Are there any decently priced printers out there that don't

>>61652678
No.

It's all a sham.

Get a Brother laser printer and high-yield toner and you're set for a while.

Stop giving monies to the InkJew.

The other option is to buy a good photo printer like a Canon Photo 100 and after market ink with tubes. But that's an ugly setup in general and the ink quality varies (it might smudge off the paper).

I think a law passed to allow 3rd parties to produce printer carts.

we should see /CSG/ alternatives soon enough because they work fast.

id expect ones for every common brand name like brother and hp.

Just buy off brand cartridges. Even if half of them are faulty, you'll still come out ahead.

>>61652758
I've had nothing but failures with 3rd party ink.

The ink smudges off the paper even when its dry over 24 hours especially on photo paper.

There's some special formula companies like Epson and Canon use.

>buy inexpensive but high quality laserjet
>pretty much all laserjets fit this criteria
>b&w is enough
>it will cover 95% of your printing needs
>go to local store/print shop/costco
>this is if you're a colored fag
>faggot

>>61652803
Mine have always Just Werked©. I had a single cartridge that wasn't recognized by my printer a few years back, but otherwise I've been fine. I use HP and Brother printers though.

Maybe try those injection refills.

>>61652678
HP introduced some kind of payment plan thing that was supposed to be cheaper for ink. Brother did something similar.

>>61652678
I'm afraid razors-and-blades is their business model. If you print a lot, get a continuous ink system.

>>61652727
It allowed them to remanufacture (i.e. refill and modify) them, not produce them.

>>61652848
I dunno, I had a big printer at work and we tried the 3rd party route and high end prints just smudged and had oddities.

So we just went back to the InkJew.

I guess for home use it's fine.

Just buy laser for printing in B&W. Who prints photos nowadays?
If you're going to display in a frame you can afford going to a shop to print it there, it's not like you're going to have hundreds of photos on display, unless you're a photographer.

the idea with 3rd party carts is you re use them and add your own ink

>>61652678
Epson Ecotank. Yep a few hundred USD is decent pricing.

>>61652969
This is a good point.
Real photogs send their prints out to AdoramaPix or the like, to have them printed on actual photo paper by actual calibrated photo exposure printers. They tend to be much cheaper and much better than kiosk crap.

>>61652832

I prefer the look of an inkjet printout.. Laser prints have shiny flecks in them.

Now that there are page-wide inkjet printheads, I kindof expect lasers to die a death in the next few years..

>>61652803
No such issues here, apart from increasingly desperate DRM shit on subsequent Canon printers there has been no issue, particularly not with the ink. Sure ceap eBay ink may have some shitty properties but once you get one supplier of good ink or cartridges (peach for me in Europe), you're theoretically done. So it works easily. No, printer manufacturers don't use super special awesome ink in general, nor should they need to do that.

>>61652678
Simply don't buy any ink-based printer.

What you want is a black and white laserprinter. They don't dry out like ink cartridges do. The only real problem is that they will eventually stop making toners for older laserprinters. I've used the same toner cartridge for 5+ years and now there's none available for my 10+ year old laserprinter.

Need to print pictures? Go to a print shop. The cost of printing a stack of pictures is lower than the cost of ink for a ink printer and the quality will be much better. A black/white laserprinter will take care of everything else and last you years and years and years on the same toner. It's not like you need color for printing out train tickets and things like that, just you need something that works every time and doesn't tell you to buy new ink even though you only printed two pages with the ones you have because the cartridges dried up.

>>61652758
>>61652803
Third party ink dry up even faster than original. Just avoid ink altogether.

>>61652999
Vast majority of them does not care about calibration and all of this extra work and cist would be an unneeded luxury vs just owning a printer if DRM bullshit was prohibited on consumables.

Even now that it isn't its actually still costlier.

there's the ecotank which you literally just refill the ink tanks, the laser printers are brutal with $80-150 toners
Honestly you're fucked no matter what

>>61652710
This. I have two Brother laser printers. One monotone I've had since college and another color one that I picked up a month ago.

>>61653045
No, the cost of ink is not higher than the cost of going to a print shop, or even than the cost of toner.

The cost of first party ink *cartridges* is, but if you can refill like with an ecotank or even a big industrial printer, ink is cheaper than everything else.

And no, 3rd party tanks don't dry up quicker either unless your printer actively sabotages them that way.

>>61653123
I haven't looked into any refill silliness in years, so you may be right.

I quite frankly don't care, though. My B&W laser printer has worked just fine the last 10 years, 5 on the same toner. Now I'll have to buy a new B&W laser since I can't find toners for it.

I have a local professional printing solution that works for me, I just upload the pictures I want printed and get excellent copies in the mail. I only ever print pictures that will be hanging on the wall so I print photos so rarely it's not worth bothering with silly "re-fill" solutions or ink in general.

>>61652678
Get a laser printer.

>>61653179
> I haven't looked into any refill silliness in years, so you may be right.
Has been that way forever.

If you don't refill, whether you get sane pricing obviously depends on what 3rd party toner / ink cartridges you can order cheaply.

There is also nothing silly to refilling ink tanks or toner cartridges when they AREN'T featuring DRM (older ink cartridges, printers with installed CISS, or the Epson Ecotank printers that already have CISS installed by the manufacturer). But ink is cheaper when you do that.

> I have a local professional printing solution that works for me
Unsurprising that it works, but the whole point is that it's not nearly as cheap.

You aren't anywhere near $0.15 per high resolution 10x15cm glossy photo paper print with such a service, are you?

>>61653249
Most laser printers feature the same problem of overly expensive toner cartridges.

Inkjet or laser, you need to take real care to get a model where refills are easy and/or 3rd party cartridges are cheap and easy to come by.

what is everyones foss linux printer?

>>61653512
Doesn't really exist in an usable form. Best you can get is printers with drivers for Linux:
https://www.openprinting.org/printers

>>61653329
If anon lives in New York City, maybe he is.
https://www.adoramapix.com/photo-prints
23-27 burgercents for 4x6 prints.

>>61653739
Even $0.27 is -unsurprisingly- still almost twice as expensive per print as doing it at home with your own printer.

I'm sure for some peoples print volumes this still works out somehow, but I wouldn't generally say that it's a terribly clever and thrifty idea.

>>61653739
>thrifty
If it's not worth printing out properly it's not worth printing out.
imho, of course. Reasonable people can disagree but they're fucking stupid.