Cost of Ownership: Canon vs HP (new)

fotografer · Sep 10, 2003

First of all, I would like to thank Gus and WP for giving me the highest and lowest page yield figures for the Canon printers, this help to greatly improve the credibility of this exercise. Precisely because of this, I would now like to start a completely new thread so that the figures will gel even more with reality, and potential buyers of either printer makes will be able to judge for themselves before taking the plunge.

Before I go about presenting the amended figures, I would still like to say that HP printers are meant for occasional users, while Canon printers are geared towards users who print in bulk (but not to say they're not for occasional use too, of course).

But to put things in perspective, we have to see the bigger picture, that of the cost of ownership. Notice I do not** touch on the total** cost of ownership, which would have included the choice of media (depending on users), extended warranties (depending on users) and expected cost from incidents such as ink wastage from repeated cleanings of a clogged printheads (out of users' control) and yes, the dreaded gas fading that all dye inks, to a lesser or greater degree, suffer from...

To keep things simpler yet still realistic, I will attempt to break down, the cost of ownership within a year, i.e. while the warranty lasts, and with three years, when extended warranty is purchased as an added insurance.

I also don't want to include too many 'what ifs' in the equation, but to focus however, on the frequency of an average consumer usage pattern.

First off, some figures between the current (as of September 2003) HP and Canon photoprinters:

Member said:
Printer (hardware) price (I compare between equivalent features):

HP dj5150C/ps7260 at $99 vs. Canon i560 at $129;
HP dj5650 at $149 vs. Canon i850/860 at $149;
HP ps7660 at $149 vs. Canon i960 at $199 (included in the calculation);
HP ps7760 at $199 vs. Canon i900D at $249 (included in the calculation).

Member said:
OEM Cartridges (included in the calculation):

$24.99/34.99 per cart for HP, $59.98 per set of six inks
$11.95 per cart for Canon, $71.70 per set of six inks

Member said:
OEM Media (not included in the calculation):

$29.99 per 50 8.5x11 pack (HP PPP) - 60 cents per sheet ['cheap'];
$39.99 per 50 8.5x11 pack (HP PPPP) - 80 cents per sheet;
$12.99 per 20 8.5x11 pack (Canon PPPG) - 65 cents per sheet;
$13.95 per 15 8.5x11 pack (Canon PPP) - 93 cents per sheet;

$29.99 per 100 4x6 pack (HP PPP) - 30 cents per sheet;
$34.99 per 100 4x6 pack (HP PPPP) - 35 cents per sheet;
$12.49 per 50 4x6 pack (Canon PPPG) - 25 cents per sheet ['cheap'];
$8.95 per 20 4x6 pack (Canon PPP) - 45 cents per sheet.

Member said:
Extended 3-year Warranty (included for conclusions #3 & #4):

$34.99 - 39.99 for HP deskjets and photosmarts
$95.00 for all Canon bubblejet photo printers

Member said:
Now the nitty gritty data (essential in the calculation):

HP's OEM ink cost: $1.25 - 1.50 per 8x10 (based on retail cart price)

Therefore, HP ink cost per unit is 1.6 - 1.9 cents/sq in.

Canon's OEM ink cost: $0.62 - 0.91 per 8x10 (based on retail cart price)

Therefore, Canon ink cost per unit is 0.78 - 1.1 cents/sq in.

Here's the usage pattern.

Member said:
Low usage pattern:

5 8x10s per month = 60 per year = 4800 sq in area; PLUS
30 4x6s per month = 360 per year = 8640 sq in area.

This means, total area in square inch per year = 13 440 sq in

Therefore,

HP total ink cost in one year: $215.04 - 255.36 (or $235 average);
Canon total ink cost in one year: $104.83 - 147.84 (or $126 average).

Member said:
High usage pattern:

15 8x10s per month = 40 per year; PLUS
80 4x6s per month = 960 per year.

This means, total area in square inch per year = 38 400 sq in

Therefore,

HP total ink cost in one year: $614.40 - 729.60 (or $672 average);
Canon total ink cost in one year: $299.52 - 422.40 (or $361 average).

