Kodak's cheap inkjet claims all talk?

We were pretty stoked to hear Kodak was planning on running full tilt at the current status quo of "loss leader" printer tactics, that has unwitting consumers picking up inkjet printers for a dime, and spending a fortune on printing supplies. Unfortunately, it looks like Kodak hasn't come upon any magical printing techniques to pull this off yet, since its new printers didn't do so good up against the likes of Epson, HP and Canon. Kodak is marketing its printers as capable of producing 10 cent prints, which would indeed be a great deal. Tests show that an $18 pack of paper and ink results in about 165 borderless prints, about 11.5 cents per print. Unfortunately, the prints were basically "draft" quality, maybe fine for certain budget-minded consumers, but hardly comparable to "lab quality" photos. To boost the quality you'll need pricier Kodak paper, which ends up at about 35 cents per print, and renders the whole exercise pointless. The testers recommend the $150 Epson Stylus Photo RX580, for super good prints and great speed. Might want to leave that $200 Kodak EasyShare 5300 on the shelf for the time being.

[Sandeep @ Apr 4th 2007 8:44PM]

Disappointing. Had it lived up to the hype, I would've made it mine in a heartbeat.

[RyanTV @ Apr 4th 2007 8:55PM]

I'm really not sure this is what the market is even demanding right now. With the availability of online photo printing services that do a down right fantastic job with photos (snapfish, shutterfly) - and even 1 hour type photo labs (walgreens) taking digital uploads with above average output - there isn't need for the in-house photo lab.

my advice is to send your photos through one of those services and buy an inexpensive monochrome laser for desktop printing needs. 99% of the documents that people send to their color inkjets have no need to be in color, so its just a waste of ink/money - which is exactly what HP and Epson want you to do.

[Dan @ Apr 4th 2007 10:07PM]

My, I'm so shocked by this news...

I've seen and tested them at Best Buy. Boy, what a bunch of junk these printers are. They are slow and unresponsive, have problems reading memory cards, and print absolutely horrible prints on regular photo paper. Kodak produced another dud of a product, along with all their pitiful so-called cameras. Their R&D department must be pretty depressing to be around these days, that is if they even have one.

[Neil @ Apr 5th 2007 7:18AM]

Without regard, for the moment, as to the veracity of the new printer EQUIPMENT functionality, it seems the argument that you need high quality paper to achieve a high quality print is equivalent to all other printers as well, thereby maintaining the integrity of Kodak's argment for cheap ink. Right? What am I missing here?

[Mike @ Apr 5th 2007 8:05AM]

The 10 cents a photo claim comes from using this "value" pack:
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=10603&pq-locale=en_US

The list price for that is $17.99 and it has enough ink and 4x6 photo paper to make 180 4x6 photos. $18.00 divided by 180 is 10 cents . . . .

I've seen the photos from these printers, and they are amazing. They are not draft quality. Be your own judge after you have seen the output from the printer . . .

[Jeff @ Apr 5th 2007 8:52AM]

For the highest quality prints you need this premium photo pack:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/10476/10599/10604&pq-locale=en_US

At $20 for 135 prints, it works out to about 15 cents a print, which still sounds like a pretty good deal to me for quality home prints.

[Robert @ Apr 11th 2007 2:38AM]

Obviously youre a competitor rep. I've tested all brands - took same picture and printed on each top printer from competitors. Then showed photos to customers and associates and 85 of 100 chose the Kodak EasyShare 5300. The proof is in the picture! and the argument that it is 11.5 cents not 10 cents/ print in photo pack is the best argument one could come up with? Yes it is Kodak's everyday paper- still high quality just thinner. Even with the premium it still comes out to .15 cents per print. Best detail most accurate colors with th Kodak inkjet prints. Don't be fooled by other companiers saturating their blues and greens so you think its a better picture. look at the detail and color accuracy and the Kodak wins hands down. Quality print head, quality ink, easy to use.

