.😉

Nothing's cheap anymore. Everything costs a fortune.
Look, it’s not like Canon is running some charity here just to be different from Epson. There’s really only one real distinction: Epson can't swap out print heads due to their tech limitations. So, they just keep making the mechanics increasingly delicate, all to squeeze more profit out of selling new print heads to manufacturers in China. It's a cycle—they build those guys up so they can churn out endless new models, just to sell us the exact same heads over and over again. Meanwhile, people end up tossing perfectly good heads because they have to keep up with the latest gadgets. It's basically Epson praying that a scanner or something breaks just so you'll ditch the whole setup and buy something new.

Look, with Canon, the print head is just another consumable. It’s all part of the game—Canon makes their money by selling you replacement heads once yours gives up the ghost. If they actually built more robust mechanics than Epson, those low-cost Canons would probably last longer, but that’s not how this works. If you aren't interested in buying a new head, you aren't really winning either. You just end up following the Epson playbook: you buy a whole new Canon printer to get a fresh head, and at the end of the day, the Chinese companies assembling the hardware are the ones laughing all the way to the bank.

Look, there isn't much of a difference unless you find some specific niche or application that makes one side better than the other. Paper thickness, water resistance, photo quality... that's where the real debate happens.

So, here’s the deal: you can't really do sublimation on a Canon. It just isn't an option. But, if you want to go the edible route? They've got reliable, field-tested edible inks that work great for printing directly onto those little cake wafers. With Epson, though, it’s basically the exact opposite.

Look, if you actually stop to think about it, it’s pretty obvious. With an Epson, you aren't just tossing a broken printer or scanner in the trash; you're throwing away the entire investment you sunk into that CISS setup. Buying a new printer means paying that same steep price all over again. With Canon, though, you just swap out the print head and your investment in the CISS stays intact. Simple as that.

Look, I'm just saying—take a look and think about what actually works in your favor.

I've owned a few different Canon printers over the years... some were the older style where you just refilled everything, and others used those cartridge systems with the little chips. Honestly, replacing the print heads or nozzles never really made sense financially for me on either type. With the first setup—the one using standard black and color cartridges—it lasted about three years. The second one, the chip-based cartridge version, hung in there for maybe six. In that first scenario, getting service was just prohibitally expensive... whereas the second way was cheaper, sure, but still a bit of a headache and not exactly cheap. So, if I'm reading this right, it sounds like Epson offers more reliable print heads and inexpensive ink, but the internal mechanics might be less dependable...

Anthony Kelly9 said:I've owned all sorts of Canon printers—some where you refill everything manually and others that rely on those annoying chips. Honestly, replacing the print heads or nozzles wasn't worth the money on either. That first setup with the separate black and color cartridges lasted me about three years, while the chip-based one dragged on for six. In the first case, service costs were insane; in the second, it was cheaper but still a massive headache. So, if I'm reading this right, Epson has more reliable heads and cheap ink, but their internal mechanics are a mess.

Every single consumer Epson out there today uses basically the same print head. They just pulled it straight from the old D120, which used to go for $166
.
Just look at how much more rugged that ancient D120 is compared to the L210. You tell me who's actually getting ripped off here.



Nowadays, you can grab an L800 using that exact same mechanism for around $600. Use that as your baseline to figure out what your L210 actually costs the manufacturer and see how much they're cutting corners on build quality.
The Pazo l 800 is basically the modern version of the P50 or R285 and cost about the same $167. Realistically, the L210 isn't worth any more than that. Same goes for the Canon G1400. Neither should cost more than $200. Basically, someone's taking you for a ride at $100.

So, what you're saying is Epson has perfected the print head as this rock-solid component, yet they refuse to change their winning lineup—instead, they just rotate through interns who are easily replaced. They basically leave a weak link in the form of cheap mechanics working alongside that reliable head. On the flip side, Canon has solid mechanics but a weak link in the head itself... I've found that Canon heads are relatively easy for a layman to swap out, but they aren't nearly as cheap as the marketing suggests. For instance, on an IP 3300, they charge about USD 45 for a replacement, when the whole printer originally cost around USD 80. To me, choosing between Canon and Epson for total amateurs is basically picking between a toss-up and a disaster depending on which name sounds better to you. My take? That Canon G line is going to end up being significantly more expensive than the Epson L series... and by a noticeable margin at that.🍿

It looks like you’re still mixing up your apples and oranges here. The Canon G1400 is just a printer, whereas the Epson L210 is a full scanner/printer/copier combo—putting it more in the same league as the g2400. Also, could you please point me toward a local shop near me where I can actually find that $200 price you mentioned for an Epson L210? And I mean a brand new one, complete with the original pads and the full warranty included

Anthony Kelly9 said:It seems like you’re still mixing up your apples and oranges here. The G1400 is just a printer, whereas the L210 is a full scanner/printer/copier combo—putting it more in the same league as the G2400. And seriously, could you please point me toward a local shop near me that’s actually selling a brand new L210 with pads and a warranty for $200?

