TCPglobal - news, views and issues on total cost of printing

Issue #0633/1 - Colour laser printers from three manufacturers join the market line-up. Both purchase costs and running costs vary significantly as do specifications.

Six models of colour laser printer from three manufacturers have hit the market in the past couple of weeks.

Two of them, FS-C5015N and FS-C5025N, were pre-announced by Kyocera Mita Europe a month ago while there is also one machine from Canon but three from Lexmark.

Remarkably, all of these new models fall into the low-end of the category – below 22ppm colour print speed. However, when it comes to purchase cost, there is a wide disparity between the models.

Whereas Canon’s model, LBP-5300, is priced right at the top of the category, the three members of Lexmark’s C53x series are only beaten on price by Dell’s Fuji Xerox engined 3110cn. Kyocera Mita, for its part, has positioned the new offerings somewhat lower than one would normally expect from the company. This underlines the company’s recent drive to reduce manufacturing costs, thereby reducing purchase cost to customers.

Cost of Purchase

Single-pass Colour Laser Printers < 22ppm

Kyocera Mita has historically positioned its printers in the slot now taken by Canon in this category – at the top! But, here we see pricing on the higher level model, the 20ppm FS-C5025N, which is not only lower than Canon’s but roughly on a par with the 21ppm model from Hewlett-Packard.

Having said that though, at the lower-end, Kyocera Mita’s 16ppm model (FS-C2015N) is priced some 14% higher than Hewlett-Packard’s Colour LaserJet 3600n. However, falling in the middle of the group, this model is still competitively priced to ensure that those desiring a low Total Cost of Printing will not be disappointed.

When considering purchase cost, it is essential to also balance elements of the specification in the equation.

Lexmark

For instance, Lexmark has made its lowest-cost model, C530dn, both duplex-ready and network-ready right out of the box whereas Hewlett-Packard’s Colour LaserJet 3600 (base version) costs 46% more to buy but is neither network-ready nor duplex-ready. If a customer wishes to have those two features, a dn model is required with a price tag that is more than 150% higher than the Lexmark.

However, there are bizarre goings-on within the Lexmark range itself. This C530dn may be the lowest-cost Lexmark model but it is not the lowest-specified model! In fact, the C532n has no duplex and no multi-purpose paper feed – or, to be precise, it will feed a single sheet through a slot whereas the C530dn has a 100-sheet multi-purpose feed.

In reality, the only area in which the C532n can claim superiority is in its ability to handle a higher workload. It claims a 10,000-page advantage on duty cycle – 75,000 pages per month as opposed to 65,000 – and uses colour toner cartridges with a 5,000-page capacity instead of 3,000-page. Black toner remains unchanged at 4,000 pages. To support this potential for handling a heavier workload, the C532n will accept an optional second paper feed.

Note – this is not a standard feature, it is optional and therefore does not count as ‘feature superiority’. With both models utilising the same engine and casing, the only reason the C530dn will not accept an additional paper feed is that Lexmark has decided that it will not.

What this all means is that the Lexmark C530dn offers exceptional value for money – to buy!! Clearly targeting Dell’s customers, the Lexmark C530dn does cost 6.6% (£18!) more than Dell’s 3110cn but, with that duplex unit, they both offer an extraordinarily high specification for machines of this class. Both offer PCL5c, PCL6 and PS 3 emulations in addition to the built-in duplexing and network interface – three of the key components of a cost-effective print solution.

UK <22ppm Single-pass colour	Purchase Duty Cycle	Print Speed		Nominal CPP	Mixed mono/colour CPP over 3 years
Canon LBP5300	£799	Mono Colour	21 ppm 21 ppm	1.50 pence 7.25 pence	3.67 pence
Dell 3110cn	£271	Mono Colour	30 ppm 17 ppm	0.81 pence 5.01 pence	1.16 pence
Epson AcuLaser C3800N	£668	Mono Colour	25 ppm 20 ppm	1.40 pence 7.03 pence	3.39 pence
Hewlett-Packard Colour LaserJet 3000n	£750	Mono Colour	30 ppm 15 ppm	1.31 pence 8.31 pence	3.62 pence
Hewlett-Packard Colour LaserJet 3600n	£522	Mono Colour	17 ppm 17 ppm	1.39 pence 7.58 pence	3.47 pence
Hewlett-Packard Colour LaserJet 3800	£760	Mono Colour	21 ppm 21 ppm	1.39 pence 7.65 pence	3.42 pence
Konica Minolta magicolor 5430DL	£410	Mono Colour	20 ppm 20 ppm	1.41 pence 7.47 pence	3.45 pence
Kyocera Mita FS-5015N	£595	Mono Colour	16 ppm 16 ppm	0.93 pence 5.13 pence	2.48 pence
Kyocera Mita FS-5025N	£756	Mono Colour	20 ppm 20 ppm	0.90 pence 3.97 pence	1.93 pence
Lexmark C530dn	£289	Mono Colour	22 ppm 21 ppm	2.19 pence 11.71 pence	5.55 pence
Lexmark C532n	£319	Mono Colour	22 ppm 21 ppm	2.19 pence 9.57 pence	4.69 pence
Lexmark C534n	£405	Mono Colour	22 ppm 21 ppm	1.56 pence 7.44 pence	3.51 pence
Oki C5600n	£469	Mono Colour	32 ppm 20 ppm	0.87 pence 8.08 pence	3.27 pence
Oki C5700n	£599	Mono Colour	32 ppm 20 ppm	0.87 pence 8.08 pence	3.34 pence