[Dan @ Apr 5th 2007 8:48AM]

Neil, it equals out in comparison with Epson or HP. The kits Epson and HP sell with ink and paper in a kit usually round out around 30 to 35 cents a print. That's with thee common everyday paper that you get in a kit, and not their 4 star quality paper. To be able to achieve equal results with the Kodak, you have to upgrade to more expensive paper, otherwise your photos will come out grainy, and certaintly very low quality (Yes, I've printed and seen the results). Yes the claim of cheap ink still stands, but what they don't tell you or show you is to be able to get prints equal to the quality of the other brands, or lab quality, you have to pay extra for paper that works well with that ink, which basically negates the whole cheap ink idea. People were wanting to switch to Kodak if it produced quality photos for less then Epson or HP. Unfortunately tests have proven Kodak fails miserably.

Regardless, even if you got the good paper and ink, you still got the problem of a nearly nonfunctional printer that is slow, and seems to have technical issues from my experiences testing their product. My advice, upload your photos to Wal-Mart or Walgreens photo site, and pick up your prints at the store if possible. They do a heckuva lot better job then you can at home, and will save you money. If you still like the idea of having a photo lab at home, point your eyes toward Epson and HP.

[Randy Gentry @ Apr 5th 2007 9:08AM]

I was wanting an ink price war from this... I was very disappointed in the Kodak printer when I used one at Best Buy. I'll stick with the Epson, which prints very, very good.

[chris @ Apr 5th 2007 9:17AM]

We've given up on the ink war. Our printer, while old and dieing painfully is about to be replaced with a color laserjet. While that's not the best choice for color photo printing, we don't do photo printing, so really, it'll likely save us, since even though the toner is expensive, it far outlasts ink.

If they want to make a real difference, all the manufacturers should start respecting their customers and make better printers for a medium price and bring the ink prices back down to earth.

[Photosci @ Apr 5th 2007 10:23AM]

Prints using the "value pack" are excellent, about as good as consumer inkjet prints get, and really do work out to be just over a dime each. We stopped using our old inkjet printer because of the cost; with these new Kodak models that will change.

[Barry Silverstein @ Apr 5th 2007 12:50PM]

Despite the Popular Photography Article, the INK WAR IS STILL ON >>>>>

I think that the popular photography article missed a very big item that is not yet available in Best Buy, the Premium Value Photo Pack, which according to Kodak's website should be available sometime in April.

I visited Best Buy last weekend and looked over the Kodak 5300 printer. It is very fast and produces very good pictures on the value pack at about 10 cents a shot. I have children and for most purposes this is great, as they like to print often. Good for hanging on the fridge or putting in a scrap book. They are photo quality and lifetime, but not Professional lab quality.

But at 10 cents for a very fast, lifetime print done at home, this is a bargain!

For the higher grade look that I would want to put in an album or picture frame, I would use their Premium Value Pack for 135 pictures at $19.99 with ink and Premium paper. This gives a great image on a heavy weight paper for 14.8 cents a picture.

This is much less than the 34 cents that Popular Photography quoted, and is less than half of the price from the other printers compared. I think Pop Photo missed this because the value pack wasn't on the shelf yet, but is apparently coming...soon.

10 cents for a everyday lifetime photo print

15 cents for a heavy weight high quality photo print

SO THE INK WAR IS STILL ON! GO KODAK!!

[Micheal Bell @ Apr 5th 2007 3:44PM]

Sorry to see that some people are disappointed with the new kodak printers but don't worry their only gonna get better over time. In the mean while check http://www.inkist.com

[Jarrett Kaufman @ Apr 5th 2007 5:35PM]

I've used these machines myself, the reviews speak the truth. I don't know what you're smoking, Mike, but the prints are awful compared to their competition. And if you had read the review you'd clearly see that they didn't get the full 180 prints out of that pack which is why it skewed higher than 10 cents per print.

The quality of the machine is awful, the print quality's bad, they're massive and ugly, and they're not dependable. Of the two memory cards I tested one with, it found 10 of the 19 photos on one card, and 11 of the 14 on the other. Those same cards worked fine in every other brand of printer. Also the first photo I printed resulted in the machine shredding and expelling the first sheet of photo paper before finally printing a photo with wheel marks along the top and awful quality (and this was on the higher-quality paper). Then I printed a text sample which the printer promptly spat across the aisle, followed immediately by the entire contents of its paper tray.