If you have even a basic grasp of how marketing works, you’d realize that when a product is being shoved down everyone's throat everywhere, someone has to foot the bill for that hype. That extra $100
is exactly where that money comes from.
Take Brother, for example. Nobody talks about them, yet they make devices that are way more complex—we're talking a print head with 90 nozzles instead of this Epson's 59, which usually adds about $700 - $267 to the cost. But everyone is raving about them. It all boils down to
that hidden marketing budget baked into that price gap of $100
.
Once you see three identical products from Brother, Canon, and Epson hit the market, the prices will probably settle around $600 - $233. At that point, that $100 difference you paid—which basically funded everyone's ability to talk about this product—will vanish.

Give it three months. Your $100 has already been spent on advertising.

It’s like you’re playing a great game of soccer but missing all the shots... you can run all over the field, but if you don't score, the scoreboard doesn't care. Same thing here. The L210 isn't an option for $300 (based on what I dropped) anymore; instead, you're looking at the L220 for about $383. And once that Canon g2400 finally hits the shelves, expect the price tag to jump even higher. That's when you'll really see which brand treats its customers better... just speaking from experience comparing full-frame versus APS-C Canon cameras🍿

Anthony Kelly9 said:Man, you’re completely missing the point here. You might play a great game, but if you can't score, nobody cares. It's all about the finish. Anyway, the L210 isn't an option at $300 (whatever I paid for mine) anymore; it's more like $383 for the L220. And once that Canon g2400 finally hits the shelves, it'll be even pricier—that's when you'll realize which brands really take their customers for a ride. (Speaking from experience comparing full-frame vs. APS-C Canon cameras.)🍿

You know what? There's a simple little test you can run with your L210 to see just how "budget-friendly" this build quality actually is.

Pop it in a box and pack it up. And I mean really pack it—but don't use the original box with the fancy custom foam. Just toss it in there and ship the whole mess via FedEx to someone out in California. Then, have them ship the whole thing right back to you the next day.

If you unbox everything and your printer still works perfectly without a single glitch, I'll personally give you a free Canon + CISS. It’s functionally identical to a Pixma G 1400.

Seriously, try the test. You might just walk away today with a compatible Canon Pixma G1400 that isn't even available in stores yet.👍:klap:

Look, you’re just being dishonest to cover your tracks. My whole point was about getting an all-in-one machine—something that handles printing, scanning, and copying—because I’ve been wasting money running two separate devices that cost the same as one multifunction unit. Instead, you're offering me a basic printer for the exact same price... and even if I were to ship this to someone out in California, there's zero chance it would arrive the same day. And let's be real, there’s no way you could somehow pull a miracle and get me that specific printer within 24 hours that nobody else in the entire country seems to have, unless you're claiming you have some exclusive monopoly on it 👍... I'll give you credit for having some skill, but you clearly don't know how to actually deliver on it. It doesn't make much difference compared to someone who has no talent at all but still manages to stumble onto the goal every once in a while like a blind chicken hitting a grain of corn 😉

Anthony Kelly9 said:Look, you're totally missing the point here. I've been talking about an all-in-one—something that handles printing, scanning, AND copying—because I'm tired of paying for two separate machines that do the same thing. You're just offering me a basic printer for the same price. And even if I were shipping this somewhere out in California, you haven't even mentioned shipping costs from south to north, which can be huge. There's zero chance I'd get my device back the same day, let alone have you somehow conjure up some rare printer that apparently nobody else in the entire US owns (except you, based on how much you talk 👍). I said you might be good at what you do, but you clearly lack the follow-through to actually pull it off. That’s the difference between a pro who misses the shot and a blind chicken that occasionally stumbles onto a grain of corn 😉.

You know what?
It's going to be pretty entertaining when you read back over what you wrote today in about a year. Honestly, I'm looking forward to seeing your comments then.

So, you're suggesting the Epson L series performs so poorly that it can only handle two or three refills? I find that hard to believe... though I haven't personally spent enough time working with Epson to say for sure. You're essentially talking about what happens within the warranty period. If all these models are built on the same foundation, it doesn't quite track why they’d offer an extended warranty on a lighter model like the L220... there's just no logic there in what you're saying. Anyway, let's just leave it at that for now and pick this back up down the road...😁

Anthony Kelly9 said:So you're trying to tell me Epson's L series is such garbage that it can only handle two or three refills? Yeah, I’m not buying it. I haven't spent much time messing around with Epson gear myself—mostly because my experience usually ends once the warranty expires—but there's a massive hole in your logic. If all these machines were built the exact same way, why on earth would they offer an extended warranty on the L220 when it's actually a lighter-duty model? It doesn't add up. Anyway, let's just wait until then and see if we can actually have a coherent discussion.😁

Look, all I can tell you is that aside from the CISS, there isn't much difference between the Epson L210 and the Epson XP202. The L series is basically built on the same platform.

So, the XP 202 hit the scene about two years ago. Now that we've hit the 24-month mark, we’re finally seeing what its actual lifespan looks like. Turns out, systemic issues with the quality of certain components in this specific model are starting to surface.
So, I guess there’s no real theory that things would actually work differently with the L series.
Once you run out of ink and that warranty finally expires, you might as well just toss the thing for $50. $83
I found this listing for an inkjet printer online. Check it out:

That’s a realistic price to expect once the warranty expires. The real question is whether the print head is actually covered under the warranty. Not to mention that the... $17 Most of the time, it's just not worth fixing.