View Full Version : Canon i850s Printer Ink refills?
fizzlebent
May 3, 2008, 05:27 PM
I have a Canon i850s printer that I want to refill the Cart. But not quite sure how I should do this. The ink refill kit I have doesn't have my particular Printer listed in the How to's. Any help from you Folks would be greatly appreciated!? LOST!:confused: :confused:
donf
May 4, 2008, 01:48 PM
Canon does not recommend using ink refills for their cartridges. Neither does HP, Lexmark or Dell.
The reason is that each of these companies have exacting control over the chemical composition of their inks and the application of the ink to the paper.
Competitors in the re-filled ink industry do not have the quality control or the absorbstation rate of the manufacturer's inks.
I believe that all of the above referenced companies have adopted a voided warranty status if re-filled ink is used in their cartridges.
Add to that the potential to clog print heads and to me, its just not worthwhile to me to risk the cost of a new printer over a cartridge of unknown quality ink.
NeedKarma
May 4, 2008, 02:18 PM
- around $8,000 per gallon.On the other hand the price of ink for ink jet printer is horrendously overpriced See here: $8,000-per-gallon printer ink leads to antitrust lawsuit (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071218-hp-and-staples-accused-of-colluding-on-printer-ink-prices.html)
I don't blame you for trying to save a buck. The trend seems to be moving towards home laser printers as a cartridge lasts a much longer time and there is no 'funny business' with printer software halting you from printing as is the case with inkjets.
donf
May 4, 2008, 02:28 PM
Need Karma - Sorry, but the same type code that looks for re-filed ink looks out refilled cartridges.
That was the root cause of the issue. In Lexmark's contention 3rd party companies benefited by working around Lexmark's Proprietary code in located in the printer.
While Lexmark was making their own cartridges they had a lock on the code. When they outsourced they lost control of the security to protect their products. To the best of my knowledge, the case is still under appeal.