As for Barry, you read like a Kodak sales pitch. You missed the part of the article where they quite clearly state that on the higher quality papers the ink cartridge doesn't yield as many prints as Kodak claims. Kodak can claim all they want that you're going to get 135 photos, but when real-world experience gets 85, then you're going to get only 85. And again, what photos were you looking at? The ones I saw were noisy and ugly. And the Epson prints last a lifetime too, print faster, more reliably, and look better.

Besides, you have to pay a lot more up front for this machine than for better options from the competition. The RX580 is $120 at Best Buy this week. You're going to pay $80 more up front to print low-quality 10-cent prints at a slower speed with a bigger machine with less features?

And may I remind everyone that Kodak's lifetime claims are backed up by NO third parties? Everyone else uses the Henry Wilhelm Institute, the acknowledged world leader in print longevity. Kodak, however, refuses to do business with them since Henry Wilhelm first "outed" them back in the '70s for their poor fade resistance. So their figures are unverifiable and based on internal testing.

Quit accepting marketing bull and start raising your standards. If you think that print looks good, try printing it on any of the other brands and still tell me it looks good.

[Randy Gentry @ Apr 5th 2007 7:55PM]

Jarrett, Your a great Epson salesman. Too bad these Kodak printers don't give yea more competition.

[barry @ Apr 5th 2007 11:15PM]

Hey Jarrett,

You sound pretty biased and supportive of the Popular Photo people, when they clearly missed an important point. As far as the number of prints they were able to make, lets look at the numbers based on the article.

11.5 cents draft photos is pretty good. If you use the same proportions (not just numbers pulled from thin air) for the premium value pack, thats 16 cents a print for premium prints instead of 14.8 cents. I'd say that beats the 34 cents that the article claimed by over 50%. So Kodak is quite accurate in its claims that they are 50% cheaper than the competition.

The photo prints I saw were quite nice and the text was sharp, clear and pumped out fast. As far as print lifetime, no company has more history in preserving peoples pictures than Kodak. Regarding the 1970's print fading. If I recall inkjet back in the 70's, it didn't exist, and all inkjet faded horribly until just a couple of years ago. Black and White was forever in the 70's, and color photos' did fade. See any 70's Polaroids, the only other competition back then, they faded in a day. Let's talk today's technology, not yesterday's. I'm sure that someone like Popular Photo will do an independent test on fading, but if Kodak says it will last for 100 years, I'll bet on them. Make sure when you compare, you use the other guys premium inks and papers, then compare the price of this to Kodaks answer. It clearly gives a cheaper print solution for a lifetime photo.

As far as the looks of the machine, I like them. Almost Apple-like in appearance.
Finally, the machines that I saw worked great.

I'm sure, however, just like Epson , HP, and Canon, a unit will be shipped with a problem every now and then, especially on the first week of production. (Remember the Nintendo Wii straps that needed a recall or have you ever bought a first year model car?) Its really not about the problems, because they all have them, its really about how they take care of the customer in the end that counts. I'll bet that unlike the others, good old Kodak will take care of you real fast, since their new in this game, just like Honda did in the 70's, Hyundai did in the 90's.

If you want to still pay for ink like its gold, go ahead. I'll pull for a trusted name thats shaking up the companies that have been taking advantage of its customers for too long.

I still maintain that the INK WAR IS ON! Go KODAK!

[Jarrett Kaufman @ Apr 5th 2007 8:09PM]

I was genuinely hoping for some competition. I wanted to see a real shake-up in the ink price model for once, and I thought this was going to bring it. Epson, Canon, HP, Lexmark, Brother... none of them is going to improve their ink prices out of the goodness of their hearts. Only genuine competition can do that. I'm truly disappointed that Kodak failed to provide that.

[pookaloopa @ Apr 6th 2007 4:54PM]

I disagree with pop photo. I've owned a 5100 for about three weeks now. I know when I'm getting good photos and I know when my printing costs are lowered dramatically. They are! All the rest is BS.

[Steve Billow @ Apr 6th 2007 5:34PM]

Hi everybody. I'm a Kodak employee and worked on this inkjet program from the beginning. Popular Photography was kind enough to share some of their methodologies with us and we wanted to share our perspective on this. We hope you get a chance to try these products for yourself.

