Over the past several months I have seen commercials from Kodak, where they target HP directly claiming you can get more prints from their product than from an HP product. One of the commercials that stuck in my mind was one where they are at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles and they are on a ladder and drop a wallet of pictures showing how much more prints they got with their printer in comparison with the HP printer.
Kodak in my opinion has issued a direct challenge at HP, some of their commercials fell short of guaranteeing you and I will save over $100 dollars in ink a year if we were to use their printers, ink and paper. Recently HP has fired back with their own commercials claiming that people who use their printers, ink and paper save more money. But whats the real truth? Who will I really save money with? So I decided to put both HP and Kodak to the test, I purchased two printers one from each company, both costing $199 and I used their value packs (Ink Paper combo). The value packs depending on where you buy them range in price from $24.99 - $32.99.
So I put the two printers and inks to the test. I made 3 videos for this post and a 4th - 6th are planned. In these 3 videos I talk about the way the printers feel, how well built they are. I also try to show you guys how fast and easy to use the printers are. A warning though the 2nd video the Kodak printer gives me issues and for 10 minutes nothing is accomplished. So if you want you can skip that video and go straight to the 3rd.
In the left corner weighing in at 18.7 pounds dressed in Black with Yellow trim we have the Kodak ESP 7, and in the right corner weighing in at 16.4 pounds dressed in grey with white trim we have the HP Photosmart C6380.
In the first video, I try to show you how the two printers are built. I honestly think Kodak cut corners to build the printer, it feels cheap it felt like a toy. The HP printer was very sturdy and it didn’t feel as if it could break easily.
I was really disappointed in the Kodak ESP 7, while it offered the same features as the HP Photosmart C6380 the ESP 7 did not feel like a $200 dollar printer. I ask you guys and gals to go to a staples where I have seen both printers and touch them. Tell me you don’t agree that the HP doesn’t feel like a more solid printer than the ESP 7.
In the second video, I wanted to basically put the two printers to the test head to head, see which would print the better picture and which would print it the fastest. My first attempt of this video which is below failed, because well the Kodak ESP 7 just did not want to work. It was working fine prior to turning on the camera but then all of a sudden it did not want to work. This video is 10 minutes long and you basically see me struggle with the ESP 7.
I was frustrated with the ESP 7 after this video, but shutting her down and powering it back up again fixed the problem and I was able to do the speed test in the 3rd video below.
The HP Photosmart C6380 kicked ass, it printed a lot faster than the ESP 7 and the print quality was in my opinion 2 times better than what the ESP 7 delivered.
But this still doesn’t answer which one will save me money. So I did a little math, I factored in the price of the Value Pack from both Kodak and HP, and the amount of prints I was able to print out on 1 set of inks. By my math HP cost me about 27 cents per print, while Kodak on the other hand cost me 29 cents per print. About even. Kodak did cost me less when printing plain black prints 3 cents compared to HP’s 5 cents, and when it came to Black and Color prints (8x6 word documents) HP ran me around 10 cents per print and Kodak was 8 cents per print.
When it came to Photos HP was cheaper, when it came to regular documents Kodak was cheaper, but regardless of the cost of the print each and every time HP’s print quality in my opinion was far superior to that of Kodaks.
I say go with the HP printer better quality all around.
I plan to make 2 to 3 more videos with both these printers so check back with us soon.
Comments: (16)
Chris on Sat, Jun 13th, 2009 at 04:05 PM
i like the kodak commercials, I almost bought one of their printers but decided not too. I have an Epson that I like and it’s doing me wonders.
thomas on Sat, Jun 13th, 2009 at 05:28 PM
I never believe companies ink savings claims but I think what you posted is about what I pay. It is cheaper to go to a walgreens or cvs for prints theirs are great quality and about 19 cents eacy
Dogerfan93 on Sun, Jun 14th, 2009 at 05:27 PM
I went to office max and i saw the esp 9 that shit felt crappy.
kodak_sucks on Tue, Jun 16th, 2009 at 11:22 PM
I own a kodak and never use it it sucks. They should stick to cameras
onli on Wed, Jun 17th, 2009 at 02:03 PM
Kodak has turned the current business model on its head. While HP, Lexmark and others virtually give away the “razor” to sell you the blades, Kodak expects to make a margin on the hardware. In return it will provide cheaper ink. In the long run the total cost of ownership should pay off. Kodak says users who buy Kodak paper in quantity and use its consumables can print 4 x 6 photos for about 10 cents each - about 1/3 the cost of competing printers and about half the cost of prints at your local Target or Wal Mart.
Brown on Thu, Jun 18th, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Some calls are bad but the time the players argue takes away the time they can go back any play defense and possibly cause their team to give up points.
David Neiman on Thu, Jun 18th, 2009 at 01:42 PM
Ending the speed test early was unfortunate, since the pictures were not printing in the same order. Did you complete the test with the full picture set and were the results the same? You mention paper feel, ink touch-fastness, and colour balance in determining picture quality. Were there any other factors? Did you check
“empty” cartridges for remaining ink?
