The Inkjet Investigation

An interesting article that answers some of the questions. I have a Canon i965 that is two years old. From the begining I have used compatibles from Choice Stationary. Now, despite any amount of head cleaning, including several deep cleans, the prints come out with an overall purple hue. I am informed that the head is damaged through not using original cartridges. Any views on potential damage from using compatibles??

What a great and thorough piece of research. I've been scouring the internet for research, reviews and feedback on compatible inkjet use and this is the first definite article I've seen that actually puts the matter from the printer user's perspective.

Wilhelm Imaging Research have done some great ink/print research work, but as they work with printer manufacturers, their work (whilst unbiased) is done from a very different viewpoint from the person needing to decide: should I or shouldn't I use compatible inks?

The sheer number of ink cartridges, manufacturers (both OEM and 3rd party) and possibilities reminds me of the computing world pre-Windows. Whilst I think few people would want to see any kind of monopoly going on here, the number of variables make picking printers, ink and paper a minefield.

At 7dayshop.com, as suppliers of both genuine and compatible cartridges, we're looking to clarify the issue for our clients by providing definitive information on using both. The kind of research in 'The Inkjet Investigation' helps immensely as we are not in a position to do it ourselves.

We've decided to go the route of using a single high-quality 3rd party ink supplier for continuity. They have the clout to perform their own testing and quality control.

(Andrew Broad: there is definite proof of cheap compatible ink damaging print heads - check Wikipedia's entry on Inkjet Printers for the nitty gritty on why and how. Not all compatibles are equal, which is why we're looking towards promoting our sole 3rd party supplier as a brand name).

I agree with the other commenters, that this is a great study.
It stops short of being fully useful in that it did not track the number of pages per cartridge that each type of cartridge produced. If one cartridge had to be replaced more often than another, the cost would be higher.
I wish cost was included in the study so we could lay to rest this debate.

Having gone through 3 inkjet printers, two all-in-one (HP and Canon) and one Canon Pixma 4000, I agree with Judy on 2nd March above. The test did not include a "longevity" test of the printers using 3rd party cartridges. We have been using 3rd party stuff for some time and have learned the hard way that they perform great to OK, depending on the source, for a short while; a "short while" varies with the printer. For the HP it was ~ 3 months using Staples and/or InkTec after which the quality just "fell off the cliff" and printer stopped working after a few days. For the canons, both the 780 and the 4000, stopped working after roughly 4 months. We are now using the Canon brand in our single WiFi Canon 620 and have had no problems with either quality or printer performance. Having sold industrial type inkjet printers and ink I did have the knowledge of the importance of ink quality prior to going with 3rd party ink. Of course the reason for using the 3rd party inks was that of cartridge price. We now use the manufacturers' ink and have great results and will most likely in the long run save money and time. Yes, a test should include "longevity" for the ink and the printer. Since the "cleanliness" of the ink, the filtration, and dye or pigment consistency and ink purity are all imperative, as well as other cartridge related factors, a longevity test showing the overall costs would, most likely, put this issue to rest or, at least give some credence to its recommendations.