Member said:
Cost of ownership (Printer with similar features + ink cost per year)

Member said:
Low Usage

HP ps7660 at $149 + $235 ink cost = $384
Canon i960 at $199 + $126 ink cost = $325

HP ps7760 at $199 + $235 ink cost = $434
Canon i900D at $249 + $126 ink cost = $375

Member said:
High Usage

HP ps7660 at $149 + $672 ink cost = $821
Canon i960 at $199 + $361 ink cost = $560

HP ps7760 at $199 + $672 ink cost = $871
Canon i900D at $249 + $361 ink cost = $610

Member said:
Conclusion no. 1: So with low ink usage , the current HP printers will be 15.7 – 18.2% (or 17% on average) higher to run/own than Canon printers

Member said:
Conclusion no. 2: So with high ink usage , the current HP printers will be between 42.8 – 46.6% (or 45% on average) higher than the Canon equivalents.

If I include now the purchasing of extended warranties, and keeping the ink usage average the same for three years:

Then we have:

Member said:
Low Ink Usage

HP ps7660 ($149) + ext. warranty ($40) + ink cost (3x$235) = $894
Canon i960 ($199) + ext. warranty ($95) + ink cost (3x$126) = $672

HP ps7760 ($199) + ext. warranty ($40) + ink cost (3x$235) = $944
Canon i900D ($249) + ext warranty ($95) + ink cost (3x126) = $722

Member said:
High Ink Usage

HP ps7660 + ext. warranty + ink cost (3x$672) = $2255
Canon i960 + ext. warranty + ink cost (3x361) = $1377

HP ps7760 + ext. warranty + ink cost (3x$672) = $2305
Canon i900D + ext warranty + ink cost (3x361) = $1427

Member said:
Conclusion no. 3: For low ink usage , cost of ownership of HP will be 30.7 – 33.0% (or 32% on average) higher than Canon after 3 years.

Member said:
Conclusion no.4: For high ink usage , cost of ownership of HP will be 61.5 – 63.8 % (or 63% on average) higher than Canon after 3 years.

Comments are - (ahem) - welcome (be gentle with me!).

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

jeff127702 · Sep 10, 2003

I think here we need to answer one question.
What longevity of prints mean for you?

Does it make sense to save few bucks in case of fading?

In general I’m against such kind of very straight calculation but in general thanks fotografer for your efforts.

Regards,

Al Peterson · Sep 10, 2003

fotografer said:
fotografer said:

High usage pattern:

Click to expand...

15 8x10s per month = 40 per year; PLUS

80 4x6s per month = 960 per year.

This means, total area in square inch per year = 38 400 sq in

Don't mean to be nit picking put the above numbers immediately caught my attention.

15 per/month X 12 = 180, not 40 per year.

Even with this miscalculation you total is only off by 38,400 sq in - 37,440 sq in (what I calculate) = 960 sq in less than your calculaton. or 2.6%.

I have read with interest many of your posts, and have learned that you were an engineer in your working days at HP. I was an engineer at AT&T Bell labs. If you're anything like me you're a stickler for accuracy and my correction is not meant as criticism.

I will continue to read your informed posts with great interest.

fotografer · Sep 10, 2003

Okay Jeff,

I will attempt to provide a short answer to this. First off, personally, longevity is very important to me. Some users don't find it a problem at all.

Longevity is (partially) dealt with by choosing the suitable medium to print on.

For all dye inks, it's advisable to print on swellable papers. Some printer dyes (maybe due to their exceptional speed) pools more easily than others, and this is where you have to decide the slight degradation in print quality is worth the while.

Longevity is also (partially) solved with the way you store your prints. Yes, you have the digital archives (which is a more permanent and safe way), but you should take are to display prints away from direct sunlight, under the glass if possible, and failing which, if you mat them and don't put glass over it (I hate glasses!) then use the right paper or spray a fixative coating on it.

There are just too many such issues to take care, and quantifying a figures on media and taking in consideration longevity will make this cost analysis at best academic, at worst impossible.

In any case, those other issues are dealt with in greater details in some other thread. Search the forum, I am sure you'll find loads of opinions and tips on that...

Happy Printing!

jeff said:
I think here we need to answer one question.
What longevity of prints mean for you?

Does it make sense to save few bucks in case of fading?

In general I’m against such kind of very straight calculation but
in general thanks fotografer for your efforts.

Regards,

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer · Sep 10, 2003

Al Peterson,

Al Peterson said:
Don't mean to be nit picking put the above numbers immediately
caught my attention.