The comparison to retail photo cost is worth making, but a retail print cost is only the charged price if you are at the store anyway. If you make a special trip, factor in travel costs, etc.
Any ideas of how printer cost spreads over printer life? If one of the printers fails sooner than the other, the per-print cost should reflect that.
michael on Thu, Jun 18th, 2009 at 08:29 PM
I only ended the speed test after hp was on its last print and half way done. But I will re do it when I get bacl from vegas.
They both had brand new ink carts only difference was the paper.
andrew on Fri, Jun 19th, 2009 at 02:15 AM
I rather pay more for ink and get quality
Bob on Sat, Jul 04th, 2009 at 03:12 PM
I find his test to be much more in-depth and lets not forget, hp printer drivers take like 10x longer than any other printer driver to install on a computer. If you look at the picture comparison, the HP being the left, I actually prefer the lighter Kodak personally. Bright saturated colors hide detail IMO like the blue shirt’s wrinkles, and a healthy glow isn’t bad to me either (I much prefer warm tendencies over cool ones, as evidenced by my T.V. settings). So the Kodak is an all-around win for me.
Michael on Thu, Jul 09th, 2009 at 04:42 PM
2 years ago, I don’t know how the HP paper was I do know that with in the past 2 years their paper has changed I know their ink has changed. But even 2 years ago they thought the print quality was better from HP it seems that Kodak hasn’t gained ground there. I personally would like to see what the writer of that review thinks now 2 years later.
You may like ligther photos but I prefer vibrant colorful photos but I guess to each their own and that’s why I made a video so people could see for themselves and decide for themselves.
I will agree that the HP driver does take a bit to install, something I have complained to HP about but the Kodak Printer wasn’t that much faster. However lexmarks holds the record of over 45 minutes to install.
Something else I’d like to point out again the build quality of the Kodak printer isn’t as good as HP’s or Epsons better than Lexmark though.
ink cartridges on Fri, Sep 25th, 2009 at 01:09 AM
I recently tested Kodak’s EasyShare All-in-One 5000 against HP’s C5180. Along the way i ran into a rather confusing situation with photo papers,which can make a difference in both image quality and the number of images you can print between ink cartridge changes.ink cartridges
Printers on Wed, Dec 02nd, 2009 at 10:27 PM
All in one printers offer scanning, printing, copy and fax to amazingly low prices.
Visit us at <a href="http://www.printersadelaide.com.au/”>Printers</a>. Find the right printers for your home or business needs. Get printers for your home or office.
jsw on Wed, Dec 16th, 2009 at 11:12 PM
The Kodak ESP AIO Printers use Pigment based Inks. (natural inks, nit man made inks). All other brands are using man made dye inks for at least their Color
cartridges and often Black as well! (images that are printed don’t fade when exposed to air over time).
Epson, Canon & HP offer Pigment ink on their larger $$ prosumer models.
The Scanning quality on the Kodak ESP-7 & new ESP 5250 is great. Some people testing the Kodak printers don’t realize, that their is a Photo dot placement mode.
In the settings go to ‘Best’, then advanced, then click on photo dot placement. At this much slower mode, the Kodak can match the best that Epson/seiko or HP, has to
offer. Many people testing the Kodak’s are not using the full photo ability, when not selecting that mode!
note: to get to this superior mode, you cannot access this via the SD Card reader on the printer itself.
only thru the software supplied called Kodak Easyshare.
The Cost of these two printers is NOT EVEN CLOSE. $25 including tax for two Pigment based ink!! Do the math the HP is about 45-50 with tax!
No way around it. HP who has about a 47% US Market share will do almost anything to maintain that. We are talking about a few billion dollars in ink sales.
(most of it pure profit).
If you want the best possibly means of printing you digital photos, then go to Kodakgallery.com, which uses high end printers (Silver Halide).
Which blow -all- Ink jets away! That includes any $5-15k from Epson America. I know cause I use to work for Epson for years as a rep in NYC.
Bottom line: if u want to printer images in your home that are ‘almost’ lab quality. You have a choice: choose HP, if you want to burn thru your wallet and make
them richer or Kodak which supports a 125 year old American company that knows about Photos just a bit. (and will not insult your intellect, but selling you a
machine that costs $$$ to feed it when the ink runs low !!
n on Wed, Dec 16th, 2009 at 11:17 PM
oh I forgot. Brother = ‘oh brother’
buyer beware poor quality and even $$ inks to boot!
go kodak
HP printer drivers on Tue, Feb 16th, 2010 at 10:28 AM
The video comparison is indeed very informative. Thanks a lot for sharing this here.Kudos!
Page 1 of 1 pages
Post Tags: hp ink photosmart kodak challenge
Next entry: Who needs a Computer to Print? Previous entry: Never Get Locked Out Again