[rrstuff]

I am noticing there are very good rebates and one could buy a new Pro-100 for some $50-100. Canon has been selling those for months.
What's the deal with that? are they planning to boost prices of ink as soon as they saturate the market? Are they trying to get rid of competition?

It just doesn't seem like a good deal for them to be selling an advance printer for a price of a basic one you get from target.

[Adam]

They just make enough money on paper and ink I guess. I picked up one of the printers a few weeks ago, it was practically free

[rrstuff]

They just make enough money on paper and ink I guess. I picked up one of the printers a few weeks ago, it was practically free

How long does the rebate take typically? It is $50 in BH now with a free shipping and I am very tempted.

I am thinking of getting one, but I am not sure how often would I print at 11x19. I typically don't do that because of the cost, but from my rough calculation it would cost about half of what I would need to pay online. And then again, what the hell am I going to do with dozens of 11x19 photos lying around the house .

[LensBeginner]

It's always been this way with printers...
They sell them nearly for free, knowing that you'll be back for the cartridges and they'll make money on those...
Laser printers (not for photography, obviously) are even worse... there are hidden costs like the photoconductor unit, which has to be replaced on a regular basis...

[rrstuff]

It's always been this way with printers...
They sell them nearly for free, knowing that you'll be back for the cartridges and they'll make money on those...
Laser printers (not for photography, obviously) are even worse... there are hidden costs like the photoconductor unit, which has to be replaced on a regular basis...

Not for the pro printers. Those were always very expensive. If you look at Epson equivalents they are still hundreds of dollars. It's just the Pro-100 that has been this cheap. If you look at the print quality, it's very, very good. Honestly even the cheap Canon MG3120 makes very adequate 8x10 prints, so perhaps it's not a surprise...

And yes, obviously the ink is more expensive than human blood (it actually is: http://visual.ly/ink-costs-more-human-blood).

[LensBeginner]

Not for the pro printers. Those were always very expensive. If you look at Epson equivalents they are still hundreds of dollars. It's just the Pro-100 that has been this cheap. If you look at the print quality, it's very, very good. Honestly even the cheap Canon MG3120 makes very adequate 8x10 prints, so perhaps it's not a surprise...

And yes, obviously the ink is more expensive than human blood (it actually is: Ink Costs More Than Human Blood | Visual.ly).

A very interesting and Halloween-esque comparison!
Also bottled water costing more than crude oil is kinda backwards... but I drink from the tap!
...oh well, guess I'll settle with vodka!

[CDW]

I bought one of the Pro100 printers earlier this year, primarily for use with printable DVDs and note cards. It does a great job BUT: It is extremely slow and ink costs if you use Canon ink is bordering on criminal. List price for a complete set of small capacity ink cartridges is well over a hundred dollars. The print head failed after only a few months and Canon replaced it under warranty.

A friend also bought one at the same time but he's using refillable cartridges and a chip resetter. His prints look virtually identical to mine with Canon ink, FWIW. For larger prints with true archival qualities I prefer my Epson 3880 or certainly those from my ipf8300. If you're not printing production quantities or using it several times a week, it's probably overkill vs a smaller desktop. For all practical purposes, it takes up almost as much desk space as the Epson 3880 which is 17x22 capable.