15 per/month X 12 = 180, not 40 per year.

Even with this miscalculation you total is only off by 38,400 sq in

37,440 sq in (what I calculate) = 960 sq in less than your

calculaton. or 2.6%.

Thank you, Al. There is simply no excuse for my mistake, really.

Al Peterson said:
I have read with interest many of your posts, and have learned that
you were an engineer in your working days at HP. I was an engineer
at AT&T Bell labs. If you're anything like me you're a stickler
for accuracy and my correction is not meant as criticism.

I am a poor engineer in HP.

I got to do the non math stuff most of the time (often I was 'volunteered' to present figures to management, or announce bad news to the production operators).

The rest of the figures, like production defect rates, I had excel macros and UNIX systems to help. Laziness breed contempt!

I can accept criticism, as long as they are valid. And yours is such example.

Al Peterson said:
I will continue to read your informed posts with great interest.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

WP · Sep 11, 2003

--
http://www.pbase.com/wp12001
'Say what again?'

fotografer · Sep 11, 2003

I did ask you to check the amended numbers in the previous (infamous) thread...

But hey, thanks! I am glad you like it! Means a lot to me.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Lou Tent · Sep 11, 2003

Hi fotografer,

Ok, maybe I'm crazy ...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=6049095

fotografer said:
fotografer said:

Don't mean to be nit picking put the above numbers immediately
caught my attention.

15 per/month X 12 = 180, not 40 per year.

Click to expand...

Lou

Rich-D · Sep 11, 2003

Thanx for the hardwork and time fotografer...I have been looking for a comparison like this for some time now as I am currently looking at the i850/i865 to replace my non-photo Epson C60 POS.

--
©º°¨¨°º©©º°¨¨°º© C-2100 UZi owner ©º°¨¨°º©©º°¨¨°º©

fotografer · Sep 11, 2003

Lou,

It was entirely my fault that I didn't correct the numbers even after you've corrected me.

But the total sq inch value is based on 40 8x10s per month for 12 months or 36 months. And those values are accurate.

Actually for the purpose of this discussion, I broke down the 40 8x10s to some 8x10s and some 4x6s, and if you add them it is actually 39, not 40. Baaah! But the total square inch values is that of (40x8x10) x12 or x36 months value. So the total cost is not affected.

I sort of work backwards in a way... so it became confusing for you. Sorry.

Lou Tent said:
Ok, maybe I'm crazy ...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=6049095

Lou Tent said:

Lou Tent said:

Don't mean to be nit picking put the above numbers immediately
caught my attention.

15 per/month X 12 = 180, not 40 per year.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lou

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer · Sep 11, 2003

Rich,

I think even though i850/865 uses four color and not six, I believe the estimate for the OEM ink running cost is similar as they use the same dpi as an i950/960/900D rating in printing, up to 4800x1200dpi.

Rich-D said:
Thanx for the hardwork and time fotografer...I have been looking
for a comparison like this for some time now as I am currently
looking at the i850/i865 to replace my non-photo Epson C60 POS.

--
©º°¨¨°º©©º°¨¨°º© C-2100 UZi owner ©º°¨¨°º©©º°¨¨°º©

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Rich-D · Sep 11, 2003

Picked up the i850 today and I am as giddy as a school girl (what a stupid analogy) hehe. I think I may go thru an inktank today with all the prints I have been testing...kicks a$$ on the piece of cr@p Epson C60 for photo, even tho i850 isn't classified as a Photo Printer, it does the job that I want.

fotografer said:
I think even though i850/865 uses four color and not six, I believe
the estimate for the OEM ink running cost is similar as they use
the same dpi as an i950/960/900D rating in printing, up to
4800x1200dpi.

Rich-D said:

Thanx for the hardwork and time fotografer...I have been looking
for a comparison like this for some time now as I am currently
looking at the i850/i865 to replace my non-photo Epson C60 POS.

--
©º°¨¨°º©©º°¨¨°º© C-2100 UZi owner ©º°¨¨°º©©º°¨¨°º©

Click to expand...

--
fotografer
...the great paper chase! (see
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Donald Cooper · Sep 11, 2003

That is a bundle or work. We should all definitely appreciate it! Must have taken you an hour just to type all this stuff up. Much less to the research.