The Kodak EasyShare All-in-One Printer was recently tested by Popular Photography Magazine, a well
respected publication that provides excellent information for advanced amateur photographers who
print large quantities of color photographs and enlargements at home. The audience for Kodak's new
All-in-One inkjet printer is primarily households that print large quantities of black and white
and color documents in addition to color photos. These consumers are frustrated by the high cost
of ink and are looking for an easier way to print documents and lab-quality photos at home.

The photo-quality test of the Kodak EasyShare 5300 was done using Kodak's 3-star Photo paper. When
using this basic Photo paper, the printer produces a good print at the low price of 10 cents per
print. For bold colored, lab-quality prints, Kodak recommends its 5-star Ultra Premium or 4-star
Premium Photo paper.

The print-yield test was done using four photos typical of advanced amateur shots, with higher
color saturation and more ink coverage. Kodak's internal testing was done with dozens of photos
more representative of typical consumer shots. Results were an average of 180 photos per color ink
cartridge using Kodak 3-star Photo paper, and an average of 135 photos per color ink cartridge
when using Kodak 4-star Premium Photo Paper.

The Kodak EasyShare All-in-One Printers enable consumers to affordably print crisp, sharp
documents and Kodak lab-quality photos at home that will save consumers up to 50 percent on
everything they print. The new printers provide ultimate levels of print quality and ease-of-use,
while offering low total cost of ownership compared to other leading consumer inkjet printers on
the market.

Steve Billow
Writing System Team Leader
Eastman Kodak Company

[zappa @ Apr 7th 2007 7:36PM]

thanks steve, i thought it was a bit odd that pop-photo, while mentioning how great the 5 star prints were, failed to really go in to any detail, bummer. i would also guess that you aren't sitting still, and improvements to ink, paper and the print-science are ongoing, and any complaints or negative press you get will be taken seriously.

it is also a bummer to see the somewhat extreme opinions people have of the printers (comments to this post are great examples, barry and jarrett, i'm talking about you). on one hand you have folks that slag on the printer for being junk in every way, and on the other you have people that seem to be kodak fanboys. i would wager a guess that the truth lies somewhere between their testimonials - a printer that prints pretty pictures, is not a cheap piece of junk, but is not always going to run perfectly. i have never had a perfect printer, ever, and would not expect a kodak, hp, epson, canon or lexmark printer to be perfect either. in fact, the reason i bought a 5300 is that my epson crapped out on me, and i would really enjoy printing more for less. no one but kodak is offering that to me. i'm willing to believe kodak's claims, as a fellow product developer, i know it is nothing short of product-line suicide to market and preach a bullshit gospel, particularly bullshit that can be very easily revealed.

anyway, steve, thank you for making a nice product that, for me, has been exactly as advertised.

[dave @ Apr 8th 2007 3:41PM]

I have read everyones opinion and am now giving mine. I bought the 5300 at best buy two weeks ago. Someone from Kodak sold me on it. Well let me tell you it did not live up to what I was told. The print quality was weak, the LCD panel locked up on me twice,and as far as scanner quality it reminded me of a past mistake with a lexmark AIO. Let me just say Kodak, more like lame duck. One good thing at least I could return it and get my money back. I then bought my AIO somewhere else. It will be awhile before I shop at Bust Buy again

[Michael J. McNamara @ Apr 14th 2007 7:12PM]

As the author of the Popular Photography and Imaging Magazine test report, it was my goal to determine if Kodak's claims were true, and also to find out which of the four AIO printers I tested were the best value for photo enthusiasts. Comparisons were not made against any other (or older) printers than those in the test, and the comments above pointing to older Canon, Epson, and HP units that might produce equavalent prints to the ones we determined to be "draft" quality on the Kodak are outside the scope of our test. Our determination that Kodak's 11.5-cent prints were Draft quality was a unanimous decision from the entire staff based on the image quality standards that we have set and used for years. We concluded that for $199, the Kodak 5300 is not the best value in the AIO class unless you can accept the print quality of its 3 Star paper. On the other hand, its 4 star and 5 star papers produce extremely high quality prints--but at a higher price per print.
Steve Billow from Kodak mentions above the difference between the photos we chose for our test and those that Kodak uses. Despite that difference, our yeild on the 3 star paper was rather close to Kodak's claim (165 vs claimed 180) and 11.5 cents per print is very close to 10 cents. We are more concerned with the claim that you should be able to get 135 4x6 prints from the 4 star Premium Paper Pack ($19.99--when it ships!) since our yield came to only 80 prints--a much greater variation despite using the same images that brings the price to 25 cents, not the claimed 15 cents. The fact is that the higher quality paper uses more ink per page, and does not deliver the same ratio between Kodak's claims and our results as found in the 3 star test. We also noticed several paper jams as have current owners and posters at this site.
Since the article was posted, additional comments have been added pointing to software bugs that contributed to poor scanning results (notably a topic not mentioned by any current users despite Kodak admitting the problem), and 3 star paper that is still being sold in stores without the proper watermark to identify it to the Kodak printer (another contributing factor to our test results). When Kodak fixes these bugs and watermark issues, image quality may improve for both the 3 star paper and scans, but it remains to be seen whether the 4 star prints will ever reach 50% savings over the competitors, or if the use of an single cartridge to hold 5 inks will be as efficient as separate cartridges found in the competitive set. Michael J. McNamara, Executive Technology Editor, Popular Photography and Imaging Magazine.

[Alan B @ Apr 19th 2007 4:01AM]

Why all this idiotic talk about number of cents difference in the cost per print ? What most people care about far more is getting outstanding photo quality, and the convenience and cleanliness of changing printer cartridges. I am trying to decide whether I should buy the new Kodak 5300 or the Canon Pixma MP 600. The Canon has received many reviews over many years as an outstanding best buy that prints stunning photos at a very fast speed, but I'm concerned about getting my fingers filthy cleaning clogged printer cartridges which I suspect is not an issue with the new Kodak 5300. Has anyone compared the photo quality of these two All In One Photo printers ?

[Ronald @ Apr 19th 2007 6:05AM]

I am a computer tech that tests quite a few products with a lot of different computers. What most of the post in here are failing to understand is that there is more going on with a "printer" than just the printer. Take speed for example. Is the machine connected wireless, or USB? What is the OS your running? What are the specs on your computer i.e. your memory, CPU and bus card? Are all the drivers up to date (are they OS based, or from the manufacture) > this is just SOME of the things that can affect print speed, quality and functionality...hence people will often times have different out comes. The printers that are often on display in stores are not a good "bench mark" for testing, their on 24-7 and usually abused by employs and customers. When you buy it "brand new" in the box and unpack it at home, have you ever noticed better performance than the one you tested at a retail store? I could go, but most consumers will have the, "burn me once, shame on you forever" attitude and nothing you can say will change their minds. That’s why is so nice you can test something yourself and bring it back if you wish. (For those who were smart enough at least to research return policy first) My review of the KODAK 5500 AIO series and down was just this, stay away if you want a real printer, enough said. The rest of the posts in here are Kodak sales pitches trying to "sell you". That is experience talking, and you can take that to the bank!

[Jerry @ Apr 19th 2007 8:50AM]

Michael,

I'm happy to see you are saying $.25 per print now rather than $.35.

How many independent image files did you use when you got only 80 prints per premium pack?

[Gloria @ May 27th 2007 10:24AM]

I've owned the 5300 for about 2 months and am very unhappy. I will spend $80 more per year on ink than I did with my HP and the cartridges are not recycled. I really hate filling up landfills. I am very disappointed in Kodad for the hype advertising. They've lost me as a customer for good. 350 B&W pages? No. 250 at draft quality. Kodak does not have a customer satisfaction guarentee either. I'm hoping HP will take it as a trade and put it on display from a customer who plans to return to HP.

[PRay @ Jun 25th 2007 6:44AM]

I just priced ink/paper combo pack for the hp 6180 aio at bb for 35.99. Approximately 24 cents per for top quality photos, + the combo includes a black ink tank. Since i rarely print photos anymore, I can afford the extra for the quality I get from my hp. How many prints do you have hiding in a shoebox somewhere? I have one album on my coffee table. All my photos now are digital files, even the ones I take with my 35mm are processed into digital files, so I probably haven't printed 100 photos in the last three years.