Note that for this level of machine, the mixed mono/colour CPP over three years shown in the accompanying table is calculated on the basis of 5,000 pages per month; is based on the use of maximum capacity supplies; takes into account any standard, or starter, supplies shipped with the device; and also includes the cost of purchase. All prices are manufacturer’s recommended prices without tax.

Alongside these three components is, of course, the Total Cost of Printing – and this is where Lexmark comes hopelessly unstuck and Dell steals the show comprehensively.

Cost of Printing

Single-pass Colour Laser Printers < 22ppm

Lexmark’s C530dn takes toner cartridges of higher capacity than any of the low-end mono laser printers, at 4,000 pages for the black and 3,000 pages for each of the colours. But, it ships with just 1,500 pages-worth of toner, a situation that is even more marked on the company’s entry-level colour laser printer, C500n, which ships with a miserly 1,000 pages-worth of toner just to get the machine up and running.

Set this against the capacity of the Dell cartridges and we see where the problem lies. Dell ships its 3110cn with 5,000 pages-worth of black toner and 3,000 pages-worth of each of the colour toners.

Then, add toner pricing into the equation and we have a nominal mono Cost Per Page of 2.19 pence on the Lexmark against Dell’s 0.81 pence – a 170% premium! Likewise, Lexmark’s nominal colour CPP is 134% higher than Dell’s, at a phenomenal 11.71 pence, meaning that the overall long-term CPP is also pushed through the roof to 5.55 pence.

No other colour laser printer exceeds 5 pence per page, not even Lexmark’s own entry-level C500n. This is quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind that only Lexmark’s C532n even breaks the 4 pence mark, a level broken by very few four-pass colour laser printers at the bottom end of the colour laser spectrum.

Obviously, as we ride up the Lexmark model range, Cost Per Page drops as toner capacity rises but, of the competitors, it is only Hewlett-Packard’s CLJ3000 and Canon’s new LBP-5300 that have a long-term CPP that are higher than Lexmark’s top model, the C534n.

Supporting the evidence that the C534n is the most cost-effective and attractive model in the Lexmark C53x range is the fact that it has a keypad incorporated within the large LCD user display, allowing PIN protection for print jobs, and its maximum paper capacity is elevated to 900 sheets by the optional 550-sheet second paper feed. Duty cycle is also claimed to be 100,000 pages per month.

So, yet again, Lexmark is a brand generally to be avoided by any customer who is in the slightest bit concerned about running costs, especially those looking for low-end models.

Canon

So, let’s move on to the other expensive newcomer – Canon’s i-Sensys LBP-5300, the company’s first own-brand single-pass desktop colour laser printer.
Using the engine that is also supplied to Hewlett-Packard for the Colour LaserJet 3800, Canon’s version is a little more expensive both in terms of nominal mono CPP and long-term CPP. A little surprisingly, Canon has priced its colour toners so that nominal colour CPP is a little lower than we find for the CLJ3800.

But, Canon has had the foresight to include auto-duplexing within this purchase price as well as built-in network interface, a customer benefit that Hewlett-Packard appears to be almost stubbornly resisting, meaning that value for money on the LBP-5300 is actually better than with the CLJ3800 because Hewlett-Packard’s dn version costs 21% more than the Canon. This does not quite push the overall CPP of the CLJ3800dn up above the Canon LBP-5300 because Hewlett-Packard’s nominal mono CPP is low enough to hold it down.

There are no other remarkable features to the LBP-5300 though. At 21ppm; with USB 2.0 and 10/100 Ethernet interfaces; 6,000-page toner cartridges; 350-sheet standard paper capacity, the device is very much a ‘standard’ model.

Kyocera Mita

This brings us to the new models from Kyocera Mita.

Essentially a re-launch of the FS-C5016N, which was removed from the range 18 months ago, the FS-C5015N is actually downgraded by comparison but more costly in terms of everyday running costs.

Still 16ppm, network-ready and with PCL6 and PS3 printer language emulations, the FS-C5015N does not have the duplex-ready feature of its predecessor but costs not much more than one-third of the FS-C5016N price. With this in mind, it is a little alarming to see Kyocera Mita tending towards the approach taken by Lexmark where consumables costs are pushed high to compensate for low purchase price.

Cost Change

Kyocera Mita FS-C5016N to FS-C5015N

In comparison to the FS-C5016N, the nominal cost per page of the model has been pushed up by 22% (mono) and 58% (colour). Allowing for the much reduced purchase price, the overall CPP over three years has risen by 22%.

This has partly been achieved by reducing the capacity of the toner cartridges from 8,000 pages to 6,000 pages in the black cartridge and only 4,000 pages in the colour cartridges, having the effect not only of increasing the number and frequency of human interventions required to service the machine on a day-to-day basis but also of allowing the company to push up the Cost Per Page without it being too obvious.

In the case of Kyocera Mita though, customers and potential customers can rest assured that the scale of cost increase does not push running costs anywhere near the level we see with Lexmark. In fact, the CPPs for the FS-5015N are right down amongst the leaders, although both Dell and Oki do manage to beat the FS-5015N on nominal mono CPP and Dell still beats it on nominal colour CPP.

Overall, this still means that the long-term CPP of the Kyocera Mita FS-5015N is beaten only by the Dell 3110cn – a situation that has existed since the initial launch of Dell’s colour laser printers. And, the purchase price of the FS-C5015N is now much more competitive and that goes a long way with customers. However, the fact that Kyocera Mita has elevated its CPPs to the point where Oki models can now be less costly to run represents a major realignment in the industry.

In addition to the characteristics already stated, the Kyocera Mita FS-5015N has USB 2.0 connectivity and offers some useful advanced features such as PDF Direct Print, Proof and Hold, PIN-based secure printing and a Compact Flash slot for storage of forms, fonts and logos.

Standard paper capacity is a very healthy 600 sheets with the ability to be expanded to 1,100 sheets with an optional second paper feed. Other options include duplex unit and hard disk.

This model might sit at the bottom of the range, but it is still a well-specified and capable machine with plenty of advanced features.

Another change of direction for Kyocera Mita is the fact that these new models individually are not one member of a range is the strictest sense of the word. Whereas the FS-C5016N and FS-C5020N were each the base level in a range comprising four models (FS-C5020N range replaced the FS-C5016N range – both at 16ppm – but now both withdrawn), the new FS-C5015N and FS-C5025N are both models in their own right that essentially comprise a part of a wider FS-C50xxN range – much like the Lexmark models in the C53x range.

So, on top of these features, the FS-C5025N adds a few extra pages per minute to the print speed (20ppm) as an intermediate step towards the existing FS-C5030N that offers 24ppm and does have four models, creating a sub-range.

Only two other differences exist between the two new models. These are that the FS-C5025N does use the full 8,000-page toners and it also has an enhanced maximum paper capacity of 2,100 sheets through the addition of up to three additional paper feeds.

Because of the larger toner capacity, both nominal and long-term CPPs are at the levels previously expected of Kyocera Mita.

Duty cycle for the model is up-rated to a maximum of 85,000 pages per month rather than the 50,000 pages of the FS-C5015N, meaning that there is a maintenance kit available for the printer that is not available for the FS-C5015N.

Whereas this appears to push the nominal mono CPP up a fraction, in reality, over three years with a monthly throughput of 5,000 pages, where 70% are mono pages, the maintenance kit is not required anyway.

Overall, the result is that the two models from Kyocera Mita maintain the Kyocera Mita position of being far and away the most economical to run long-term of the printers in the group with the exception of Dell’s competitor-bashing 3110cn.

All four of the other newcomers fall at the top of the range where purchase price is concerned, especially the Lexmark models, but have widely varying running costs to go alongside the significant variations in specification. Careful consideration needs to be given to these differences in the purchase decision-making process.

~End~

This entry was posted on Friday, November 3rd, 2006 at 12:03 am and is filed under New Products, Hardware, Pricing, Comparisons, Financials, Total Cost of Printing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.