Out of curiosity, do you have a SWAG about the TCO of Epsons vs. either of these guys?

DSC

Richard Homeyer · Sep 11, 2003

fotografer said:
Rich,

I think even though i850/865 uses four color and not six, I believe
the estimate for the OEM ink running cost is similar as they use
the same dpi as an i950/960/900D rating in printing, up to
4800x1200dpi.

A while back I did some comparisons of costs with others. My i850 seemed to run just a hint more economical than the i950 but it was close. This could have been effected by diffrent photos being used, but I kind of figured that the i850 using less of darker colored inks to simulate the lighter photo colors (which the i950 likes to burn through) was the cause. They were still pretty close though.

fotografer said:
Rich-D said:

Thanx for the hardwork and time fotografer...I have been looking
for a comparison like this for some time now as I am currently
looking at the i850/i865 to replace my non-photo Epson C60 POS.

--
©º°¨¨°º©©º°¨¨°º© C-2100 UZi owner ©º°¨¨°º©©º°¨¨°º©

Click to expand...

--
fotografer
...the great paper chase! (see
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer · Sep 12, 2003

Rich!

Rich-D said:
Picked up the i850 today and I am as giddy as a school girl (what a
stupid analogy) hehe. I think I may go thru an inktank today with
all the prints I have been testing...kicks a$$ on the piece of cr@p
Epson C60 for photo, even tho i850 isn't classified as a Photo
Printer, it does the job that I want.

Oh, I DO know what you meant as giddy as a school girl. I would say as giddy and giggly as school girls. They often do, and when they talked to each other, and giggle non-stop, and then they look at you , you felt there must something wrong with you... Stray bread crumbs on the upper lip? The zipper undone? Unmatched shoes/socks???

Anyway, both the c60 (and no the c84) and the i850/860 are marketted by their respective manufacturers as business photo-capable printers.

Enjoy and Happy Printing!

Remember, protect your Canon prints under glass or album sleeves (or at the very least spray fixative spray on them)!

))

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer · Sep 12, 2003

Yes, Richard,

I seem to remember you say that the i850 runs on average 60 cents per 8x10, the lower end of Canon six-color in this comparison, and could even be lower.

Richard Homeyer said:
A while back I did some comparisons of costs with others. My i850
seemed to run just a hint more economical than the i950 but it was
close. This could have been effected by diffrent photos being
used, but I kind of figured that the i850 using less of darker
colored inks to simulate the lighter photo colors (which the i950
likes to burn through) was the cause. They were still pretty close
though.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer · Sep 12, 2003

Don!

Thanks. Hehe.

Actually the 'research' took like 15 minutes. The typing another 15. But the AMENDMENTS, took hours. I had a 'row' (entirely my fault) with someone in the forum because of this, and ended taking things too seriously. That actually cost me more time than the actual analysis.

I am doing CO, not TCO, until and unless Epson users here tracked and post their usage pattern here, I can't do a fair comparison. I need real life inputs from REAL users.

Donald Cooper said:
That is a bundle or work. We should all definitely appreciate it!
Must have taken you an hour just to type all this stuff up. Much
less to the research.

Out of curiosity, do you have a SWAG about the TCO of Epsons vs.
either of these guys?

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Paul K · Sep 12, 2003

Thanks fotografer for doing this. Consumables are a big deal for amateur (non-sale) use and I’ve been curious about ink costs for this new HP. Alas, you have a glaring oversight. Each printer has its aggravations, so you need to address operator consumables. IOW, what is the monthly cost of tranquilizing beverages when using each printer? I know it can be quite high for my Epsons when the printheads clog.

Paul K

fotografer · Sep 12, 2003

Paul,

Paul K said:
Thanks fotografer for doing this. Consumables are a big deal for
amateur (non-sale) use and I’ve been curious about ink costs for
this new HP. Alas, you have a glaring oversight. Each printer
has its aggravations, so you need to address operator consumables.
IOW, what is the monthly cost of tranquilizing beverages when using
each printer? I know it can be quite high for my Epsons when the
printheads clog.

I can speak for HP printers. All HP printers, even the cheapest models, will be clog free if left idle for up to two months. After that, there is slightly higher chance that they may clog, but mostly after priming the nozzles will clear up.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Cost of Ownership: Canon vs HP (new)

Veteran Member

Active member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Donald Cooper

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts