Nobody knows if their new line of inkjet printers can produce anywhere
near the results of Canon or Epson. But we know that separate color ink
tanks are an advantage that Kodak chose not to implement; instead going
for a multiple color ink tank that when one color runs out the user
needs to to throw the others away negating some of the savings for lower
priced ink carts.

But the biggest mistake is not to make a pure printer in both standard
and wide format. To get a Kodak inkjet one is forced to buy a Kodak
scanner and not have the choice of getting the best of breed of each
device. For some time certain Epson models have been the best scanners.

So when one of the multi function devices goes south then one has a
partial paper weight taking up space.

When you can buy the Canon IP4300 for under $80.00 on sale with dual
paper feeds and duplex options included or a Kodak for an additional
$100 (the bottom of the line) it will take about 4 to 5 complete ink
changes (you do throw out colored ink on Kodak) before you break even.

And while you may (the argument is out) get some longevity using the
pigmented ink it is known that dye ink is much more vibrant and does
look better on glossy paper.

I am looking forward to reading complete reviews from PC Mag and PC World.

measekite wrote:

I'm looking forward to reading reviews too.
As far as the rest of your post goes, I'd say that Kodak has done a
sensible thing by "dipping their toes" in a segment of the market (cheap
MFDs - probably where the sales volume is greatest) and if they achieve
some success/momentum, then the follow on may be be better and larger
machines, and cheaper ink for the rest of us - even if we choose to buy
another manufacturer's product.
As the cost of their (OEM) ink per photo print is about 1/3 of what
Canon and Epson charge, then why should anyone give a rat's arse if
there's some ink left over in a multi-colour cartridge?

frederick wrote:
I can agree with the fact that even if Kodak quality is marginal but
sells well and the result forces Canon and Epson to lower the price of
their ink it will be a good thing. But I think that HP, Epson, and
Canon will hold true to their marketing philosophy.

"frederick" <lost (AT) sea (DOT) com> wrote

Although I like the concept of separate ink carts, no one considers that
when a single Canon cart signals low or empty on the ink monitor and is
replaced it triggers an automatic cleaning cycle that takes ink from ALL of
the ink carts. This cleaning cycle is triggered to apply a vacuum which
draws ink from the newly replaced cart - sort of like priming the pump to be
certain it will start feeding. Although OEM Canon carts generally function
well, Canon built into its system this feature to be sure one of their carts
didn't come out of the box with a feed problem. Unfortunately, the
automatic cleaning cycle can't be restricted to one cart. With the printers
that use the bci-3ebk carts you do have the choice, when doing a manual
cleaning with their print driver software, to clean either the bci-3ebk or
bci-6 carts. An interesting aside with refilling - if a cart is refilled
prior to going low or empty, you don't trigger that cleaning cycle. The
paradox is that with low cost inks you don't care if some is wasted! If you
make the cart drip a few drops before placing it in the printer, you
actually don't need the cleaning cycle as you know the cart is feeding ok.